Calcium Supplements

Article in NY Times blog

[well.blogs.nytimes.com]

"Thinking twice about calcium supplements"


Americans seem to think that every health problem can be solved with a pill. And certainly many are, especially infectious diseases that succumb to antibiotics, antifungals and, increasingly, antivirals.

But that leaves a medical dictionary full of ailments that continue to plague people despite the best efforts of Big Pharma. Most are chronic health problems related to how Americans live, especially what we eat and drink, and don’t eat and drink, and how we move or don’t move. In our aging society, these ailments have pushed the annual cost of medical care into the trillions of dollars and threaten to break Medicare.

Osteoporosis is one of these increasingly prevalent and costly conditions. Although there are drugs to stanch the loss of bone and the debilitating fractures that often result, the remedies are costly, difficult to administer and sometimes have side effects that can be worse than the disease they are meant to counter.

This makes prevention the preferred and more cost-effective option. But efforts to prevent bone disease have focused on a pill, namely supplements of calcium, the mineral responsible for creating bone in youth that must be maintained throughout adult life, which now routinely extends to the 80s and 90s.

But as with many other pills once regarded as innocuous, the safety and efficacy of calcium supplements in preventing bone loss is being called into question.

In February, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended that postmenopausal women refrain from taking supplemental calcium and vitamin D. After reviewing more than 135 studies, the task force said there was little evidence that these supplements prevent fractures in healthy women.

Moreover, several studies have linked calcium supplements to an increased risk of heart attacks and death from cardiovascular disease. Others have found no effect, depending on the population studied and when calcium supplementation was begun.

The resulting controversy has left countless people, especially postmenopausal women, wondering whether they should be taking calcium. Given the conditional evidence currently available, the answer is not likely to be greeted enthusiastically by anyone other than dairy farmers, who supply the foods and drinks that are the country’s richest dietary sources of calcium.

The one indisputable fact is that the safest and probably the most effective source of calcium for strong bones and overall health is diet, not supplements. But few American adults, and a decreasing proportion of children and teenagers, consume enough dairy foods to get the recommended intakes of this essential mineral.

Milk consumption has taken a steady nose-dive in the last four decades, largely supplanted by sugared soft drinks that are now under fire as major contributors to obesity and Type 2 diabetes. Beyond age 20, when bone loss can begin to overtake bone formation, the typical man and woman in this country consumes less than one cup of milk a day. Likewise for teenage girls, who should be striving to maximize bone formation so that there is more in reserve when bone loss begins.

Yogurt, which ounce for ounce is an even better source of calcium than fluid milk, has achieved unprecedented popularity in recent years, but few consume it more than once a day, which doesn’t come close to meeting dietary needs. Frozen yogurt, which threatens to supplant ice cream as the nation’s most popular frozen dessert, has about half the amount of calcium as regular yogurt and only slightly more than ice cream. Both are far more caloric than nonfat milk.

The only other notable calcium-rich foods are tofu (when prepared with calcium); calcium-fortified orange juice, soy milk and rice milk; canned salmon and sardines (but only if you eat the bones); almonds; kale; and broccoli. But few people consume enough of these foods to obtain the calcium they need.

Calcium was long thought to protect the cardiovascular system. It helps to lower blood pressure and the risk of hypertension, a major contributor to heart disease. The Iowa Women’s Health Study linked higher calcium intakes in postmenopausal women to a reduced risk of heart disease deaths, though other long-term studies did not find such an association.

Controversy over calcium supplements arose when a combined analysis of 15 studies by Dr. Mark J. Bolland of the University of Auckland found that when calcium was taken without vitamin D (which enhances calcium absorption), the supplements increased the risk of heart attack by about 30 percent.

Dr. Bolland then reanalyzed data from the Women’s Health Initiative and found a 24 percent increased risk of heart attack among women who took calcium with or without vitamin D. In this case, the increased risk occurred only among those women assigned to take supplemental calcium who had not already been taking it when the study began.

Yet last December, in a report published online in Osteoporosis International, a team at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle reported that among 36,282 postmenopausal women participating in the Women’s Health Initiative, those taking 1,000 milligram supplements of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D experienced a 35 percent reduced risk of hip fracture, and no increase in heart attacks during a seven-year follow-up.

In February yet another study, published online in JAMA Internal Medicine, found that among 388,229 men and women initially aged 50 to 71 and followed for an average of 12 years, supplemental calcium raised the risk of cardiovascular death by 20 percent among men — but not women. The increased risk was observed only among smokers.

Adding to these confusing results is the fact that none of the studies was specifically designed to assess the effects of calcium supplements on the chances of suffering a heart attack or stroke. This can cause unexpected aberrations in research findings.

One possible explanation for a link, the JAMA researchers said, is that a bolus of calcium that enters the blood stream through a supplement, but not gradually through dietary sources, can result in calcium deposits in arteries. Indeed, this is a known complication among patients with advanced kidney disease who take calcium supplements.

All the researchers agree that, given the widespread use of supplemental calcium, better studies are needed to clarify possible risks and benefits, and to whom they may apply.

Until such information is available, consumers seeking to preserve their bones would be wise to rely primarily on dietary sources of the mineral and to pursue regular weight-bearing or strength-building exercises, or both. Walking, running, weight lifting and working out on resistance machines is unquestionably effective and safe for most adults, if done properly.

Furthermore, the National Osteoporosis Foundation maintains that the findings of current studies and advice about supplements should “not apply to women with osteoporosis or broken bones after age 50 or those with significant risk factors for fracture.” For them, the benefits of calcium supplements are likely to far outweigh any risks

I guess these guys have never heard of vitamin K! [www.yourhealthbase.com]. It helps prevent arterial calcification and should always be included in any supplement protocol involving calcium. It is however likely that strontium ranelate, or if that is not available, strontium citrate may be a better choice than calcium for prevention of osteoporosis [www.yourhealthbase.com]

Hans

It's become popular recently to point out the long-over due warning that oversupplementing with calcium has risky consequences. All of the magnesium experts have said that for 30-40 years at least.

As Hans mentions, the right vitamin K ...which is (K2 MK7) helps direct free calcium into bones where it belongs. If you are on warfarin, it's important to consult with a practitioner who understands how to dose and monitor the use of MK7 so you avoid warfarin interference but still manage to also avoid the tendency of warfarin to create soft tissue calcifications of aorta and arterial blood vessels.

Amazing that these people never seem to quite pull all the correct and useful information together in one report....yet, those in functional or generative medicine do it routinely.

There are varying opinions that strontium may not be as useful as once thought. A couple years ago I listened to a discussion regarding this and it was noted that some of the supplement people have removed strontium from their bone support products... [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

While on the topic of osteoporosis and bone health... those women taking bisphosphonates... should be aware that these drugs have been linked to atrial fibrillation. [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Jackie

Jackie,

As far as I know strontium ranelate is quite effective and safe making it a strong competitor for biphosphonates - probably the main reason why it is not approved in the US [en.wikipedia.org]. However, strontium ranelate or citrate should be taken at least two hours before or after ingesting calcium. I believe this was the main reason it was removed from some bone support products which are all heavy in calcium.

Hans

Strontium Ranelate has quite a list of possible side side effects that should be checked before taking it. It's the drug form of Strontium. My sister has been taking Strontium Citrate (which can be bought without a prescription - at least here in the U.K. - and appears to have fewer side effects) to combat Osteoporosis and getting good results.

Comments about Strontium Ranelate and Strontium in general:

This by Jarrow
[www.jarrow.com]

Townsend Letter Feb/Mar 2012
Report by Tori Hudson, ND… Has a segment in her osteoporosis article stating that the Strontium ranelate is not available in the US… Is that true or is it just not available in OTC supplements… Rx only? That which is used is Strontium chloride… and she says: Strontium chloride is the most common form of strontium used in US supplements. This form of strontium has not been the subject of published research. Owing to potential adverse effects of higher doses of strontium, including rickets, bone mineralization defects, and interference with vitamin D metabolism, it may be prudent to use low doses until more research has been conducted. [www.townsendletter.com]



This report clarifies availability

Strontium ranelate is not available over the counter. It is classified as a drug/medicine and so can be bought on a doctor’s prescription only. Strontium citrate on the other hand, is categorized as a supplement and may be bought over the counter.

Strontium ranelate is almost twice as expensive as Strontium citrate and almost six times more expensive than standard bone-building medication like those with compounds alendronate etc.

Strontium ranelate is manufactured and marketed by the French pharmaceutical company Servier Laboratories under the brand name Protelos. It is available in some European countries and in Asia.

Strontium ranelate has not yet been approved by the American Food and Drug Administration and is thus not sold in the U.S. Strontium citrate is available worldwide and is sold by AlgaeCal, Nature’s Purest, Doctor’s Best, Bio Tech Pharmacal, Pure Encapsulations (Atrium Innovation Inc). Strontium is available in several strengths/potencies. Your doctor will advise you on the milligrams per dose you require and the timing you should observe while taking either of the two Strontium salts (Read AlgaeCal article on how Strontium supplements are to be taken on an empty stomach and apart from Calcium supplements). [www.algaecal.com]

This from Better Bone Health Blog…4/4/13

What Astronauts Can Teach Us About Bone Health.
The conversation around strontium and bone health has some similarities to the fluoride debate. The FDA has not approved strontium as a treatment for osteoporosis. It is not considered an “essential” nutrient for bone health yet continues to be added to supplements. Strontium replaces the calcium in bone and stays there for decades. Since strontium is heavier than calcium, it makes the bone appear denser on x-ray and DXA scans – which can be misread as an improvement in bone density. Strontium may make bones stronger initially but we do not require strontium for any known biological function. Strontium can not be regulated by our bodies as it accumulates and there are other health risks beyond bones. Silical® supplements from Institute for Better Bone Health specifically do not contain strontium or fluoride in any form.

Organic silicon, in contrast to fluoride and strontium, is an essential nutrient for bone formation. The body cannot form bone without adequate amounts of silicon.

[blog.bonehealthnow.com]

[www.webmd.com]