Say “NO” to Osteoporosis Drugs and High Dose Calcium for Preventing Bone Fractures

Your physician tells you that your Bone Mineral Density (BMD) is low (2.5 standard deviations below average and that you have osteoporosis) and he wants you to go on one of the prescription medications to prevent bone fractures. He or she goes on to tell you that these drugs have been found to reduce your risk of a fracture by 50%. Sounds impressive and necessary…so you get nervous. Just the image of an incapacitating hip fracture, is enough to make you rush out to fill a prescription for bisphosphonate drugs like Fosamax, Boniva or Actonel. Aclasta, Aredia, Bondronat, Didronel, Reclast, Skelid and Zometa.

Being scared sometimes makes people do things too quickly without gathering all of the facts. Also over reliance on their doctors recommendation without independent research of their own, can sometimes lead to uninformed choices.

As you will learn shortly, these drugs can have some very serious side-effect and in addition, many experts are troubled by the quality of bone that these drugs create. In addition the 50% reduction in fracture risk quoted by the manufacturers of these drugs and some physicians, is at best misleading and at worst down right deceptive.

Let’s say that everyone had a 100% risk (a certainty, 100 out of 100 people would all have a fracture sometime after age 65). Then a drug that reduced that risk by half so that only 50 out of 100 people would have a fracture, might be a drug worth taking, assuming it was safe and wasn’t going to hurt you because of serious side-effects. This drug (if one existed, it doesn’t) could legitimately state it reduced fracture risk by 50%

What if your risk was only 2% of having a fracture sometime after age 65? In others words only 2 out of every hundred people will experience a fracture and 98 will never have one. Another way of saying this, is that if you take absolutely NOTHING, the odds are 98% in your favor of never having a fracture. Would you then be in a rush to use this or any other drug?

How do drug manufacturers play with the quoted efficacy percentages to fool you into thinking these drugs work much better than they really do?

Well, they do a study approved by the FDA and show that when you take their drug, instead of 2 people out of 100 people experiencing a fracture, only 1 person out of 100 people experienced a fracture. So they report the drop from 2 out of 100 to 1 out of 100 people as a 50% reduction in fracture rate. And to make matters worse, many physicians quote this misleading 50% drop in fracture rate to their patients.

Another way of putting this into perspective is that for every hundred people who take this drug, 98 of them didn’t need it, but it gets worse. The 98 who didn’t need but took it anyway are now exposed to, what in some cases, can be very serious side-effects.

In addition to the multiple, potential side-effects of these drugs which will be listed shortly, these drugs do not create new healthy bone, instead they create bone that is unnatural and nothing like new bone formed by the body.

Instead of the body’s normal process of breaking down old bone (known as resorption, which is carried out by cells called osteoclasts) and rebuilding new strong bone with other cells known as osteoblasts, these drugs stop the rebuilding of new bone by stopping resorption (turning off the osteoclast activity).

So people wind up with bone that is architecturally very different from new bone created by the body. This bone does allow for minerals to be absorbed which can quickly in the short term reduce fracture risk by the tiny absolute amount described above, but many researchers are concerned about the long-term wisdom of using these drugs to create this “unnatural type of bone”.

In fact, recent research has shown an increase in femur fractures in patients who have taken these drugs for 5 or more years. These drugs have demonstrated no benefit for primary prevention. This means that for men or women who may have below average BMD (bone mineral density) but whom are not diagnosed with osteoporosis, there is no reason to take these drugs, yet the drug companies and some physicians recommend them to these lower risk patients as well. It just doesn’t make sense.

So, In addition to not giving much absolute protection from fractures, you will also be exposed to the following side-effects, some of which, though low in risk, can be very serious and even life threatening:

  • Ulcers of the esophagus
  • Esosphageal cancer
  • Upper GI irritation
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Fractures of the femur
  • Low calcium in the blood
  • Skin rash
  • Joint, bone, and muscle pain
  • Jaw bone decay (osteonecrosis)
  • Increased parathyroid hormone (PTH)

 

*Users of some of these drugs can develop osteonecrosis of the jaw which is associated with significant and death of jawbone tissue. The Journal of the American Dental Association reports that osteonecrosis is actually more common than initially thought.

**An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 23 cases of esophageal cancer have been reported due to Fosamax. Then, in an issue of the American Dental Association, were reports that the drug’s jaw die off risk is actually more common than initially thought. The jaw bone die off is actually known as a disease.

*** As reported by the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research

Sensible, Effective and Much Safer Options to Reduce Your Fracture Risk

High dose calcium is NOT a needed or even sensible option, no matter what your doctor tells you.

Regarding Calcium and the ubiquitous advice given by so many healthcare professionals to consume anywhere from 1000-1500 mg. for bone health, it is just plain wrong and recent studies indicate that these high levels of calcium are potentially dangerous to your cardiovascular system. Increasing both calcification of arteries and MI risk.

The problem is not that most of us don’t get enough calcium but that the calcium we get doesn’t get absorbed efficiently into our bones. This calcium is then free and available to go deposit where we don’t want it, into the insides of our arteries, causing calcification which can lead to decreased arterial function, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular disease.

Cultures that consume far less than the 1500 mg of calcium per day recommended by many physicians, experience much lower fracture rates than we do. This is because their diets contain some specific ingredients that help calcium to enter their bones.

These two ingredients are Vitamin D and Vitamin K. In the proper amounts both of the simple vitamins have been shown to be incredibly safe and healthy for many reasons beyond just bone health, and can safely decrease fracture risk in susceptible people.

Two recent studies, one examining the fracture reducing potential of bisphosphonate drugs and the second measuring the fracture reducing potential of Vitamin D, demonstrated that Vitamin D is perhaps more effective than the drugs, with none of the inherent risks and side-effects of the drugs.

Interestingly, several studies have shown that both Vitamin K-1 and K-2 have decreased fracture risks in humans without increasing Bone Mineral Density (BMD).

I suggest that for normal healthy, men and women no more than 500-750 mg /day of calcium is necessary. If you have normal digestive function calcium carbonate is fine despite what certain advertisers state. If you do have digestive issues and perhaps are low in stomach acidity, then calcium citrate is a good choice.

Regarding the amounts of Vitamin D to take, I suggest that you start with 2500 IU per day. When you get your blood checked ask your physician to also measure you calcium levels. I believe optimum levels are between 50 ng/ml – 80 ng/ml.

As for the Vitamin K, though both form K-1 and K-2 have been shown to work, a product containing a combination of both K-1 and K-2 in the amounts of 1-2 mg (1000-2000 mcg) and 200 mcg respectively should be adequate.

Knowledge is Power. Empower your health,

Curt Hendrix, B.S. M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Say “NO” to High Dose Calcium and Osteoporosis Drugs for Preventing Bone Fractures

Your physician tells you that your Bone Mineral Density (BMD) is low (2.5 standard deviations below average and that you have osteoporosis) and he wants you to go on one of the prescription medications to prevent bone fractures. He or she goes on to tell you that these drugs have been found to reduce your risk of a fracture by 50%. Sounds impressive and necessary…so you get nervous. Just the image of an incapacitating hip fracture, is enough to make you rush out to fill a prescription for bisphosphonate drugs like Fosamax, Boniva or Actonel. Aclasta, Aredia, Bondronat, Didronel, Reclast, Skelid and Zometa.

Being scared sometimes makes people do things too quickly without gathering all of the facts. Also over reliance on their doctors recommendation without independent research of their own, can sometimes lead to uninformed choices.

As you will learn shortly, these drugs can have some very serious side-effect and in addition, many experts are troubled by the quality of bone that these drugs create. In addition the 50% reduction in fracture risk quoted by the manufacturers of these drugs and some physicians, is at best misleading and at worst down right deceptive.

Let’s say that everyone had a 100% risk (a certainty, 100 out of 100 people would all have a fracture sometime after age 65). Then a drug that reduced that risk by half so that only 50 out of 100 people would have a fracture, might be a drug worth taking, assuming it was safe and wasn’t going to hurt you because of serious side-effects. This drug (if one existed, it doesn’t) could legitimately state it reduced fracture risk by 50%

What if your risk was only 2% of having a fracture sometime after age 65? In others words only 2 out of every hundred people will experience a fracture and 98 will never have one. Another way of saying this, is that if you take absolutely NOTHING, the odds are 98% in your favor of never having a fracture. Would you then be in a rush to use this or any other drug?

How do drug manufacturers play with the quoted efficacy percentages to fool you into thinking these drugs work much better than they really do?

Well, they do a study approved by the FDA and show that when you take their drug, instead of 2 people out of 100 people experiencing a fracture, only 1 person out of 100 people experienced a fracture. So they report the drop from 2 out of 100 to 1 out of 100 people as a 50% reduction in fracture rate. And to make matters worse, many physicians quote this misleading 50% drop in fracture rate to their patients.

Another way of putting this into perspective is that for every hundred people who take this drug, 98 of them didn’t need it, but it gets worse. The 98 who didn’t need but took it anyway are now exposed to, what in some cases, can be very serious side-effects.

In addition to the multiple, potential side-effects of these drugs which will be listed shortly, these drugs do not create new healthy bone, instead they create bone that is unnatural and nothing like new bone formed by the body.

Instead of the body’s normal process of breaking down old bone (known as resorption, which is carried out by cells called osteoclasts) and rebuilding new strong bone with other cells known as osteoblasts, these drugs stop the rebuilding of new bone by stopping resorption (turning off the osteoclast activity).

So people wind up with bone that is architecturally very different from new bone created by the body. This bone does allow for minerals to be absorbed which can quickly in the short term reduce fracture risk by the tiny absolute amount described above, but many researchers are concerned about the long-term wisdom of using these drugs to create this “unnatural type of bone”.

In fact, recent research has shown an increase in femur fractures in patients who have taken these drugs for 5 or more years. These drugs have demonstrated no benefit for primary prevention. This means that for men or women who may have below average BMD (bone mineral density) but whom are not diagnosed with osteoporosis, there is no reason to take these drugs, yet the drug companies and some physicians recommend them to these lower risk patients as well. It just doesn’t make sense.

So, In addition to not giving much absolute protection from fractures, you will also be exposed to the following side-effects, some of which, though low in risk, can be very serious and even life threatening:

  • Ulcers of the esophagus
  • Esosphageal cancer
  • Upper GI irritation
  • Irregular heartbeat
  • Fractures of the femur
  • Low calcium in the blood
  • Skin rash
  • Joint, bone, and muscle pain
  • Jaw bone decay (osteonecrosis)
  • Increased parathyroid hormone (PTH)

*Users of some of these drugs can develop osteonecrosis of the jaw which is associated with significant and death of jawbone tissue. The Journal of the American Dental Association reports that osteonecrosis is actually more common than initially thought.

**An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 23 cases of esophageal cancer have been reported due to Fosamax. Then, in an issue of the American Dental Association, were reports that the drug’s jaw die off risk is actually more common than initially thought. The jaw bone die off is actually known as a disease.

*** As reported by the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research 

Sensible, Effective and Much Safer Options to Reduce Your Fracture Risk

High dose calcium is NOT a needed or even sensible option, no matter what your doctor tells you.

Regarding Calcium and the ubiquitous advice given by so many healthcare professionals to consume anywhere from 1000-1500 mg. for bone health, it is just plain wrong and recent studies indicate that these high levels of calcium are potentially dangerous to your cardiovascular system. Increasing both calcification of arteries and MI risk.

The problem is not that most of us don’t get enough calcium but that the calcium we get doesn’t get absorbed efficiently into our bones. This calcium is then free and available to go deposit where we don’t want it, into the insides of our arteries, causing calcification which can lead to decreased arterial function, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular disease.

Cultures that consume far less than the 1500 mg of calcium per day recommended by many physicians, experience much lower fracture rates than we do. This is because their diets contain some specific ingredients that help calcium to enter their bones.

These two ingredients are Vitamin D and Vitamin K. In the proper amounts both of the simple vitamins have been shown to be incredibly safe and healthy for many reasons beyond just bone health, and can safely decrease fracture risk in susceptible people.

Two recent studies, one examining the fracture reducing potential of bisphosphonate drugs and the second measuring the fracture reducing potential of Vitamin D, demonstrated that Vitamin D is perhaps more effective than the drugs, with none of the inherent risks and side-effects of the drugs.

Interestingly, several studies have shown that both Vitamin K-1 and K-2 have decreased fracture risks in humans without increasing Bone Mineral Density (BMD).

I suggest that for normal healthy, men and women no more than 500-750 mg /day of calcium is necessary. If you have normal digestive function calcium carbonate is fine despite what certain advertisers state. If you do have digestive issues and perhaps are low in stomach acidity, then calcium citrate is a good choice.

Regarding the amounts of Vitamin D to take, I suggest that you start with 2500 IU per day. When you get your blood checked ask your physician to also measure you calcium levels. I believe optimum levels are between 50 ng/ml – 80 ng/ml.

As for the Vitamin K, though both form K-1 and K-2 have been shown to work, a product containing a combination of both K-1 and K-2 in the amounts of 1-2 mg (1000-2000 mcg) and 200 mcg respectively should be adequate.

Knowledge is Power.  Empower your health,

Curt Hendrix

Weight Loss – Attain Maximum Results By Calculating Your Specific Calorie Consumption Target

CALCULATING YOUR TARGET CALORIE CONSUMPTION – PER YOUR SPECIFIC SIZE, ACTIVITY LEVEL AND LIFESTYLE SHOULD START WITH DETERMINING YOUR BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)

If you have ever thought about going on a diet, you probably know that to lose weight you have to burn more calories than you consume from your meals.

Calories are units of energy contained in the foods you eat.  So you need to be able to answer the question, “How many calories do I need to consume every day, given my particular lifestyle and level of activity to BREAK EVEN?” (By break even I mean the number of calories you can consume daily, that will neither cause weight loss or weight gain).

In order to calculate this “break even” number of calories, you first have to determine your “BMR” (basal metabolic rate).  In simple terms this is the number of calories you need to fuel basic body functions only.  Imagine getting up and staying in bed and not walking or doing any other kind of work or exercise. The amount of calories required to do this is your BMR.

A simple formula allows both men and women to calculate their BMR.

For women:

Multiply your weight in pounds by 4.35 (write down that amount, and call it # 1).
Multiply your height in inches by 4.7 (write down that amount, and call it # 2).
Multiply your age in years by 4.7 (write down that amount, and call it # 3).
Add # 1 and # 2 together and to that amount add 655 (write that down and call it # 4).
Finally, subtract # 3 from # 4 (#4 minus #3) and THAT IS YOUR BMR in calories. 

For men:

Multiply your weigh in pounds by 6.23 (write down that amount and call it # 1).
Multiply your height in inches by 12.7 (write down that amount and call it # 2).
Multiply your age in years by 6.8 (write down that amount and call it # 3).zza
Add # 1 and # 2 together and to that amount add 66 (write that down and call it # 4).
Subtract # 4 from # 3 (#3 minus #4) and that amount is your BMR in calories.

Remember your BMR is just the minimum amount of calories you need to keep your body functions running, it doesn’t’ reflect the additional calories you need to provide energy for walking around and doing physical tasks.  So now that you know your BMR you can multiply it by the following factors that vary depending upon how active you are. 

If you basically sit at a desk all day and don’t exercise on a consistent basis then multiply your BMR by 1.2 
If you are slightly active (light exercise 1-3 days a week) multiply your BMR by 1.375
If you are moderately active (moderate sports 3-5 days a week) multiply your BMR by 1.55
If you are very active (hard exercise 5-7 days a week) multiply your BMR by 1.725

The result of multiplying your BMR times these factors gives you the amount of calories you can consume daily without losing or gaining weight.  If you are extremely muscular, with little body fat, you can consume 15-20% MORE than you calculated to maintain your current weight.  If you are over-weight by 30 lbs or more, you need to consume 15-20% LESS than you calculated to maintain your current weight.

Ok! Now you know how many calories you can consume daily to maintain your current weight, but many of you reading this article will want to be able to calculate how many LESS calories you will have to eat daily to lose weight.

Since a pound of fat contains about 3500 calories, to lose a pound of fat a week you have to create a caloric deficit of 3500 calories. Dividing 3500 by 7 = 500 calories.

So you have to take in 500 calories less than your calculated amount every day to lose one pound of fat each week.  This may not sound like a lot but at the end of four months you will have lost 16 lbs of fat.

If in addition to the reduction in daily calorie intake, if you also introduced a daily 30 minute walk, you would lose 24 lbs. of fat in four months.  That’s pretty darn good!

Excess weight places undue strain on your heart and joints and is known to increase the risk of cancer, arthritis, diabetes and even dementia.   Also, a recent study from Tufts University has shown that caloric restriction in humans actually boosts our immune response.  For more information about caloric restriction and longevity please read my previous Ezine article:  http://ezinearticles.com/?Caloric-Restriction-=-Weight-Loss-and-Longevity&id=4238613

I hope that I didn’t overwhelm you with math but made it easier for you to determine specifically what you need to do to get slimmer and healthier.

I wish you the best of health,

Curt Hendrix B.S. M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Moderate Aerobic Exercise Can Lead to Good Quality Sleep

Not enough can be said about the importance and health benefits of getting consistent, quality sleep at any age.

Many of the regenerative functions of the body occur when we are sleeping. Migraines increase in those who don’t sleep well. Immune function can be compromised and fatigue and depression are also associated with poor sleep.

A recent study a Northwestern University, studied the effects of aerobic exercise, in people 55 of age and older.  This particular age group often has chronic insomnia.

After 4 months of moderate aerobic exercise, the researchers found that, this group of people suffering from chronic insomnia:

  • Fell asleep and stayed asleep significantly faster
  • Reported less depression
  • Had less day time sleepiness
  • Felt more vital and energetic

Other studies of the effects of aerobic exercise in similar age groups have also shown that aerobic exercise may protect brain function as well. 

Get your loved ones who may be a bit too sedentary, to start doing moderate aerobic exercise at least 5 times a week.  Something as moderate as a 20 minute walk at a reasonable pace, would be excellent.

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.