Protecting bones with calcium and vitamin D supplements is pointless, but ONLY if you follow government guidelines

In the Zone

I can’t think of anything more absurd than a drug that increases risk of the condition it’s supposed to prevent.

In this case, I’m talking about osteoporosis drugs that increase fracture risk over the long-term.

But there is ONE thing that’s more absurd. Giving these drugs to women with healthy bones takes this absurdity into The Twilight Zone. And beyond. Even Rod Serling would find it too bizarre.

As I mentioned last week, the FDA believes that women at low risk of fracture might be “good candidates” to stop using the drugs after a few years.

Riiight. Well I’ve got a tip for the FDA… A woman with low fracture risk is a good candidate to completely avoid these drugs!

But that’s what happens when government bureaucrats meddle in health care. Up is down. Down is up.

So… What do you suppose the government position might be on the topic of two essential supplements for bone health?

It’s just too predictable.

No quick fix

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says Recommended Daily Allowance levels of calcium and vitamin D do not prevent bone fractures in older women.

But we know all about RDA levels. They’re set ridiculously low. So no one should be surprised when paltry doses produce no benefits.

Also, according to USPSTF, a paltry dose of calcium might ever so slightly increase risk of kidney stones. So (their logic goes) the “risk” is reason enough to stop taking the supplement altogether. (Too bad they can’t seem to apply that logic to prescription drugs.)

Now… Let’s get real.

Dr. Spreen isn’t surprised that this advice from government experts is highly simplistic… “Especially when it’s about supplements, since they know nothing about them, anyway.”

They’re probably right about the calcium being useless at the RDA dose. But for Dr. Spreen, that dose is just part of the problem. There’s also the FORM of the calcium to consider.

Dr. Spreen: “Calcium carbonate (specifically mentioned), is about as poorly absorbed as any form of calcium on the market. So it probably is a waste of time. Calcium citrate is better.

“Also, humans don’t find calcium in nature without magnesium. I give calcium 2:1 with magnesium.

“Next, 400 IU of vitamin D is pretty much useless. So they’re right again. I start at 5,000 IU of D-3. That’s pretty much a different ballpark altogether. And for the elderly, that probably isn’t enough. (They need blood level testing to determine dose.)”

But here’s the catch. Dr. Spreen notes that even at higher doses, calcium, magnesium, and vitamin D can’t do the job alone. Here’s his list of additional nutrients needed to help aging bones stay healthy…

* Manganese
* Boron
* Silica
* Molybdenum
* Strontium
* Zinc
* Copper
* Vitamin K
* Vitamin C
* Hydrochloric acid

Note that this list is for everyone. For some post-menopausal women, he also includes natural progesterone.

And… “Then, you add some exercise, so the bones have a reason to re-mineralize.”

Obviously, this isn’t a simple fix. Dr. Spreen recognizes that. He knows that’s why most doctors and patients are inclined to keep it simple and take an osteoporosis drug. Clearly, that’s not the route he would ever recommend. But he would “at least” hope that seniors take a good multi-vitamin, a good multi-mineral, and high-dose vitamin D.

And finally… What about that kidney stone risk?

Dr. Spreen simply dismisses it. “Yes, some (not all) kidney stones contain calcium. But that doesn’t explain why it’s laid down improperly in one person, and not in another who’s taking even more calcium. Besides, if you add magnesium, the risk goes down.”

And that is my RDA…Recommended Dose of Allan — Dr. Allan Spreen, that is.

Sources:
“USPSTF Says No to Vitamin D, Calcium for Older Women” John Gever, ABC News, 6/13/12, abcnews.go.com

“Healthy Women Advised Not to Take Calcium and Vitamin D to Prevent Fractures” Gina Kolata, New York Times, 6/12/12, nytimes.com