Dear Harma,
It is a good read and I agree with much, but not everything, it argues. I would be interested to hear what you think once you have read it.
All best, Ant
osteoporoses
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Off to see my GP tomorrow about the Osteoporosis. Lots of questions to ask him....
FYI. my DXA readings where:
Lumbar spine (Osteoporosis)
L1: t -2.4,
L2: t -1.8,
L3: t -2.4,
L4: t -3.7,
Do not like the look of L4
Left Hip: (normal accept for hip neck which is Osteopenia)
Hip Neck: t -1.7
Left forearm: (normal)
Been looking around for a support group for Osteoporosis like this one for MC.
Well, there is nothing I can find out there anything like the wonderful Potty People!
This place is unique in its friendship, ease of use and information.
All best, Ant
FYI. my DXA readings where:
Lumbar spine (Osteoporosis)
L1: t -2.4,
L2: t -1.8,
L3: t -2.4,
L4: t -3.7,
Do not like the look of L4
Left Hip: (normal accept for hip neck which is Osteopenia)
Hip Neck: t -1.7
Left forearm: (normal)
Been looking around for a support group for Osteoporosis like this one for MC.
Well, there is nothing I can find out there anything like the wonderful Potty People!
This place is unique in its friendship, ease of use and information.
All best, Ant
Ant, I did some more research on strontium, and really take issue with the following comments:
Also, bisphosphonates have a lot of other side effects, for example, the FDA issued the following warning in 2008:
I'm not pointing this out to alarm those taking bisphosphonates. Of course these side effects are not common and lots of people take bisphosphonates without problem. My point is that strontium actually appears to be safer than bisphosphonates, and the article Ant found is misleading.
I've been taking strontium citrate, 1 g/day for several weeks and haven't had diarrhea.
Ant, for you and others interested in looking at the science, I would recommend the NIH searchable database PubMed. It's fairly easy to use. All scientific papers include a list of "key words" that are used to find scientific publications on a particular topic. For example, in the search box at the top of the page I typed in "strontium osteoporosis" and it found 395 papers, 66 of them published in the past year. So there is a large amount of interest in the topic. If you click on the titles, you will get the abstract or summary for the paper. Unfortunately you usually have to pay to access the full paper, but some are free. Here is the url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Rosie
First of all, my research pulled up research showing that bisphosphonates also have increased risk of blood clots.Diarrhea is the most common adverse effect associated with strontium ranelate, usually occurring with higher doses. Data suggest that patients receiving strontium 2 g/day for 3-4 years have a higher risk for vascular side effects (eg, blood clots) and nervous system side effects (eg, seizures).[6]
Also, bisphosphonates have a lot of other side effects, for example, the FDA issued the following warning in 2008:
Other common side effects in addition to possible damage to the esophagus when taking bisphosphonates as an osteoporosis medication include inflammation of the eyes, musculoskeletal pains, and jaw necrosis.Earlier this week, the FDA issued an alert highlighting the possibility of severe and sometimes incapacitating bone, joint and/or muscle pain in patients taking bisphosphonates. The agency is encouraging health care professionals to assess whether severe musculoskeletal pain in patients taking bisphosphonates, which are frequently prescribed to treat or prevent osteoporosis, could be attributed to their use of these drugs and to consider temporarily or permanently discontinuing their use.
I'm not pointing this out to alarm those taking bisphosphonates. Of course these side effects are not common and lots of people take bisphosphonates without problem. My point is that strontium actually appears to be safer than bisphosphonates, and the article Ant found is misleading.
I've been taking strontium citrate, 1 g/day for several weeks and haven't had diarrhea.
Ant, for you and others interested in looking at the science, I would recommend the NIH searchable database PubMed. It's fairly easy to use. All scientific papers include a list of "key words" that are used to find scientific publications on a particular topic. For example, in the search box at the top of the page I typed in "strontium osteoporosis" and it found 395 papers, 66 of them published in the past year. So there is a large amount of interest in the topic. If you click on the titles, you will get the abstract or summary for the paper. Unfortunately you usually have to pay to access the full paper, but some are free. Here is the url http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Dear Rosie
Many thanks for the link. When I have some time I will read through those reports. I am rapidly coming to the same conclusions as you about bisphosphonates risks. Strontium seems to be both safer and more effective. And in the form of Strontium Citrate it is available as a food supplement. Oops,,,,would big pharma be loosing out on that one!
All best, Ant
Many thanks for the link. When I have some time I will read through those reports. I am rapidly coming to the same conclusions as you about bisphosphonates risks. Strontium seems to be both safer and more effective. And in the form of Strontium Citrate it is available as a food supplement. Oops,,,,would big pharma be loosing out on that one!
All best, Ant
Well, I have been reading through some of the more recent abstracts and summaries. (They are about 'Strontium Ranelate' (SR), as distinct from Strontium Citrate, which would be expected as that is the marketable drug version). They almost all point to reduced risk of fracture and increased bone mass with SR. 
A question that seems to come up (unless I have misunderstood) is: because Strontium is intrinsically denser than Calcium, is increased bone density measurement due to an increase in Strontium versus Calcium in the bone, rather then an actual improvement in the structure? I have not got my head around that one yet......
Anyway, even if it just keeps the structure from getting worse that is a good result.
All best, Ant
A question that seems to come up (unless I have misunderstood) is: because Strontium is intrinsically denser than Calcium, is increased bone density measurement due to an increase in Strontium versus Calcium in the bone, rather then an actual improvement in the structure? I have not got my head around that one yet......
Anyway, even if it just keeps the structure from getting worse that is a good result.
All best, Ant
Ant, yes, there can be a false increase in a DXA reading because of the strontium. Actually, there have been a number of studies on how to adjust for this that you can find by going to PubMed and typing "strontium DXA" into the search box. The problem is that unless they know the concentration of strontium in the patient's bone, they can't really know how to adjust the readings. Everyone is different in how they absorb strontium and put it into bone. This is a problem for other minerals too. That's why they make you stop taking supplements containing minerals for several days before the DXA scan. I have run across a few animal studies where they were measuring the actual physical size of bones, not just the bone density, and found an increase with strontium treatment. So there is some actual increase in bone density. Maybe they will get this figured out if a lot of people start taking strontium for osteoporosis, maybe come up with an "average" number to use for an adjustment.
But the DXA readings are misleading for bisphosphonates too. They work only by decreasing the breakdown of bone, and the old bone isn't as strong as new bone. Thus the increased density readings are due to retention of old bone. That's why you see reports of increased fracture risk in long-term bisphosphonate users although the DXA readings are still good.
Outcome-based trials are the bottom line IMHO. What matters is the reduced risk of fractures. But it sure would be nice to be able to track bone density and know that we are making progress.........
The other thing that's interesting about strontium is that it is only put into new bone, which of course makes sense. That tells me that exercise augments the affects of strontium, and strontium augments the effects of exercise! It's well known that exercise increases bone deposition, so if the new bone contains strontium, it will be even stronger.
Rosie
But the DXA readings are misleading for bisphosphonates too. They work only by decreasing the breakdown of bone, and the old bone isn't as strong as new bone. Thus the increased density readings are due to retention of old bone. That's why you see reports of increased fracture risk in long-term bisphosphonate users although the DXA readings are still good.
Outcome-based trials are the bottom line IMHO. What matters is the reduced risk of fractures. But it sure would be nice to be able to track bone density and know that we are making progress.........
The other thing that's interesting about strontium is that it is only put into new bone, which of course makes sense. That tells me that exercise augments the affects of strontium, and strontium augments the effects of exercise! It's well known that exercise increases bone deposition, so if the new bone contains strontium, it will be even stronger.
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Dee, I looked in my HFS, Market of Choice, and it wasn't there. Then I tried Evergreen Nutrition, a local store that doesn't sell food, but a lot of nutritional supplements, herbs, etc. They actually had 3 different brands to choose from. I bought Vital Nutrients brand of strontium citrate because it doesn't contain any of my sensitivites. It's just strontium citrate, vegetable cellulose capsule and rice powder. May contain ascorbyl palmitate and/or silica Here is the url if you can't find any strontium citrate locally and want to order on-line.
http://www.vitalnutrients.net/vnestore/ ... t_id=vnstr
Rosie
http://www.vitalnutrients.net/vnestore/ ... t_id=vnstr
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Rosie,
Here's a link and I think everything in it is safe.
If not correct me, please.
I wonder why they suggest to "not' take it at the same time as the calcium?????
http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/store/en/b ... id=DB-1221
Here's a link and I think everything in it is safe.
If not correct me, please.
I wonder why they suggest to "not' take it at the same time as the calcium?????
http://www.vitaminshoppe.com/store/en/b ... id=DB-1221
"What the heart gives away is never gone ... It is kept in the hearts of others."
Dee,
That's the strontium supplement that I took. It didn't give me D, but I had to stop taking it because I got headaches. I posted on a forum about osteoporosis and the use of strontium citrate, in particular.
Here is the forum: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/foru ... y.php?f=96.
The people in the forum generally rave about their bone density improvement, but there is a thread about headaches as a side effect. I was pretty disappointed that I couldn't take it.
Gloria
That's the strontium supplement that I took. It didn't give me D, but I had to stop taking it because I got headaches. I posted on a forum about osteoporosis and the use of strontium citrate, in particular.
Here is the forum: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/foru ... y.php?f=96.
The people in the forum generally rave about their bone density improvement, but there is a thread about headaches as a side effect. I was pretty disappointed that I couldn't take it.
Gloria
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
Thanks for the link, Dee. That brand of strontium looks a fair amount cheaper than the brand I found.
The reason not to take calcium together with strontium is that they are very chemically related and compete for uptake. So if you take them at different times you will get a lot more of each of them into the body.
Rosie
The reason not to take calcium together with strontium is that they are very chemically related and compete for uptake. So if you take them at different times you will get a lot more of each of them into the body.
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Dear Rosie
Thanks for guiding me on this. Your post sums up the key issues perfectly. Next task for me is to look up "Strontium DXA"..... Seems it is the quality of density not just the quantity that counts.
All the best, Ant
P.S. just saw Avatar. I want to be the one springing around the forest,
will I accept realty?
Thanks for guiding me on this. Your post sums up the key issues perfectly. Next task for me is to look up "Strontium DXA"..... Seems it is the quality of density not just the quantity that counts.
All the best, Ant
P.S. just saw Avatar. I want to be the one springing around the forest,
will I accept realty?Today I received the book Ant earlier in this topic recommended (understanding, preventing and overcoming osteoporosis). I just have browsing through it and read some pieces here and there. The good news is, they say, the process of bone loss can not only be stopped but also (partly) recovered. Evidence, people living a space for shorter or longer time, also lost bone density and recovered after returning on earth. Also there is a disease, tex you wrote about it before, to do with a tumor of some glands, their only role is to control the calcium level in the blood. Once the sick glands have been removed the lost bone mass recovers. This gives me hope. Also I have been reading some abstracts on articles on Celiac disease and osteoporoses. After starting the diet, bone density recovers partly (about 5%).
The book also contains a diet, that looks a lot like the paleo diet only including soy. But also including lots of fruits and vegetables. Not to much animal proteins. This corresponds with what I have been reading in another osteoporoses book. They relate it to the alkali of acid level of the blood.
Funny is on one hand in certain parts diet is comparable with paleo diet, but on other things it differs. To be honest I think the paleo diet is the healthiest diet on earth. Lost of animal proteins in this diet are fine, only if combined with lots of fruits and vegetables.
I just realize when you start reading about food, diets, diseases, health it is so easy to get totally greasy of all the information available and find a balance of just enjoying life, care about your health but not worry to much.
The book also contains a diet, that looks a lot like the paleo diet only including soy. But also including lots of fruits and vegetables. Not to much animal proteins. This corresponds with what I have been reading in another osteoporoses book. They relate it to the alkali of acid level of the blood.
Funny is on one hand in certain parts diet is comparable with paleo diet, but on other things it differs. To be honest I think the paleo diet is the healthiest diet on earth. Lost of animal proteins in this diet are fine, only if combined with lots of fruits and vegetables.
I just realize when you start reading about food, diets, diseases, health it is so easy to get totally greasy of all the information available and find a balance of just enjoying life, care about your health but not worry to much.
Well, last week I had a few more blood tests (early morning having not eaten) to look at osteo. Results came in today:
1. Calcium
Conv. unit = 9.9 mg/dL (I was told the normal range 8.4 - 10.2)
S.I unit = 2.47 mmol/L (I was told the normal range is 2.09 - 2.54)
well that looks ok, unless its all in the blood because it has been removed from the bone? 
2. Testosterone total (by CL)
Conv. unit = 709 mg/dL (normal range for > 50 yr old men 181 - 758)
S.I unit = 24.6 nmol/L (normal range for > 50 yr old men 6.3 - 26.3)
That's the top end for a man of my age - better get on down to the nightclubs!!
3. Vitamin B12 (By CL)
Conv. unit = 384 pg/mL (normal range 193 - 982)
S.I unit = 283 pmol/L (normal range 142 - 725)
Been taking supplements for three months - so seems to be working, although could get a higher score I would think.
4. Vitamin D, 25 Hydroxy (calciferol)
29.3 ng/mL (sufficiency 40-100; mild insufficiency 20 - 40)
73.3 mnoL/L (sufficiency 100-250; mild insufficiency 50-100)
So, it looks like vit D deficiency is the main culprit. I had been taking in some sun three weeks ago for three days and also since mid Jan been taking 2000 IU a day - so early days....
To be honest I am not quite sure how to read the details of these results. For instance, is what is claimed as "mild insufficiency" an understatement?. After all a good level of Vit D would be good for MC and Osteo...
Meanwhile, I am walking 30 mins a day and my rib seems to be on the mend, only occassional pain now and not very sharp. Soon should be completely gone
Anyway, thought I would share this.
Best, Ant
P.S. nothing new but here is another link on the subject of vit D
http://www.examiner.com/x-24152-Healthy ... reen-video
1. Calcium
Conv. unit = 9.9 mg/dL (I was told the normal range 8.4 - 10.2)
S.I unit = 2.47 mmol/L (I was told the normal range is 2.09 - 2.54)
well that looks ok, unless its all in the blood because it has been removed from the bone? 2. Testosterone total (by CL)
Conv. unit = 709 mg/dL (normal range for > 50 yr old men 181 - 758)
S.I unit = 24.6 nmol/L (normal range for > 50 yr old men 6.3 - 26.3)
That's the top end for a man of my age - better get on down to the nightclubs!!3. Vitamin B12 (By CL)
Conv. unit = 384 pg/mL (normal range 193 - 982)
S.I unit = 283 pmol/L (normal range 142 - 725)
Been taking supplements for three months - so seems to be working, although could get a higher score I would think.
4. Vitamin D, 25 Hydroxy (calciferol)
29.3 ng/mL (sufficiency 40-100; mild insufficiency 20 - 40)
73.3 mnoL/L (sufficiency 100-250; mild insufficiency 50-100)
So, it looks like vit D deficiency is the main culprit. I had been taking in some sun three weeks ago for three days and also since mid Jan been taking 2000 IU a day - so early days....To be honest I am not quite sure how to read the details of these results. For instance, is what is claimed as "mild insufficiency" an understatement?. After all a good level of Vit D would be good for MC and Osteo...
Meanwhile, I am walking 30 mins a day and my rib seems to be on the mend, only occassional pain now and not very sharp. Soon should be completely gone
Anyway, thought I would share this.
Best, Ant
P.S. nothing new but here is another link on the subject of vit D
http://www.examiner.com/x-24152-Healthy ... reen-video
book
I think I have found a very good and interesting book on osteoporoses. It is called 'osteoporosis, diagnosis, prevention and therapy' written by Reiner Bartl. This a German physician, professor and/or specialist in hematology, oncology and osteology at the university of Munchen (Munich in English?) and is supervising there a 'bone' policlinic. It is an expensive book, 60 Euros, so about 70 dollars is my guessing.
I am reading now from the library a much thinner (and cheaper) version of it (also in Dutch), what probably is an abstract of the bigger one I mentioned here above.
Why do I think this is a good book? I have also read "osteoporosis understanding, preventing and overcoming" by professor Jane Plant (the book ant mentioned earlier in this discussion), the title professor is misleading here, yes she is a professor but in a totally different field geology, so in no way an expert in osteoporosis by her profession. In this book, what is quite okay, they focus on a particular outcome: osteoporosis is caused by milk and dairy. In western countries, on the contrary to Asian countries as china, people eat/drink a lot of diary. In china calcium intake is much lower, but strangely enough osteoporoses rate is the lowest in the world. And where diary consumption is high, osteoporosis rate is high too. Their conclusion (a bit simplified) milk causes osteoporosis instead of preventing it. Why? has to with acid and alkaline food intake. This is a bit 'the alternative way' of looking at the prevention and treatment of osteoporoses. Normally in mainstream medicine, this view is being ignored and threaded as nonsense (no scientific evidence).
The good thing of this book of prof Bartl is, it includes de mainstream treatment of osteoporosis, has lots of information on medication and eye for that alternative approach. He acknowledges the influence of acid and alkaline food and osteoporosis, for example.
So often or writers/experts, those from the mainstream evidence based medicine site or the ones alternative site: sometimes proven, sometimes not, but very often wrongly interpreted scientific research of even worse abuse of this wrongly interpreted medical research (only use the parts what fits in their theory or they wish to use) see only one side of the problem or answer.. Scientist, doctors, writers that are open for both sides (mainstream and alternative) and know how to interpret and integrate them both in their field of science are the best. I looks like this guy (proof. Bartl) is somebody like that.
I am reading now from the library a much thinner (and cheaper) version of it (also in Dutch), what probably is an abstract of the bigger one I mentioned here above.
Why do I think this is a good book? I have also read "osteoporosis understanding, preventing and overcoming" by professor Jane Plant (the book ant mentioned earlier in this discussion), the title professor is misleading here, yes she is a professor but in a totally different field geology, so in no way an expert in osteoporosis by her profession. In this book, what is quite okay, they focus on a particular outcome: osteoporosis is caused by milk and dairy. In western countries, on the contrary to Asian countries as china, people eat/drink a lot of diary. In china calcium intake is much lower, but strangely enough osteoporoses rate is the lowest in the world. And where diary consumption is high, osteoporosis rate is high too. Their conclusion (a bit simplified) milk causes osteoporosis instead of preventing it. Why? has to with acid and alkaline food intake. This is a bit 'the alternative way' of looking at the prevention and treatment of osteoporoses. Normally in mainstream medicine, this view is being ignored and threaded as nonsense (no scientific evidence).
The good thing of this book of prof Bartl is, it includes de mainstream treatment of osteoporosis, has lots of information on medication and eye for that alternative approach. He acknowledges the influence of acid and alkaline food and osteoporosis, for example.
So often or writers/experts, those from the mainstream evidence based medicine site or the ones alternative site: sometimes proven, sometimes not, but very often wrongly interpreted scientific research of even worse abuse of this wrongly interpreted medical research (only use the parts what fits in their theory or they wish to use) see only one side of the problem or answer.. Scientist, doctors, writers that are open for both sides (mainstream and alternative) and know how to interpret and integrate them both in their field of science are the best. I looks like this guy (proof. Bartl) is somebody like that.