Bone Loss

Options
2»

Comments

  • cycle-path
    cycle-path Member Posts: 1,502
    edited December 2011

    LOL, dlb! 

    Regarding exercises to build up bone -- you can google "osteopenia exercise" or "exercise bone density" and find lots of suggestions for exercises to do. If you're a person who's good about doing exercises, this can be a really good way to deal with thinning bones. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LtotheK
    LtotheK Member Posts: 2,095
    edited December 2011

    Strontium has been discussed at length on these boards, search for a wealth of information.

    After much research and discussion, I'm not convinced strontium is the answer.  Lots of mixed reports on it.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • otter
    otter Member Posts: 6,099
    edited December 2011

    The earlier discussion about radiation exposure from a DEXA bone density scan got me curious, so I did some googling...  I've always understood that it was pretty low; but it turns out that it's really low.  Here is some data from a "radiology information" website (http://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/safety/index.cfm?pg=sfty_xray).

    First, everybody on the planet Earth gets a certain amount of radiation exposure from "natural" sources every day.  The two main "natural" sources are cosmic radiation and radiation from the Earth itself (mostly from radon).  The amount of exposure from those two sources depends hugely on where and how we live:  high on a Peruvian mountaintop in a tent, or at sea level in a concrete block building, or in a below-ground house in central Kansas, etc.

    On average, people get 3.1 mSv (milliSieverts) of radiation exposure per year from natural sources.  Roughly 2/3 of that is from soil, rocks, etc. (radon) and 1/3 comes from cosmic sources.  So, on a daily basis, that would be 3.1 ÷ 365 = 0.0085 mSv per day.

    Each coast-to-coast round-trip flight we take on a commercial alrliner adds another 0.03 mSv to the total. I have no idea exactly how much is added each time we stand in one of those TSA whole-body X-ray scanners, because they really won't tell us the numbers.  Most of that radiation is to our skin, eyes, and other organs that aren't buried very deeply.

    So, how about medical sources?  The website I cited above has a long list.  Here are a few examples, including a DEXA bone density scan:

    abdominal CT        15 mSv
    spinal X-ray        1.5 mSv
    mammogram        0.4 mSv
    chest X-ray        0.1 mSv
    dental X-ray        0.005 mSv
    DEXA scan        0.001 mSv

    I am considering those numbers as "general" because they probably don't take into account the fact that each time we have a medical X-ray, the tech will do multiple views.   Anyway, it looks to me like the exposure from a DEXA bone density scan is pretty minimal.  Somebody pointed out that it must be, because the tech is allowed to stay in the room instead of hiding behind a lead-lined wall.

    I know the O.P. asked about human growth hormone.  IMHO, it would be a really bad idea for someone with a history of cancer to take HGH.... but I have no data to support my opinion.  :)

    otter

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • debbie6122
    debbie6122 Member Posts: 5,161
    edited December 2011

    Otter- That is really interesting, i always wondered how much i was getting when i was having certain test done, it makes me feel a lot better jsut seeing the numbers. Thanks for posting!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Nordy
    Nordy Member Posts: 2,106
    edited December 2011
    Boo hiss for prunes being questionable!!! LOL - on the other hand, my family will be glad to hear that I may be decreasing my intake! LOL  So... here I am on the food dilemma/debate again. We go through this all the time at my house. Conflicting studies/reports all make nutrition very hard. Who do  you believe? Who has an agenda? It is not just the prunes. There are conflicting theories on whether or not milk really does do a body good. Watch the movie "Forks over Knives" to really get you contemplating on whether the diet you are eating and feeding your family is the one you should be. I can't stand it... when I look at a study I always have to think, "Who is benefitting from the results of this study? Does the company that sponsored the study have an agenda or are they able to make money from this particular study?" We go back and forth at our house trying to find the healthiest possible ways to feed our family. We have finally come to a few conclusions: 1. A "whole" food diet is best (unprocessed foods - whole wheat flour, fruits and veggies, beans and grains). 2. Eat less meat and animal based foods  3. Eat little to no processed foods  4. Keep refined sugar to a minimum  (this does not include honey, agave nectar or molasses)  5. If we are going to drink milk - it is organic coming from a reputable company (check out www.cornucopia.org) and always "whole" milk rather than skim (in addition to the extra processing, this has to do with the fat to protein ratio that makes skim milk a very unbalanced food).    It is so crazy - I take my daughter for her check up and they always want to make sure she is getting enough dairy... I try to be a good mom and make sure they get the nutrients they need... but everything is conflicting. I always say, "I am damned if I do and damned if I don't!!!" SO... therefore, I think most things in moderation and I think this with the prunes too. I am not going to stop eating them - but maybe 5 a day instead of the 10 they recommended! I personally don't think any the whole/natural foods are cancer causing. NOW, if you start adding in all the crap they use to grow them (different fertilizers and pesticides) and preserve them... that is a different story and one that really gets me worked up!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LtotheK
    LtotheK Member Posts: 2,095
    edited December 2011

    Nordy, I think there's pretty extensive information on milk, I knew long before BC that it was both estrogenic, and in cow form, pretty indigestible.  It is also considered by many to be a poor source of useable calcium, the leafy greens being better.  My latest go to:  chia seeds!  Very high in calcium.

    I agree, though, it really does feel like darned if you do, darned if you don't, eh?

    Whole grains are great.  Don't eat them within an hour of taking your calcium, they bind it and render it unusable. 

    Here's another classic "darned if":  high protein is excellent for rebuilding after chemo or surgery.  High protein is also discouraged for prevention of osteoporosis.

    (Aside:  in a classic "darned if":  my doctor told me to keep my weight down for ER+ tumors.  Then, when I was diagnosed with osteo, turns out being under 132 is a risk factor.  Riddle me that one.) 

    According to my naturopath, honey's glycemic index is high--if you are cutting sugar, cut honey, too.

    Try goat milk instead of cow milk.  It is supposed to be much more bioavailable to humans.

    The issue with foods being potentially cancer causing...I was working with a naturopath during my treatment.  Some of the supplements were starting to be understood as cancer protectors as well as immuno-builders.  That's exactly what is being said about prunes, though I don't remember the ingredient in question.

    Do I think foods can be cancer causing?  Sure, just like just about everything else can be, after all, the body is on a mission to break down.  My takeaway is, if I'm going to do it daily, it's gotta be pretty rock-solid on the evidence.  Which is why I decided NOT to take any supplements that hadn't been studied extensively with breast cancer (one oncologist also recommended not taking anything over the 100% RDA, because they will never know the interactions of these supplements with Tamoxifen or AIs).  I take fish oil, D, and calcium (for bones) and have ditched all the fancy stuff from the naturopath.  Glad I did:  turns out a lot of the ingredients in them were being called into question in cancer.  Like folic acid.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • debbie6122
    debbie6122 Member Posts: 5,161
    edited December 2011

    Ok, all this information is great, some i knew about, but quite a bit that the last two posters posted ( Nordy and ltothek) i did not know about, it is all useful information, but quite honestly it makes me frustrated too, not knowing who to belive anymore, in a month or so we will find out what we thought was correct to be changed again! I think the key word here that you mentioned was MODERATION!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Nordy
    Nordy Member Posts: 2,106
    edited December 2011

    I want to write more in a minute - but just putting my plug in for honey - high glycemic index aside, it has many beneficial properties including being naturally antibacterial. However, it is extremely important that you know where your honey is coming from. The states has had tainted honey come from China - which they get around by shipping it through one of the Indonesian countries. Again - darned if you do, darned if you don't. If you utilize honey, look for a local bee keeper. You will be a so much better off! Okay, got to get moving on getting Christmas presents and cards sent... I am a procrastinator... Will write more later!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • termite
    termite Member Posts: 241
    edited April 2012

    LtotheK--thanks for the information. I am taking my first fosomas tomorrow. I have heard such bad things about it, it is good to hear you are doing okay on it. I talked with a PA the other day and she agreed with my other ongcolist. She stated I would be more likely to have a spin fracture than I would to be to having bad SE from the medication.

    Termite 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hawaiik
    hawaiik Member Posts: 69
    edited April 2012

    I've heard of it and was wondering about strontium citrate also. I'll have to do some research.mthanks for the tip!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • purple32
    purple32 Member Posts: 3,188
    edited June 2012

    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hawaiik
    hawaiik Member Posts: 69
    edited June 2012

    Hi Purple32,

    Go to this link to read the newest study. This isnt the first study in the last few years to suggest taking Calcium supplements can be risky, especially for more mature women. Eat your Calcium in your food, its safer.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120523200752.htm 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • purple32
    purple32 Member Posts: 3,188
    edited June 2012

    Hi hawaaik

    Tough to eat CA in food and really get enough when ER PR +.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories