Recent Summary

[RStevrock]

I was tested again a week or so ago and have new numbers. This is my 3rd test.
I wonder if someone could help interpret a little. I am 60 years old
Forearm - 3 years ago 0.716 Now 0.723 ( I think that one is ok)
Lumbar spine - 3 years ago 0.808 Now 0.828
Right hip 3 years ago Neck 0.794 Now 0.812 Troch 3 years ago
0.722 Now 0.688
Inter 3 years ago 1.144 Now 1.105

BMD totoal 3 years ago 0.952 Now
0.927
BMD Ward 3 years ago 0.740 now 0.761

This was part of about 6-8 pages. He wrote that Comparison of the data with
that of 2 years ago reveals a cumulative -2.6% decline in bone density right
total hip, + 2.5% increase lumbar vertebrae, no significant change distal
forearm.

I think that maybe I have improved. I will still be taking 5 mg of Fosamax
daily or the equivalent once a week. It looks like whatever I have been doing
still has not had a good effect on my hip. I'm curious that the lumbar spine
could improve, without my hip improving. To the best of my ability whenever I
garden or lift, I use my legs, not spine. I had been worried that my spine
would not improve, but my hip would. It is just the opposite. In gardening
whenever I work with something heavy, I seldom ever lower or lift much withl a
weight. I will carry a bag of dirt, then drop it. I always try to keep my
back stiff. I will lift something up to the top of my legs, stop then
straighten my back. I have thought that my spine had not gotten much help.
I'd appreciate any input. I exercised my right to have this report and
don't understand it except for a little bit.
Sammy

[Beach Runner@nospam.com]

Your differences are hardly significant. I doubt you have changed your diet
significantly
and are getting enough rigorous exercise. Gardening isn't going to do it. Hard
work is. it will
also might help prevent diabetes and heart disease.

RStevrock wrote:

> I was tested again a week or so ago and have new numbers. This is my 3rd test.
> I wonder if someone could help interpret a little. I am 60 years old
> Forearm - 3 years ago 0.716 Now 0.723 ( I think that one is ok)
> Lumbar spine - 3 years ago 0.808 Now 0.828
> Right hip 3 years ago Neck 0.794 Now 0.812 Troch 3 years ago
> 0.722 Now 0.688
> Inter 3 years ago 1.144 Now 1.105
>
> BMD totoal 3 years ago 0.952 Now
> 0.927
> BMD Ward 3 years ago 0.740 now 0.761
>
> This was part of about 6-8 pages. He wrote that Comparison of the data with
> that of 2 years ago reveals a cumulative -2.6% decline in bone density right
> total hip, + 2.5% increase lumbar vertebrae, no significant change distal
> forearm.
>
> I think that maybe I have improved. I will still be taking 5 mg of Fosamax
> daily or the equivalent once a week. It looks like whatever I have been doing
> still has not had a good effect on my hip. I'm curious that the lumbar spine
> could improve, without my hip improving. To the best of my ability whenever I
> garden or lift, I use my legs, not spine. I had been worried that my spine
> would not improve, but my hip would. It is just the opposite. In gardening
> whenever I work with something heavy, I seldom ever lower or lift much withl a
> weight. I will carry a bag of dirt, then drop it. I always try to keep my
> back stiff. I will lift something up to the top of my legs, stop then
> straighten my back. I have thought that my spine had not gotten much help.
> I'd appreciate any input. I exercised my right to have this report and
> don't understand it except for a little bit.
> Sammy

[Beach Runner@nospam.com]

Clinically, you are correct, a Z score of -2.5 is the cutoff point. I went from
-2.5 to -2.0 in a year, and my hips from -1.8 to -1.2.

Same machine, same technician.

Bob

RStevrock wrote:

> >Your differences are hardly significant. I doubt you have changed your diet
> >significantly
> >and are getting enough rigorous exercise.
>
> But does anyone know what is the cut off for Osteopenia? I know that
> Osteoporosis starts at -.25, I think it does at least. But what is the first
> number that starts Osteopenia?
> Sammy

[bj]

"RStevrock" <rstevrock@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030802192605.20186.00000881@mb-m29.aol.com...
>
> But does anyone know what is the cut off for Osteopenia?

normal: above -1.0
osteopenia: -1.0 to -2.49
osteoporosis: -2.5 or lower.
bj

[Tom Warner]

<Beach> wrote:

> Osteoporosis is reversible,

Do you know anyone who's gone from -3.5 to -1?

--
My ol' grandaddy taught me to always;
post in plain text,
quote only that portion to which you are replying,
post replies at the bottom.

[Tom Warner]

<Beach> wrote:

> Osteoporosis is reversible

In the sense that bone loss can be halted and some small amount of bone
density increase may be experienced.

All the best,
Tom
--
My ol' grandaddy taught me to always;
post in plain text,
quote only that portion to which you are replying,
post replies at the bottom.

[TonyB]

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:w_ZWa.3198$602.895@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> "RStevrock" <rstevrock@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030802192605.20186.00000881@mb-m29.aol.com...
> >
> > But does anyone know what is the cut off for Osteopenia?
>
> normal: above -1.0
> osteopenia: -1.0 to -2.49
> osteoporosis: -2.5 or lower.
> bj


BJ is right but you should look at T-scores not Z-scores. The Z compares you
to people of your own age but you need to know if you have declined compared
to a younger person. T-score is therefore much more important.
BJ is referring to T-scores - I hope!
TonyB
>
>
>