Calcium Supplements [Was: OT - Magnesium tablets versus magnesium oil]

[Fran Sheffield]

Just posting the whole article as I think some can't access it.
.....
Calcium supplements raise risk of kidney stones
Almost one in 10 women taking calcium supplements develop hypercalcaemia that may put them at risk of kidney stones and cardiovascular disease, research shows.

Hypercalcaemia was seen in 8.8% of postmenopausal women taking 600mg or 1200mg calcium citrate daily as part of a US prospective trial of vitamin D and calcium supplementation for bone health.

In a study published in Menopause, researchers found that 20 episodes of hypercalcaemia (>2.55mmol/L) occurred in 14 of 147 women taking calcium for a year and 31% developed hypercalciuria (7.5mmol/L).

The researchers said the high levels of calcium seen in urine would pose a risk for kidney stone formation, particularly for about one in 20 women in the population already at high risk.

Related News:

* Caution urged on calcium supplements
* Calcium increases CVD risk for men

"It is known that 5-8% of men and women have idiopathic hypercalciuria ... one would expect that the millions of men and women taking calcium supplements belong to this risk group," they noted.

Calcium supplements should be used with caution, and blood and urine calcium levels should be measured before starting calcium supplements and three months after, they suggested.

Commenting on the findings, osteoporosis researcher Professor Ian Reid, of the University of Auckland, said hypercalcaemia was a concern because there was also evidence suggesting increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

"The reality is that the evidence that calcium [and vitamin D] reduces fracture risk does not exist, but there is a sustained misperception that we are doing something that is clinically useful when we are giving community-dwelling people calcium and vitamin D," he said.

Professor Reid said the evidence supported pharmacological treatment rather than calcium supplements for prevention of fractures.

Menopause 2014; 21:1173-79.

[Rochelle Marsden]

What on earth does this mean?


What is pharmacological treatment.?

This was a very interesting article- Thanks

Rochelle

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 06 November 2014 04:47
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Calcium Supplements [Was: OT - Re: [Minutus] Magnesium tablets versus magnesium oil]
Just posting the whole article as I think some can't access it.
.....
Calcium supplements raise risk of kidney stones
Almost one in 10 women taking calcium supplements develop hypercalcaemia that may put them at risk of kidney stones and cardiovascular disease, research shows.

Hypercalcaemia was seen in 8.8% of postmenopausal women taking 600mg or 1200mg calcium citrate daily as part of a US prospective trial of vitamin D and calcium supplementation for bone health.

In a study published in Menopause, researchers found that 20 episodes of hypercalcaemia (>2.55mmol/L) occurred in 14 of 147 women taking calcium for a year and 31% developed hypercalciuria (7.5mmol/L).

The researchers said the high levels of calcium seen in urine would pose a risk for kidney stone formation, particularly for about one in 20 women in the population already at high risk.

Related News:

* Caution urged on calcium supplements

* Calcium increases CVD risk for men

"It is known that 5-8% of men and women have idiopathic hypercalciuria ... one would expect that the millions of men and women taking calcium supplements belong to this risk group," they noted.

Calcium supplements should be used with caution, and blood and urine calcium levels should be measured before starting calcium supplements and three months after, they suggested.

Commenting on the findings, osteoporosis researcher Professor Ian Reid, of the University of Auckland, said hypercalcaemia was a concern because there was also evidence suggesting increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

"The reality is that the evidence that calcium [and vitamin D] reduces fracture risk does not exist, but there is a sustained misperception that we are doing something that is clinically useful when we are giving community-dwelling people calcium and vitamin D," he said.

Professor Reid said the evidence supported pharmacological treatment rather than calcium supplements for prevention of fractures.

Menopause 2014; 21:1173-79.

[Fran Sheffield]

Yes, I smiled. Got to get those drugs in there some where - and the side-effects of a supplement provide the perfect opportunity. Crazy and mindless, isn't it?
Fran.

[Tanya Marquette]

Look, the Codex Alimentarius position is that all supplements are to be treated like drugs, blah, blah

Given the public’s commitment to use of supplements and all the research on their importance to health, the tactic has been for years
to whittle away the public’s trust in their use. These kinds of studies have to be viewed as money invested by the drug corporations
to create the results they want. Cheap marketing for them given the publications in medical journals and then the mass media
broadcast as if it was legitimate information.

It would be a laughing matter except for the fact that the power balance on information broadcasting is skewed all one way and that is
against anyone promoting holistic health.

t

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Fran,

Those are really useful added perspectives. I would like to add, I think there are two main(?) and IMO huge problems with the way calcium is being used these days.

- One is that its use (like other supplements in general) in absence of any awareness, on the part of *either* doctor or patient, about what the *symptoms* are of calcium need (or excess). So it's that famous and infamous "this-for-that" knee-jerk prescribing that is so troublesome in homeopathic prescribing, but can be far more problematic when prescribing megadoses of isolated nutrients, without an adequate larger perspective.

- The other is it is being (routinely and blindly) prescribed in *megadoses*.

So *lots* of people, particularly but not exclusively seniors, are taking 1,000 mg and more daily, of calcium alone, without the large array of supporting minerals and other nutrients that are needed in order to absorb and utilize it.

So, they're getting (a) too much, of (b) something they may not even need at all (though they might need it), and © without the proper context to *use* what they are taking, even if they *do* need it. Magnesium, vitamin K, boron, strontium, silica, and I'm not sure what else.

So, I *do* take calcium when I need to for muscle cramps, but I try to (at least in general) take it in forms that include supporting nutrients; and I (keep trying to) get more of my needs through e.g. eating more greens (I keep trying). But for me it has been enormously useful to at least recognize the this-for-that functional relationships, and from there put them into a broader context. (And if I am doing homeopathic treatment with someone, I will most definitely hope to find the supplementation become unneeded; in my experience that is usually a workable plan, but why suffer in the mean time.)

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Ick, that would mean things like Fosamax. They which work by killing off the (is it "osteoblasts"?) cells that break down bone *so that it can be rebuilt with fresh bone." They are TERRIBLE.

And added irony, in the "health nut" circles of my upbringing, it has been *well* know, for *decades*, that osteoporosis CAN be not only stopped but reversed, and you have to do it using LOTS of nutrients *other* than calcium. (With perhaps calcium as part of the mix, or perhaps not.) Magnesium is the first thought (aids metabolism of calcium), then Vitamin K and various trace minerals would be the next to look at. You can and should monitor over time to make *sure* that the bones are rebuilding.

Bone built in that way will be healthy and strong bone, whereas the bone that forms under the osteoblast-killing drugs is defective, and begins to crumble a few years down. (Five, ten?)

Shannon

[Tanya Marquette]

Of course you are right that Calc, or any other nutrient works in conjunction with many others.
With Calc, for example, we know that Vit D is critical to keep calc where it belongs in the body and not accumulate in other parts and cause problems
Vit K2 is also required for this mix with Vit D, Calc and Mag. And Vit K2 is the one we have difficulty getting in our diet.

t

[Tanya Marquette]

I believe that Fosamax ultimately destroys bones, including jaw bone necrosis.

t

[Rochelle Marsden]

A friend of mine had a couple of the lower vertebrae cave in and I have always put that down to the Fosamax she was given. After 2 years of pain (our great NHS!!!) she was finally operated on and had the bones fused and plate put it!!
Rochelle
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 06 November 2014 14:36
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Calcium Supplements [Was: OT - Re: [Minutus] Magnesium tablets versus magnesium oil]
I believe that Fosamax ultimately destroys bones, including jaw bone necrosis.
t
Ick, that would mean things like Fosamax. They which work by killing off the (is it "osteoblasts"?) cells that break down bone *so that it can be rebuilt with fresh bone." They are TERRIBLE.
And added irony, in the "health nut" circles of my upbringing, it has been *well* know, for *decades*, that osteoporosis CAN be not only stopped but reversed, and you have to do it using LOTS of nutrients *other* than calcium. (With perhaps calcium as part of the mix, or perhaps not.) Magnesium is the first thought (aids metabolism of calcium), then Vitamin K and various trace minerals would be the next to look at. You can and should monitor over time to make *sure* that the bones are rebuilding.
Bone built in that way will be healthy and strong bone, whereas the bone that forms under the osteoblast-killing drugs is defective, and begins to crumble a few years down. (Five, ten?)
Shannon
Yes, I smiled. Got to get those drugs in there some where - and the side-effects of a supplement provide the perfect opportunity. Crazy and mindless, isn't it?
Fran.

[Shannon Nelson]

Ouch yes, how could I have left out D.