I don't understand why the NYTimes doesn't get with the times on health-related articles. If you're going to publish something so controversial, then include other experts who have differing experiences or opinions, or site other studies that counter this one just like you do with other types of reporting. This is nuts. If Calcium and Vit. D are a waste, then please tell us where those recommendations from our doctors originally came from, what studies they depended upon, and why what they believed is no longer true. It's not just the supplements industry, we're encouraged to get our Calcium from a variety of food sources as well. If that's not good, then why not? Please give us valuable information instead of this bunk.
6
We are all different. There is not one solution for every body.
However, VitaminD3 supplementation in an oil drop form is extremely beneficial in immunity support. If you eat a diet rich in all kinds of nutrients, including K2 rich natto, you can be certain with regular exercise activity and restful sleep you will feel positively marvelous. Feeling good is the best measure for feeling steady on your feet, being mindful of your surroundings and oh bliss! - no fractures here!
1
The headline on this story is inaccurate and deceiving. The story itself leaves out so much important information that it's really of no use, and could be detrimental because of what it doesn't say. I have not seen the actual study, but if this is all there is, then I would dismiss it entirely. I'll keep taking my Vitamin D and calcium, thank you very much!
2
This article is not helpful to those attempting to treat existing or oncoming bone density issues. The title says Vit D and Calcium don't prevent bone fractures. That is like saying eating does not prevent death. Both are alarmingly incomplete. Calcium and Vit D are a component of good bone health. Other elements need to be included to support bone health; weight bearing exercise etc. Renaming the article to say "Vitamin D and Calcium alone don't prevent Bone Fractures".
3
No mention of Magnesium in this study which is so important for bone formation. Such a flawed study!!!!
5
But don't put away that yogurt, and continue to let the sign shine in!
5
Another misguided NYT assault on vitamin D (actually a steroidal hormone precursor, not a vitamin), which is cheap and has no adverse side effects. I don’t know where to start...
First, this is simply an INVALID “meta-analysis,” averaging studies of radically different quality and design. It lumps in once-or-couple-a-year megadose studies (the majority) with daily dosing studies, most of which are WAY too low in dosage to make any difference anyway. It also mixes D2 with D3 studies! And confuses things with calcium co-supplementation. You just CANNOT average studies like this with so much heterogeneity.
Prior analyses have made it clear that “bolus” doses of vitamin D are worthless (as are any D2 supplements). You don’t take 3-months-worth of insulin all at once, do you? Or aspirin? But daily D3 supplementation of 5000 IU—that will produce a totally different result. A totally different story.
Second, who even claimed that even D3 given to 75-year-olds for a few months to a few years would make a significant difference in fracture rates of bones that took decades to get in their current state? Pretty ridiculous from the get go.
You don’t take D3 for hip protection—you take it for the myriad of other, much more important, health outcome benefits. Vitamin D for bones is SO 1970s!
Total mortality. Cancer mortality. Infection protection. MS protection. CKD mortality. And those are just randomized, Mendelian, or supplements studies, not even counting simple Observationals...
7
Parroting that “These findings do not support the routine use of these supplements in community-dwelling older people”—is just ridiculous. Not for fractures, maybe, but that is almost irrelevant.
See, for example, “Vitamin D and Risk of Cause Specific Death: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Cohort and Randomised Intervention Studies,” in BMJ at PMID 24690623. Their Conclusions?
“Supplementation with vitamin D3 significantly reduces overall mortality among older adults.”
THAT is why you supplement with 5,000 IU of D3 daily.
You don’t take vitamin D3 supplements for fractures. You take it for infection resistance (PMID 28202713 & 20559424), for cancer mortality (PMID 24918818 and, in PMID 28350929, a 30% cancer reduction (!) just missing statistical significance), also for chronic kidney disease (PMID 24066946), for auto-immune disorders (26305103, 27652346, & 24971027), for asthma (PMID 28986128), to prevent cardiovascular disease (PMID 23149428), and diabetes (PMID 23613602), and Alzheimer’s (PMID 26231781 & 27856775), and, of course, for total mortality (PMID 22170374 & 25406188). See also PMID 24352091, 20486209, & 22928064. Note that all this is new over the last few years.
And you should supplement at MANY times higher than a useless 400 or 800 IU for bones—more like 5,000 IU per day, for the rest of your life. Super cheap and—no adverse-effect downsides (PMID 29202186).
Let’s not make “evidence-based” science verboten at the NYTimes now too...
7
Contribution of vitamin C to the prevention of osteoporosis is less known. However it seems working as shown here:
"Previously reported associations between higher intakes of fruits and vegetables and skeletal health have been suggested to be partly attributable to vitamin C. There is some evidence for a potential role of vitamin C in osteoporosis and fracture prevention but an overall consensus has not yet been drawn. The present review aims to provide a summary of the proposed underlying mechanisms of vitamin C on bone and reviews the current evidence in the literature, examining a potential link between vitamin C intake and status with osteoporosis and fractures. Recent animal studies have provided insights into the involvement of vitamin C in osteoclastogenesis and osteoblastogenesis, and its role as a mediator of bone matrix deposition, affecting both the quantity and quality of bone collagen. Observational studies have provided some evidence for this in the general population, showing positive associations between dietary vitamin C intake and supplements and higher bone mineral density or reduced fracture risk. Epidemiological data are particularly limited for vitamin C status and for fracture risk. The present review also highlights that associations between vitamin C and bone health may be non-linear and further research is needed to ascertain optimal intakes for osteoporosis and fracture prevention."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25412684
The study is a good heads up for the people who indiscriminately pop in pills to stay healthy. Nevertheless, one cannot ignore the significance of supplements, especially for vegans. Sometimes, food allergies leave no choice but to take supplements to avoid deficiencies. One has to account for the various contingencies before arriving at the general conclusion that supplements are bad.
1
This study should not have been published in JAMA and not so widely picked up in the health press. All it shows is that supplementing people who are not deficient doesn't help. At least it does help to refute the all american adage "if a little is good, more is better and too much is just right"
3
it isn't a garbage study. It is a meta analysis. The endpoint cost ( hip fracture) and secondary endpoint( vertebral fractures) are not insignificant. Basically this study says that taking supplements had no effect on incidence of hip or vertebral fractures. If you want, you can read it here. All other discussions on benefits of calcium supplementation, vs vitamins, vs source of calcium, vs heart disease are not addressed here. What this says that in this large group of Chinese patients, supplement did not seem to help. You can always read the article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2667071?redirect=...
The summary says : "No significant associations were found between calcium, vitamin D, or combined calcium and vitamin D supplements and the incidence of nonvertebral, vertebral, or total fractures. Subgroup analyses showed that these results were generally consistent regardless of the calcium or vitamin D dose, sex, fracture history, dietary calcium intake, and baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration." I do not get the consternation
2
JAMA is not the source reference for scientific research. Go to PubMed and examine the published works of lifetime basic research scientists.
1
Here is the bottom line imo.
If a blood test reveals you are low in a specific vitamin or mineral try to get it by changing your diet.
If you can't or won't do this then take the supplement/vitamin otherwise stay away from them.
3
The Vitamin D/ Calcium supplement must also contain Boron. I know this for a fact because my osteoporosis tendency disappeared because I have been taking such a food supplement. As I live in India, the supplement that I have been taking probably can't be found in other parts of the world (Super/Cal Pro). So find a source of Boron to go along with VitaminD + Calcium.
1
A glaring problem with this meta analysis (synthesis of multiple studies) is that the studies are all too brief. Please do not stop your calcium-vitamin D based on this article.
The human body turns over bone content over a roughly 10 year period. Calcium and vitamin D (a component of calcium metabolism) would not be expected to impact bone strength in the 3 month to 7 year time course of the studies reviewed. One would need to measure rates of fractures 10 years after initiation of calcium-vitamin D to measure the effects appropriate to human physiology. Less than ten years does not give the body opportunity to put the calcium to work.
Also, sex, age and pre- or post-menopausal status are critical to bone metabolism. Blanket statements about the effect of calcium-vitamin D across sex, age, and pre/post-menopause groups is not appropriate.
It is most important to address women here, as they suffer the most dramatic loss of bone density starting at menopause. The best public health advice remains, in my mind, that YOUNG WOMEN target an intake of 1,000-1,500 mg of calcium daily (including food and supplements), starting 10 years or more before menopause, and continue indefinitely. Supplements should include vitamin D and be taken with meals to allow for absorption and utilization of the calcium. Older women should do the same but expect less of a benefit.
Also, any mention of bone strength should remind us of the positive impact of physical exercise. Use it or lose it!
3
The basic premise of the question and the conclusion of the authors is bad science. One cannot prove the negative! What the authors found was that they were unable to show that calcium and vitamin D helped bones. It is still possible that Ca and vitamin D prevent fractures in some individuals.
1
It seems obvious to me that it is necessary to build strong bones during the first 25 years of life. That is the age at which the human body hits its peak.
If one does not have strong bones at age 25, nothing you do afterwards can compensate for that lack.
3
When you check vitamin D levels you have to ask why. When patients want me to review these levels ordered by other providers I tell them who cares what there levels are. There has been no data to support ordering this lab or trying to supplement the vitamin.
As a physician I would want follow-up studies in this country, not from China, before I would recommend that my patients change their vitamin D/Calcium supplements. There are too many 'maybes' and lack of supervised controls. If you didn't take a baseline [a basic] vitamin D level and still included the participants you have a MAJOR FLAW in the study. I don't know why JAMA published this article. Seems like a lack of sound judgement.
4
some of the other conclusions regarding studies about the effectiveness and limit of vit K research on bone health from the same source I quoted earlier:
Most of the studies were undertaken in Asia and only a few were carried out in Caucasian populations.
Clinical populations were often heterogeneous and sometimes there was no differentiation between pre and postmenopausal women.
Type and dosage of VITK supplements administered were variable.
VITK intake was often self-reported by the patient and the results of the trials sometimes did not take into consideration the lifestyle of the subjects (for instance, the primary dietary sources of phylloquinone such as green vegetables and vegetable oils are characteristic of a healthy lifestyle).
Bone fractures were often self-reported by the patient.
Only a few studies evaluated the interplay between VITK and bone health in men.
Only a few trials reported exactly how the randomization process was conducted.
We did not have access to all studies included in the three meta-analysis cited, making their quality hard to assess and interpretation more challenging.
Only a few studies reported baseline VD and calcium status.
The estimation of VITK status is unclear, and the great part of the studies here presented is based on VITK plasma levels.
Nutrition and bone health related cross sectional and observational studies do not prove causality between a nutrient deficiency or excess and osteoporosis.
Metabolism Volume 70 May 2017, Pages 57-71
Space limitations prevent the inclusion of the complete conclusion of this article, but it is the latest review of vitamin K in bone health:
Metabolism Volume 70, May 2017, Pages 57-71
Vitamin K and osteoporosis: Myth or reality?
In young and elderly women, low VITK intake seems to be associated with bone deterioration, suggesting a potential positive effect of VITK on bone health. Nonetheless, routine VITK supplementation is not globally recommended yet in postmenopausal women affected by osteoporosis, as low quality cross sectional and RCTs [Randomized Controls] have provided contrasting evidence.
In fact, most of the studies that have analyzed the interaction between bone health and VITK are characterized by several limitations and the findings should be therefore addressed with caution.
Some of the major limitations:
Most of the studies had a small sample size to investigate the impact of VITK on bone fractures.
Most of the studies were undertaken in Asia...
In conclusion, larger and longer pragmatic studies are needed to further investigate the real impact of VITK on fracture risk and clarify the contrasting data available. As the emerging consensus in nutritional research suggests, a more comprehensive approach while studying the effect of nutrients on health is required. Analyzing the effect of whole foods or food patterns and thus taking into account the synergy of nutrients will most likely allow to overcome the current challenges and may provide stronger evidence.
1
When you donate or lose a Kidney your Vitamin D levels are effected and a time passes Vit. D levels will drop. its very easy now to look up the physiology on Doctor Goggle.
Most doctors do not think of this and go looking for other reason for low Vit. D. However in a patent with a solo Kidney the answer is obvious once brought to their attention.
Transplant centers should inform donors that this will probably happen after donation! Losing a kidney is not without long term costs, do your research!
Not anything new here. Responsible doctors know that the only people who are helped by supplements are the bedridden with osteoporosis. Everyone else benefits most from exercise.
1
The absolute best way to avoid fractures is by not falling, and staying away from doctors! I've been there! One other thing which is a curiosity! In my first fall
into a new high schools excavation ditch, I severely sprained my ankle! Took almost seven weeks to completely heal! I was told, in that case, I would have been better off, fracturing it! Set in a cast, and within five weeks done! You never know!!!
1
Many good comments above...
In my experience, two paths to increase bone growth/mineralization:
(1.) Vitamin D, + vitamin C + {movement, shock/stress/weight} , with a 'chelated' multimineral supplement ; vitamin B also helpful when tired, or in pain.
(2.) Vitamin K (operates with/without movement/stress) and vitamin C, with chelated multimineral supplement. I have only tried K1 thus far, which Does cause coagulation/clogging... so i initially combined it with a blood thinner and exercise, which had good effects on my cardiovascular system.
I have taken one 100 microgram at bedtime for about a year, and it seems to have doubled the rate of bone accretion in a problematic hip joint.
* *
Before taking the chelated multimineral supplement, my body featured numerous calcium deposits near tendon attachments, and bone surfaces.
That stopped/normalized with the advent of the chelated multimineral supplement. 20 years later when i began vitamin D (800-2000iu/day), pain&disability fell, and mineralization rose substantially.
This study is yet another nail in the coffin of the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation to clearly effect any disease or mortality. A meta-analysis covering over 350,000 people concluded that vitamin D supplementation in unselected community-dwelling individuals does not reduce skeletal (total fracture) or non-skeletal outcomes (myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, stroke, cerebrovascular disease, cancer) by more than 15% Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, Reid IR (April 2014). "The effect of vitamin D supplementation on skeletal, vascular, or cancer outcomes: a trial sequential meta-analysis". The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (Meta-analysis). 2 (4): 307–20. Most of the comments here that are critical of this study and/or recommend particular forms of D supplements and/or additional supplements, illustrate the gullibility of supplement advocates who parrot the recommendation of self-appointed nutritional 'experts, most if not all of whom have (unrevealed) financial interests in supplement manufacturers including owning them. As PT Barnum observed: "There's a sucker born every minute." And as HL Mencken wrote (and I paraphrase): "No one every lost money underestimating the intelligence of the common man."
It's not just nutritional experts, it is my doctor who recommends Vit D and says to beware of these unchallenged "studies". She thinks this is bunk.
1
This review by Nicholas Bakalar, the comments by the readership and the link to the original article highlight major factors that lead the public to suspect the validity of basic research. Firstly, we rely on the expertise of the writer, Mr. Bakalar, but after a Google search, I still have not been able to find a curriculum vitae for this individual. I do not have the reassurance that a competent individual has mentioned or summarized accurately the background and critical factors in this study. The readership has raised obvious concerns that were not addressed in this article and consequently readers harboring those fears have blindly trashed the research. Lastly, I followed the link to the URL for the original research article and I have to pay $30 to rent the article. It is no wonder that the value of basic research has been questioned by the public and politicians.
3
I thought the point of taking C and D was to prevent bone loss and, perhaps, promote bone growth. Wish the study talked about that
2
Please refer to the website of the International Osteoporosis Foundation for questions related to bone health, y’all!
1
Colin Campbell: The China Study, 2005. Forks Over Knives, the film. If more folks had a a good course in sociology they might understand epidemiology. snarky? yes. but frustrating to have to wait so long for accord.
1
Fads are not uncommon in medicine, and they are often fueled by personal bias and conflicts of interest. And once the public is convinced that a questionable therapy is useful, a physician will “go with the flow”, rather than risk the ire of their intellectually lazy colleagues and beguiled patients.
We’ve seen this story before. A hundred years ago there was snake oil; one hundred years later, it’s fish oil, vitamin C, D and E. Thank goodness there is no vitamin F.
The combination of false hope, questionable scholarship, and potential profits has a momentum all its own.
1
Let's analyze the conclusion of this study, “These findings do not support the routine use of these supplements in community-dwelling older people.”
This is a statement of a lack of evidence. No evidence to support the current use case.
The title of this article is completely misleading, instead the title should read something like, "Another epidemiological study finds no contradiction of its null hypothesis."
Look at the results section of the abstract, "There was no significant association of calcium or vitamin D with risk of hip fracture compared with placebo or no treatment." ...Calcium? ...Vitamin D? Are we talking about a supplementation amount or blood serum levels?
Meanwhile a study in the Clinical Journal of Pain by Javadian et al. shows a significant correlation between increased measured quadriceps muscle strength and serum 25-(OH)-Vitamin D levels.
The New York Times needs to do its readers a favor and teach them how to read and analyze medical studies rather than publish ridiculous titles for ad revenue.
No wonder there are those who reject good science out of hand when the complexities of interpretation are eliminated by sensationalization.
3
In my opinion this is right up there with a study that said don't bother flossing your teeth
2
Try drinking milk.
Usual AMA type BS. Been taking A dozen different Vitamins a day for the past 43 years. Never been sick a day so far. Cost $ 60 Bucks Monthly . Best insurance available. Get Adele Davis's books .
1
As long as you believe in your pills and thank your parents for your good genes!
Yet another superstitious --"You are what you eat." -- bit of nonsense put to rest. This is not, of course, the first such finding -- it is a review of 31 findings.
Very few health problems are related to, or can be cured by, diet alone.
Vitamin supplements have been shown over and over again not to have any health benefits for the general population.
This does not mean that some people do not have clinical deficiencies -- and when they do, their doctors can recommend specific supplementation. Clinical deficiencies are almost never (in the developed nations) diet related , rather they are physiological faults in absorption or utilization by the body.
Previous comments below show how strong the misunderstanding of human physiology is in American society....studies like these are dismissed and people continue to spend literally billions on worthless supplements in America every year.
Nicholas Bakalar is one of the few NY Times Well journalists that doesn't seem to be likewise deluded.
18
As others have mentioned, a useless study and article.
6
Lillies and Chris, and "others",
It takes tremendous self-confidence, not to say unmitigated gall, to announce, without having read it, that a study published in one of the world's premier medical journals is "useless." Do you believe that the authors of the study, the peer-reviewers who read, critiqued and approved it, and the editors of the American Journal of Medicine have all, after careful consideration, decided to publish a "useless" study? Why do you believe that?
1
What a useless study. There's no distinction made here for what sources of calcium or vitamin D. Nutrition and health are far more complex than a simple minded read such as this. If Calcium and/or Vitamin D lone prevented fractures, there'd be fewer of them.
26
Basically, you are supporting the results of the study. The study establishes that vitamin D and calcium supplements alone do not prevent fractures. If these fractures are to be prevented, something more nutritionally complex might have to be devised (as you seem to believe yourself).
Two important caveats which are not mentioned:
1. The study do not apply to institutionalized older adults.
2. The study do not apply to people diagnosed with osteoporosis.
18
What is the point of reporting -- without explanatory commentary no less -- on studies like this that are deliberately designed to be more narrow than the problem they supposedly address?
No one -- and I mean no one -- who knows anything at all about the complexity of osteoporosis and the nutrition and exercise needed to reverse bone loss or deal with balance issues would expect vitamin D and calcium supplementation to have an effect on these problems by themselves.
Unfortunately, readers who don't have this information are likely to interpret findings like this study's as "calcium and vitamin D are useless" or "supplements are useless."
Osteoporosis is a serious problem. The NYT reporting on it should be serious as well.
114
If I take my vitamin D supplement my finger, toe, wrist and ankle joints don't hurt. If I don't they do, this is replicable over time for me. I started it because my MIL recommended it for thinning hair, it didn't help for that, but the pain relief was an unexpected benefit. What did help my hair was being diagnosed with diabetes and getting my sugar under control. I hypothesize that I just wasn't getting enough energy to grow hair.
15
First time it worked was a coincidence; repeated results come from placebo effect. N of 1 is meaningless.
1
I’m 66, very fair skinned, & almost died a little over a year ago because of Vit. D deficiency. Growing up I had many severe sunburns (weren’t considered bad back then, just normal for a blonde fair skinned little girl. As a teenager I had sun poisoning twice. Then in my thirties I managed to do it again. I took part, at 12, in one of the first sunscreen trials. Oh, it worked, where you put it, but, you had no way of knowing where that was cause it was a clear liquid, that dried very quickly. So I usually looked like a white/red zebra. Finally I was told to wear long pants & shirts with high collars, a floppy hat, always sit in the shade, & never go out in the summer. Very contradictory & mostly impossible. No one said I should take Vit D.
Then when I was 65 I started falling, sort of sliding down to the floor. Not dizzy, just not very Mobil. Went to the doctor who did some tests. The lab called the next day & asked when I had died. The doctor said she’s alive. They said they had never seen anyone with such a low Vit D level actually alive. Adding in Vit B12 deficiency, which effected my memory I wasn’t good. Now I take a Vit D supplement, Iron, Vit. C, Biotin (finger nails & hair, they work). Every day. Don’t fall anymore, my memory isn’t great (several closed head injuries growing up messed that up), but, I’m better than I was at 50. Still stay out of the sun. Use high SPF sunscreen.You need sun to make D3. No sun. No D3. Studies don’t show everything. Never have.
4
Why wouldn't the trials include baseline vitamin D levels and measure them throughout the trial? Sunlight affects vitamin D. There could be reasons participants weren't absorbing the D from the supplements. It could be that these folks' diets and lifestyle (such as exercise) were already protective.
23
This was a meta-analysis of many published studies. Some of them were performed before there was an easy and accurate blood test for the correct form of vitamin D. That became available relatively recently.
5
It wasn't a trial and it wasn't even a study. It was an analysis of other studies. The article doesn't stress what the Medscape article did, which is that these results would apply to healthy adults living in the community, not people in nursing homes or possibly even people with osteoporosis in general. It also fails to note exactly what kind of calcium people took and account for differences in bioavailability among the different formulations. Lastly, nothing assures us of the quality of the studies upon which this analysis was based. I have osteoporosis and will continue to take my calcium and vitamin D as before.
4
In addition to Vit D and calcium, take Magnesium, which makes the bones stronger. Calcium only makes them chalkier.
34
Regarding the comments here relating the the role of Vitamin K in bone health, there's this study, which finds evidence of increased bone density with the use of MK4.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4042573/
21
True. To understand and this better, read: https://www.amazon.com/Vitamin-K2-Calcium-Paradox-Little-Known/dp/006232...
Calcium intake is not the rate-limiting factor in maintains bone health. In fact, West African-Americans have low calcium intake ( lactose intolerance) and total 25 OH Vit D levels ( skin melanin) yet have high bone mineral density. They also have higher muscle mass than Caucasians. Swedish women have high calcium intake from dairy products ( which also supplements vit D in these low sun people) yet have higher rates of osteopenia.Bone collagen acts like the rebar in cement so protein and vit K2 are factors. My advice 1) eat wisely. 2) no supplements. 3) weight bearing activities 4) don't smoke. 5) choose your parents carefully. Lent Johnson, the great bone pathologist, always said that the human Skelton was designed for 45 years. Count your blessings.
53
#3 and #4 especially.
well said
12
I would add: 6) eliminate dairy products from our diets since it's components have been shown to cause erosion of our bones. It's shocking to me that the dairy industry is allowed to push a product designed to bring a calf from 50 pounds at birth to 500 ponds in one year as something we should be consuming for bone health.
Research has debunked the claim that weight-bearing activity improves bone strength.
Vitamin D 3 supplementation may help women build muscle.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150930073102.htm
17
I thought it was a common knowledge
7
I thought it was a common knoledge
1
Having experienced a stress fracture recently, I can say with certainty that including a plant based calcium in my daily routine helped my bone repair itself much faster than if I had not. My doctor reccomended the plant based because regular calcium leaves deposits in your bloodstream that are harmful to your heart. As a woman, that information is very important because we're told to take calcium as we age to prevent bone loss. My x-rays showed significant bone regrowth after starting the plant based calcium supplements.
28
a study in which n = 1 is not very reliable
30
You cannot possibly know *with certainty* that the calcium helped. That's not how science works. The only way to measure an effect would be to have another break and let it heal without the calcium. Even then it would be subject to other random factors.
1
"Calcium will ultimately land in the muscles of the heart, the heart valves and the blood vessels, leading to cardiovascular disease. However if you are getting enough vit C, D3 and K2, your body will direct the calcium you ingest from your food, to where it belongs, not in your heart and blood vessels. It saddens me to see older women diagnosed with "osteopenia" or "osteoporosis" listening to their doctors and taking supplemental calcium and even problematic drugs called bisphosphonates. These are irrational, dogmatic, harmful approaches to the problem of degrading bone as we age. In my time practicing nephrology and internal medicine, I saw numerous patients suffering from vascular disease while taking the recommended doses of calcium. X-rays revealed perfect outlines of calcified blood vessels and calcified heart valves."
(Dr. Suzanne Humphries)
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/osteoporosis-scurvy-bone-not-calcium-de...
17
Dr. Suzanne Humphries is an anti-vaccine homeopath, and what she says cannot be relied on.
And greenmedinfo is run by Sayer Ji, who specializes in misinterpreting scientific papers as supporting his views, when they don't.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GreenMedInfo
68
Jane,
You had better refute the arguments of Dr. humphrise wilth your arguments attaching credible references. Otherwise what you are doing is not much different from Trump saying ,
‘Fake news’.
15
Wind Surfer Florida: And you think Humphries has supplied credible references??? A version of her CV from 2011 lists qualifications in Homeopathy and "Thought field therapy". Later versions of her CV exclude these qualifications.
"Thought Field Therapy"? I guess designed to entrance Wind Surfers to her way of seeing things.
3
I'm not sure that people who take these dangerous supplements actually care whether they work. Adoption of a pointless custom appears to require strong powers of belief and disbelief that do not rely on facts or analysis.
11
And let us not forget the "nutrient" that was left behind 25 years ago with the Women Health Initiative... estrogen. Only recently was it reported in these pages that estrogen replacement does not increase deaths overall. Too bad there havnt been studies to determine whether estrogen avoidance causes a net increase in all-cause deaths. Unfortunately, the last generation of women was so scared off HRT that osteoporosis (in addition to heart disease, dementia, and, ironically, certain cancers) has only increased.
19
You know, damned if you do . . .
Estrogen increases the likelihood of breast cancer. Calcium can clog the blood and lead to clots. Fosamax can lead to brittle bones that shatter. Vitamin D-3 might or might not help.
Some people just eat a lot of yoghurt.
Others lift weights.
It's all good, or bad, and depends on DNA and on luck.
35
Very good points. The WHI study did involve a great number of women, but only ONE form of estrogen -- that made from horse pee. Media reports of this study were superficial. HMOs and indeed Medicare rushed like lemmings to condemn and refuse hormone replacement therapy for any reason, whether it be post-menopausal side-effects no matter how severe, or helping to prevent osteoporosis in women no matter how high their risk. (Meanwhile, testosterone supplementation in men is good to go, only slightly questioned if at all.)
Estrogen supplementation means a life of torturous suffering for horses, as the bulk of what is prescribed is sourced from the urine of pregnant mares. It’s shocking how many women (and the physicians who prescribe estrogen to them) are unaware of how the stuff is made, or choose to ignore it.
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/heartbreaking-truth-about...
Here's your money statement:
"The authors acknowledge that some trials did not include baseline vitamin D levels for all participants"
Booya. Game over.
I will disregard this study.
68
Bone are living tissue that need 20+ nutrients plus weight-bearing exercise to be strong (and make other cells). Extensive NASA bone research highlights this dual interaction. See "Long-term Exercise Using Weighted Vests Prevents Hip Bone Loss in Postmenopausal Women" Christine M. Snow et al
Dr Heaney highlights the role of protein http://blogs.creighton.edu/heaney/2014/07/25/the-paradox-of-osteoporosis...
The AF tested & treated the very high rates of entry iron anemia which reduced injuries by 50% (all passed a physical). Iron is needed for collagen formation; collagen makes bones resilient.
Lappe tested 4,000 + women in Army BCT and found 20+% had poor bone status (plus likely nutrient deficiencies, under fitness, amenorrhea, poor diet Hx, etc.). This sub group takes a high % of injuries and re-injuries in training.
Klesges tested college basketball players who had poor bone status.... the result of poor calcium intake and calcium losses in sweat.
Lappe reduced stress fractures in Navy women by 20% by issuing calcium & D supplements.
Plant-based calcium is less bioavailable than dairy and more "dilute." Look up how much kale you need to eat to meet the RDA.
If you really want to be healthy, you have to know objectively where you are. USDA says food nutrient levels have significantly decreased due to farming practices. You can buy comprehensive blood chemistry tests on line.
The next issue is how to test bones; DEXA is not predictive.
56
excellent comment. Thanks!
9
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing this important info all in one place!
So far, the reader comments about the necessity of vitamin K2 and K3 and magnesium -- and may I add phosphorous (part of bone structure) and boron (required for calcium uptake, found in plant foods, not animal products)? -- all say to me: Eat more produce, veggies and fruit! Eat more whole grains and beans! Some nuts and seeds! Don't take supplements. Eat Whole Foods, Plant Based.
34
@Dr. J:
Only known plant source of K2 is natto. But also found in meat, fish, eggs. Where did people get K2 before the cultivation of soybeans, I wonder? How did our species possibly survive for all those millennia before the cultivation of grains and beans?
Protein is also part of bone structure, and is found more abundantly and more easily digested/absorbed from animal foods. Animal foods _are_ whole, nutrient-dense, nourishing foods. A strict vegan diet _requires_ supplementation to avoid nutrient deficiencies.
I tried the whole grains and beans diet. Made me fat, sick, and constantly hungry. I lost weight with ease, and gained health when I ditched the grains, reduced the beans, and ate more nourishing meat, fish, and shellfish.
31
I ate all of those things but it took 10k iu of D/day to get my D level up to the optimal level. Each of us are unique human beings, and until your D level is measured, you have no idea how much to take.
23
I'm trying to understand how someone could get fat on a diet of whole grains and beans. That is a lot of food volume for the calories. For example, two cups of cooked brown rice has 430 calories, a bowl of oats (1 cup before cooking) has 300 calories, and one cup of cooked kidney beans contains 225 calories. You could double all that and throw in some kale for good luck, and still not top 2000 calories.
1
How long does it take for the Medical Community to play "catch up?" For years now research has shown the necessity for the addition of vitamin K2 to any regimen involving the addition of vitamin D to the diet. Please, will somebody simply "Google" vitamin K2 and D3? Will somebody at the great New York Times set the record straight? Simply put, vitamin K2 (NOT the blood-clotting K1 or the toxic K3) serves as a sorta "traffic cop," steering calcium out of arteries and into bones. There are many articles, there are books, but the study referenced in the NYTimes article is flawed, because it ignores the K2 factor. I sigh with frustration. . .
35
This begs the question: If a person has been diagnosed with osteoporosis, should he or she stop taking calcium and vitamin D since the reason for taking these two supplements is to prevent fractures? Any thoughts from other readers?
4
Are the supplements doctor-prescribed? If so, I would ask the doctor what their recommendation is based on, in light of this study. If the person is self-prescribing with over the counter supplements, then, at the least, this information should make them take a hard look at the possible waste of money.
6
You can reverse osteoporosis. I had osteopenia for years until I learned about Vitamin D and K etc etc.
15
Janet Hubbard,No can do
1
This study ignored the role of Vitamin K-2 and K-3 and magnesium in building bones! Without K, calcium makes plaque in your arteries instead of bones. And magnesium is part of the formula for bones too! Don't believe this study!!
10
please include link to research u found on this.
9
Several people have recommended taking K2. So, are there good food sources of this vitamin? Or should people with osteoporosis be taking K2 supplements?
3
I do hope everyone doesn’t rush out to buy K-2 and K-3. They can cause palpitations, arrhythmias and tachycardia in people with heart issues. You just don’t know how your heart is going to react even if you don’t have any known issues. I would tread very cautiously with those two supplements.
14