This is all so depressing
@dannybex, it can be overwhelming and confusing but just think of the oxalate issue as one more of the metabolic derangements than can be a side effect of this disease. It can contribute to and also explain some of the problems that people have, rather than being a central cause. Address it when you are able to.
Anyway, also the fact that there is
so much conflicting info and studies out there is very frustrating. I posted a study above that suggested lysine may help dissolve (or bind) to them (Owens talks about it
here, but then
another study suggests the opposite!
Regarding conflicting info, unfortunately there is no-one who has all the answers and people who seem to be right on most things can still get it wrong. In the end we have to make up our own minds, difficult thought that can be. On the lysine issue, I don't think the second study contradicts Owens, it is talking about something quite different - namely how the proteins lysozyme and lactoferrin promote the formation of calcium oxalate crystals. These proteins contain a lot of lysine and arginine residues which strongly affect the charge properties of the whole protein, and this is thought to be important in the mechanism of crystal promotion.
Having said that I have never acted on Owen's recommendation to supplement lysine or arginine. I could see them as being problematic for other reasons.
Then there's the food lists -- some lists have a certain food as high, while others have the exact same food as low.
I think this is mainly a problem of technology. Many of the lists lying around on the internet and still used by some urologists and dieticians are very old and used questionable measurement techniques. The low ox group (and others such as the VP Foundation) has gone to considerable effort to update using the latest technology. I think you can be quite confident about their lists. Not everything is included of course because testing is an expensive exercise.
Owens says vitamin C is bad, yet Paul Jaminet says she's wrong (see comments
here). I haven't taken that much (but need it desperately) because I always had problems with it (tingling -- maybe oxalate related???), but have tried some from time to time lately because I have definite sub-clinical scurvy. I did see studies where 1 or 2 grams caused problems, but no mention of the 250 mg limit that Owens talks about.
Owens quoted studies estimating that from 20-60% of a dose of vitamin C was converted to oxalate in a subsequent two week period and that this was worse in people suffering from oxidative stress. 250 mg was her cautious guesstimate of a dose that shouldn't cause trouble. It is not set in stone. I used to take very high doses but cut back to 125 mg 3 x daily when I got my head around what she was saying about oxalates. Lately I have gone up to 500 mg 3 x daily based on OAT tests showing very low vitamin C markers.
I have the greatest respect for the Jaminets and loved their book. But I have chosen to disagree with them on other things so don't necessarily accept what they say on vit C.
There were just too many bigger issues to come to terms with at the time so I didn't chase down every aspect of the vitamin C story. I was sufficiently worried about having become an endogenous oxalate producer that I just cut back on the vitamin C.
FWIW, any amount of supplemental vitamin C gives me kidney pain. If you have stones and other oxalate issues, taking C is madness IMO. I have many deficiencies but my body won't allow me to rectify them. I am in the Vegas camp with regard to nutrient deficiencies - they seem purposeful, as if they are protecting us from worse things happening.
As
@Sidereal notes, what you do about vit C and other supplements depends hugely on your particular circumstances.
I too am attracted to Vegas's notions, though at the same time still cling to certain supplemental work-arounds that I am convinced are helpful. Some supplements though are intolerable and presumably there is a good reason for this.