CA supplements useless???!

purple32

New info On taking CA supplements ?

Hi all,

A good friend of mine told me that she just heard on the news, a few nights ago that ALL CA. supplements have been determined to be useless and might as well be discarded !  She also said there was " some" SE!  What ? Kidney stones or more ?  She did not recall (Aaaargh!) 

Have any of you heard this ?  With the biosphosphates  having long term "bone SEs" , Ca. is  something I felt good about....but now ?

I would love  a link to this recent " News".

Thanks for any reply- esp. a PM as well.

juniper17

Hi Purple, 

I don't know about calcium supplements not being effective, but a recent study found that people taking calcium supplements were much more likely to have a heart attack. Seems like medical advice is always changing, with what was once recommended later being found to be detrimental. It's really frustrating. Here's the link: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/taking-calcium-may-pose-heart-risks/ 

purple32

Thx juniper...twice as likely to have  a heart attack? 

 YUKK!

BikerLee

The advice I have received is that we should be taking calcium in divided doses and with food and our TOTAL calcium (food plus supplements) should add up to 1500 mg per day.  I take a calcium that is only 250 mg per dose, and it includes vitamin d and magnesium.  I take this about twice per day...

So, I feel like this information is sorely lacking. The reporting is terrible as well -it does not provide us with useful information.  I seriously doubt that we should all throw out our supplements just like that. 

I think I need to read the studies.

How much calcium were these women taking?  Were they taking a full 1200 or 1500 per day in supplements? Were they taking vitamin d?  What kinds of foods were they eating?
I agree - it's frustrating to figure all of this out!  We end up with more questions everytime someone seems to come up with one answer.  Sigh.
 
Ok - I just turned to google scholar: (calcium supplement heart attack)

Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis (2010)
 
Conclusions Calcium supplements (without coadministered vitamin D) are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. As calcium supplements are widely used these modest increases in risk of cardiovascular disease might translate into a large burden of disease in the population. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in the management of osteoporosis is warranted.

The calcium scare—what would Austin Bradford Hill have thought? (2011)

Conclusion 
Present evidence that calcium supplementation increases heart attacks is too weak to justify a change in prescribing habits.

Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D and risk of cardiovascular events: reanalysis of the Women’s Health Initiative limited access dataset and meta-analysis (2011)

In this one, the participants were taking 1000 mg of calcium with or without 400 iu vitamin D.
In this one, they also explicitly state that taking less than or equal to 500 per day might be similar to taking more than or equal to 1000 per day.... 

Conclusions Calcium supplements with or without vitamin D modestly increase the risk of cardiovascular events, especially myocardial infarction, a finding obscured in the WHI CaD Study by the widespread use of personal calcium supplements. A reassessment of the role of calcium supplements in osteoporosis management is warranted.

My conclusion:  we have no clue yet.  I have read studies that point to fewer fractures in people using calcium supplements...  And now I have read studies that point to more heart attacks in people using calcium supplements ("modest" increase in risk). 

This all seems so similar to hormone replacement therapy, in a way.  

At the end of the day, I have no clue what I should do.  Should I continue taking my small divided doses of calcium?  Or not?  

Guess I'll be firing off yet another email to my onc.  I'll report back with his answer.  He's one of the lead people on the clinical trial I participated in.  So, maybe he'll have a good and up-to-date answer...

Hope everyone has a peaceful day,

Lee

julz4

Thanks Lee! I will be interested in what the Onc says to you. I have been taking calcium + D for about 4-5 years now. But I was just DX with BC. I have high BP & have had high Cholesterol since I was 26 at my first testing. I have been on Lipitor & BP meds for 9 years now. I am only 45. I have a strong heart attack & stroke family History. I try to incorperate low fat milk products everyday in conjunction with supplements. This is a very interesting development. Especially since I will be having RADS on the left side & possible other meds that can cause other heart problems. It seems like a Damned if you Do & Don't situation!!! Thanks for the info so far!

voraciousreader

 Here's what I said on another thread about the issue:

My take on the current study regarding calcium is similar to my take on last week's announcement that one of the proposed meds that was designed to raise the good cholesterol was a bust at reducing mortality.  My humble opinion is that many people are under the mistaken belief that if you include in your diet, a pill, whether it be a medication, vitamin or supplement, you are PROBABLY improving your mortality.  Instead, I firmly believe that Mother Nature canNOT be deceived.  Likewise, I think that researchers are beginning to understand that maybe cholesterol numbers per se, are NOT the driving force behind WHY statins work at reducing cardiac deaths.

Unless someone has a documented metabolic deficiency (which the DH has, a genetic metabolic muscular dystrophy), I think supplementing our diets is not helpful at this time, and as the calcium study suggests, can potentially be downright dangerous. Wasn't it a few months ago that researchers said that people who took mult-vitamins died sooner than folks who didn't???

Furthermore.....If anyone is interested in understanding how how those bone building drugs work...should read Chapter 13 of Harvard trained physician and professor John Abramson's book, Overdosed America:

"In 1995, Fosamax, the brand name for alendronate, was the first of the new generation of drugs approved by the FDA for the treatment of osteoporosis. Fosamax works by attaching itself to the surface of bone, interposed between the osteoclasts and the bone the osteoclasts are trying to absorb. Randomized clinical trials of Fosamax published in medical journals show dramatic reductions in the relative risk of hip fracture for women with osteoporosis. In a study published in JAMA in 1998, for example, women with an average age of 68 and a T score of - 2.5 or less who took Fosamax for four years were 56 percent less likely to suffer a hip fracture than women in the control group.

This sounds like very good news for women with osteoporosis, but how many hip fractures were really prevented? With no drug therapy at all, women with osteoporosis had a 99.5 percent chance of making it through each year without a hip fracture -- pretty good odds. With drug therapy, their odds improved to 99.8 percent. In other words, taking the drugs decreased their risk of hip fracture from 0.5 percent per year to 0.2 percent per year. This tiny decrease in absolute risk translates into the study's reported 56 percent reduction in relative risk. The bottom line is that 81 women with osteoporosis have to take Fosamax for 4.2 years, at a cost of more than $300,000, to prevent one hip fracture. (This benefit does not include a reduction of less serious fractures, including wrist and vertebral fractures. Most vertebral fractures cause no symptoms.)

[. . . ]

What about using these drugs to prevent osteoporosis? Fosamax and Actonel were approved by the FDA to treat women with osteopenia based on studies that showed that they significantly increase the bone density of these women. It is important to remember, however, that bone density is only a surrogate end point; the real reason for taking these drugs is to reduce fractures, and hip fractures in particular. The study of Fosamax published in JAMA in 1998 (mentioned earlier) also included women with osteopenia. Did Fosamax reduce their risk of fracture? The results show that the risk of hip fractures actually went up 84 percent with Fosamax treatment.* The risk of wrist fractures increased by about 50 percent (that figure may be statistically significant -- but this can't be determined from the data as presented in the article).

How can it be that drugs approved for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis succeed in increasing bone density but have such limited impact on reducing hip fractures? The answer can only inspire awe at Mother Nature's elegance. There are two types of bone. Eighty percent of the body's bone is made up of the hard and dense outer layer called cortical bone. In some areas of the body, bones also have an internal structure of trabecular bone, which works like an organic three-dimensional geodesic dome, providing additional strength in the areas of the skeleton most vulnerable to fracture, such as the hips, wrists, and spine.

The lacelike structure of trabecular bone creates a much greater surface area than the densely packed cortical bone and therefore allows the former to be more metabolically active when the body needs calcium. Its greater metabolic activity also makes trabecular bone more vulnerable than cortical bone to the changed balance between osteoclast and osteoblast activity. As a result, when bone mass starts to decline in women, trabecular bone is lost more quickly than is cortical bone. Once the architecture of these internal struts is lost, there is no structure left onto which calcium can be added. (See Figure 13-1.) The new bone, formed as a result of taking the osteoporosis drugs, is then formed primarily on the outer part of the bone, the cortical bone. This increases the score on the bone density test but does not necessarily contribute proportionately to fracture resistance."

purple32

voraciousreader

I agree with MUCH of what you said, and it is a dillema for me.

RE :  "My humble opinion is that many people are under the mistaken belief that if you include in your diet, a pill, whether it be a medication, vitamin or supplement, you are PROBABLY improving your mortality.  Instead, I firmly believe that Mother Nature .

if that is your premise then it would seem you would not take any meds for your cancer, no ? Where does 1 draw the line?!

peggy_j

FWIW, my understanding is that most MOs are not experts on Calcium, Vit D or bone health. (though perhaps there are some who have the extra focus too). Obviously, they may have an opinion, but endocrinologists (esp. the rare ones that focus on bone health) are genereally considered the experts in that field. Just an FYI, that if this is a serious concern, you may want to ask for a referral.

purple32 wrote:

A good friend of mine told me that she just heard on the news, a few nights ago that ALL CA. supplements have been determined to be useless and might as well be discarded ! She also said there was " some" SE! What ? Kidney stones or more ? She did not recall (Aaaargh!)

It sounds like your friend was only half-listening to the news report. Glad you checked in here to get info. (FWIW, I have friends like this too, who bring alarming news but aren't so great at remembering the details. It feels scary, and I've learned to take their info with a grain of salt.) The actual news is what other have said above.  FWIW, there are some supplements (like VIT C) that you can take to excess and they will pass through you. Many do not. Calcium definitely does not, so taking too much calcium can lead to problems. (too little can lead to problems too. So it's a balance). Good luck!

purple32

Thanks peggy.

My friend actually admitted that she wasn't sure what the problem  was so she didnt alarm me- just concerned me . THEN, I checked online (not here ) and got  a link to foxnews which actually did say the standard CA dose ( not excess) was linked to  a high risk of heart problems.

 In any case, I am seeing my endo dr. at 9 am tomorrow .

 With thinning bones  and having had the 3 breaks, all of this is quite concerning since fosomax and actonel have known ' issues' as well.  We'll see what the dr. says.

Craftylass

I am receiving treatment in Hong Kong (but transferring to the States next week) and the medical system is a bit different there.  My doctor is a surgical oncologist, as well as a highly respected researcher (over 100 peer-reviewed international publications).  His approach is somewhat of a blend of western pharmaceutical meds (dominant in his research and the differences between Asian and Caucasian reactions/response) and traditional Chinese meds.

On my last trip, I asked him about bone strength as I definitely want to avoid Fisomax (or whatever that drug is called).  His recommendations are: 

Vitamin D (get outside!) in controlled doses.  (No megadoses) 

Calcium (via food!) in controlled doses.  No megadoses. 

EXERCISE!  10-minute jump rope routine per day.  Walking.  Make the bones work. 

Make your own soup broths by boiling bones.  Western society has gotten into the habit of buying pre-made stock (or we don't make our own soups at all) so a lot could be said for this. 

I'm sure there's more . . . and I'll study more as I get past this current stage of treatment.  However, hopefully, these will help. 

Craftylass

purple32

Thank you, craftylass

As for "EXERCISE!  10-minute jump rope routine per day.  Walking.  Make the bones work. "

Some of us who have thin bones find high impact exercise difficult - or even dangrous. Jump rope would not be possible for me.

Some of the foods with higher calcium <like cow's milk> are  not a good idea  for ER PR positives so it can be a  challenge to find safer alternatives that you wouldn't have to eat in excess in order to get a good amt.

Never thought about getting CA from making soup broth though!
Thanks very much!

leggo

I've been following this thread and all the other threads about calcium with interest due to my recent experience with plasma exchange. One of the side-effects of this procedure is a sudden drop in calcium level. While it was going on, my heart rate and blood pressure were closely monitored. As soon as my BP went down and heart-rate went up, I had to chew on Tums, but they were only offered one at a time in 15 minute intervals. When I asked the doctor why I couldn't just munch on a few at a time, because I always thought a little extra calcium was a good thing, he said that getting the calcium level "just right" was extremely important. Too much, I'd have a heart attack in the chair...too little, I'd pass out from low blood pressure. We continued our conversation about calcium throughout the day (long day) and when I mentioned my onc has always "pushed" calcium supplements because of bone mets, he really thought that might not be the best idea. Odd how some doctors are aware of the dangers of high calcium levels and others don't think it's a big deal. Food for thought.

Ed sp

purple32

Good info gracie

THX for sharing.

julz4

Thanks Gracie! Definite food fir thought!

SelenaWolf

Yes, I just read something in today's local paper that said taking Vitamin D3 in doses higher than 400 iu/day increases your risk of developing kidney stones quite significantly.

Blessings2011

I have osteopenia, and my MO has mentioned putting me on Fosamax when I start Arimidex in the fall.

I keep having these visions of a hard exoskeleton being built up around the crumbly inner bone structure, and the snapping sound of my femur breaking when I step off a curb.

Believe me, I am VERY interested in the best way to preserve bone health that does not mean using drugs that will be plastered all over the 6:00 news in years to come!

purple32

CA related to BC??

This is worrisome!

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/30/calcium-supplement-on-heart-attack.aspx

peggy_j

Purple, have you had a chance to read the research that article quotes? I skimmed them and most speak of an association, which is different than cause-and-effect. (I.e. There's an association between carrying a pack of matches in your pocket and getting lung cancer but it's not the matches that cause cancer but the cigs you lit with the matches). I read the abstract of one of the research reports and the conclusion is that researchers suspect that exposure to higher levels of estrogen increase BMD and risk of BC.

purple32

Yes, peggy

I appreciate your clarification, but wih BC, even ' associations' are something to consider.  (not panic about)

I am still popping CA. but not as much. I am getting more from food and INCR+ my D3.

vacationbound

One word! STRONTIUM! Prescribed in over 60 countries worldwide but not here in the USA!!! Things that make you go HMMMM