Mom is WORSE after year on Actonel???

[John Ross]

My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:

Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
Spine: -3.7

So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
These are the results:

Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
Spine: -3.9

So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
Actonel still prevents fractures?

Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
looks and acts much younger).

John

[RStevrock]

>My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
>stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follow

I am 61 and got off of HRT a year ago. In my opinion if I were 79, I would
consider getting back on it. I got off of it just to be safe, but the
statistics are not as bad as the press makes them sound. (in my opinion) I'm
not sure that the Actonel can balance the having stopped the hormones. Others
will have better answers I am sure.
Good for Mom to be active at that age! She is fortunate to have you as
concerned about her as you are. I cannot really comment on those numbers like
others can.
Sammy

[Art S]

"John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb38ee55.0309150132.107e591e@posting.google.c om...
> My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
>
> Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> Spine: -3.7
>
> So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> These are the results:
>
> Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> Spine: -3.9
>
> So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
> Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
> that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
> Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
> Actonel still prevents fractures?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
> thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
> told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
> that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
> believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
> very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
> stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
> lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
> looks and acts much younger).
>
> John

Several comments:

1) In ideal circumstances, a DEXA has something like a 3% standard
error. In the last year she could have done anything from lost 6%
(if last year's scan was low and this year's high) to gained 6% (if
the reverse happened). Note that ideal circumstances include same
machine and same operator.
2) Has she been getting sufficient calcium, vitamin-d, etc?
3) Has she changed her routine to include weight-bearing exercises?
Neither a stationary bike nor a treadmill will do much (the bike holds
her weight, so it doesn't do anything, and the treadmill is designed to
absorb the impact of people's steps, so it won't be as much good
as walking). If you can't get her to do weight lifting, have her try
jumping (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8655-2003Sep14.html [you may need
to cut and paste the address])

Art

[Edith]

I too, would have her consider going back to HRT. It has been proven that
even a half dose of HRT can still protect the bones. I am doing a half dose
of Activella each day. I hope this lessens my chance of the problems
associated with HRT but still protects my bones.

Best wishes,
Edith

--
Please Reply to Group
Address is Fake
"John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb38ee55.0309150132.107e591e@posting.google.c om...
> My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
>
> Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> Spine: -3.7
>
> So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> These are the results:
>
> Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> Spine: -3.9
>
> So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
> Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
> that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
> Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
> Actonel still prevents fractures?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
> thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
> told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
> that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
> believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
> very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
> stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
> lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
> looks and acts much younger).
>
> John

[John Ross]

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<Ozj9b.14727$NX3.5357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> My DEXA report cover sheet includes places for them to note the % change and
> whether or not it's "significant", as well as any recommendations that a
> change should be made to maintain or increase bone density.
>
> Do you have copies of the actual reports? or just numbers noted from what
> the doctor told you?
>
When they did the scan, they just gave her a booklet with a graph
where they wrote the numbers and placed a mark on the graph. She has
not been to the doctor yet, I didn't realize his report would include
percent changes and the if it is considered significant.





> Not that your mother made *two* changes in her meds. So you really can't
> tell which to "blame". Next year *might* be more revealing as to whether the
> Actonel is doing any good.
>
> It's a real bummer when you get back test results so different from what you
> expected (BTDTGTTS). Maybe your mother can take out that hissy-fit on the
> exercise equipment! I work out temper-tantrums on walks & runs, it can
> certainly add some "oomph" to my sessions.
> bj
>
> "John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eb38ee55.0309150132.107e591e@posting.google.c om...
> > My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> > stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
> >
> > Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> > Spine: -3.7
> >
> > So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> > She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> > These are the results:
> >
> > Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> > Spine: -3.9
> >
> > So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
> > Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
> > that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
> > Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
> > Actonel still prevents fractures?
> >
> > Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
> > thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
> > told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
> > that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
> > believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
> > very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
> > stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
> > lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
> > looks and acts much younger).
> >
> > John

[John Ross]

Cylise <cyli@visi.com> wrote in message news:<gf6cmv0f5qimen3u77gdn9eenefp5fv0a2@4ax.com>...
> On 15 Sep 2003 02:32:29 -0700, pdr3535@yahoo.com (John Ross) wrote:
>
> >My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> >stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
> >
> >Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> >Spine: -3.7
> >
> >So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> >She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> >These are the results:
> >
> >Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> >Spine: -3.9
> >
> You'll have to research the med papers on it yourself, but there are a
> lot of papers on the Web. Medpulse is good. I've only researched
> Fosamax much and that just to be sure I wasn't taking something
> useless. I look again every so often as there seems to be some
> wondering if the greater amount of bone is as strong as bone without
> the med. I'm going with the flow and staying on Fosamax, but keeping
> an eye out.
>
> One wonders what the scores would have been if she'd _not_ taken the
> meds.

As I recall when reading the package insert, it only refers to the
reduction in fractures, not necessarily the bone density scores. I
could be wrong, but in your research on Foxamax is there any
indication that there is something more going on that just building
the bone (i.e. the score stays the same but you increase you
protection against fracture anyway).

[Art S]

"John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb38ee55.0309160044.50898aff@posting.google.c om...
> "Art S" <TheDabbler01@att.net> wrote in message
news:<jCk9b.139831$0v4.10302579@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > Several comments:
> >
> > 1) In ideal circumstances, a DEXA has something like a 3% standard
> > error. In the last year she could have done anything from lost 6%
> > (if last year's scan was low and this year's high) to gained 6% (if
> > the reverse happened). Note that ideal circumstances include same
> > machine and same operator.
>
> That seems like a high error rate considering the small numbers
> involved. She went to the same facility but I have no idea if it was
> the same machine, and it probably was not the same operator.
>

If it was the same facility there is a high likelyhood (though not
guaranteed) that it was the same machine and operator. If you can
get your hands on the results, both will be listed.

> > 3) Has she changed her routine to include weight-bearing exercises?
> > Neither a stationary bike nor a treadmill will do much (the bike holds
> > her weight, so it doesn't do anything, and the treadmill is designed to
> > absorb the impact of people's steps, so it won't be as much good
> > as walking). If you can't get her to do weight lifting, have her try
> > jumping (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8655-2003Sep14.html [you may
need
> > to cut and paste the address])
>
> She used to just ride the bike. I actually encouraged her to start
> doing the treadmill also since I consider that to be weight bearing.

To some degree it is. The worse her condition, the more it will
qualify as weight bearing. Walking on dirt, lawn, etc. would
probably be better than the treadmill since treadmills are designed
to absorb the impact from people running (so they are less likely
to injure themselves). But walking on the treadmill beats doing neither.

> When you say "weight lifting" what do you mean? How could you do
> weight lifting that would affect the spine or the hips? She has shown
> interest in using a real light weight barbell to do say a bicep
> curl--but does doing bicep and tricep weight training count? I'm a
> little confused on this aspect of it.
>

The basic goal is to do something that will microscopically compress
the bones. (That is the signal resulting in the bones increasing in
density). Compression can happen in one of two ways: from impact
(downward momentum stopping while walking, jogging, running, jumping)
or from a weight compressing the body (think about a weight being
supported by your shoulders. You squat down. When you stop
going down, there is a fraction of a second when your body is resisting
the momentum of the weight going down. You then stand up. When
you stop straightening up, the weight continues for a fraction of a
second (depending on how quickly you stood up) and then is pulled
back down by gravity and your body again is resisting the weight.) In
addition, each muscle is (greatly simplifying it) attached to two bones.
When the muscle is contracted, the bones will move closer to each
other and the portion of the bone between the two ends of the muscle
will compress.

While there are a lot of exercises that can load the skeleton (including
the spine), I hesitate to recommend anything specific because a) I'm
not a doctor (let alone her doctor), and b) the DEXA for her spine
was -3.7 and I don't know how to translate that to how much weight
she can support without causing a compression fracture.

Some general rules of thumb:
1) have her start slowly - muscle grows faster than tendons and
ligaments, which grow faster than bone. Give them all adequate
time to grow.
2) look for a good over-all routine (for her entire body). There are
a lot of exercises that can be done for any given muscle, so make the
final selection based on how much of the skeleton will be stressed
by the exercise. (This will tend to result in compound exercises over
isolation exercises, and standing over sitting, since then the legs are
involved.)
3) an additional advantage of using compound exercises is that they
use more stabilizing muscles, so the amount of weight that can be
lifted tends to be lower than with isolation exercises. This, in turn,
gives the ligaments, tendons, and bones an easier time keeping up
with the additional load.
4) there are several (potential) advantages of using free wieghts over
machines: a) more muscles are involved (for stabilization), so the
increase in how much weight can be lifted is slower (see #3); b) many
people (especially short or tall people) find that machines can't be
adjusted properly for their body - most machines are sized for the
average male. This isn't a problem with free weights. c) you know
how much you are lifting so you can go to any gym and not need to
change your routine (almost all machines provide some type of
mechanical advantage. 10 lbs on one machine can be three times
as hard as 10 lbs on another manufacturer's machine). The primary
disadvantage is that it is harder to learn proper form. I have injured
myself with both free weights and machines.
5) if you get a trainer (to show her how to do the new exercises), he
(or she) is almost guaranteed to run if you say the goal is to "build
bone" This is how I get rid of trainers that try to persuade me to hire
them. Depending on how far they take it, the conversation goes
something like:

trainer: Hi, I'm Joe. I'm a trainer here, and thought you might want
to get more benefit for your time here. Do you?
me: Of course.
trainer: What is your primary goal?
me: to build bone.
trainer: huh?
me: I was diagnosed with Osteoporosis, and told to do weight
bearing exercises to build my bone.
trainer: what happens if you don't?
me: eventually, I'll start getting fractures and broken bones.
trainer: how do you know when you are reaching your bone's limit?
me: you don't. Your bones don't have any nerves, so you don't
get any warning.
trainer: really?
me: yup. They just break.
trainer: Oh.
<trainer wanders off, not wanting any part of a client who can get a
broken bone without any warning>

Instead, tell them she wants to gain muscle. If you keep the above
constraints in mind, you'll get where you want to go.

Having said that, here are a couple web sites to peruse:
http://www.stumptuous.com/weights.html
http://www.exrx.net/Exercise.html (click on one of the exercise maps)
http://groups.google.com/advanced_group_search?hl=en


> BTW, how often are these bone scans recommended? Her doctor didn't
> even think it was necessary after a year because "you have to keep
> taking the medicine anyway." She had to pretty much demand it.

Depends on the doctor. Bone density normally doesn't change very
quickly, so some doctors order scans every other year and some order
them every year. I have one done every year, figuring that the added
data points will help make up for the potential error in each scan (there
will be more points to identify a trend. I hope.).

> This is
> the kinda stuff from this doctor I have to deal with. He also told her
> when she was asking if he had samples that if he didn't have Actonel
> she could just take the Foxamax for that week and switch back and
> forth with whatever he had on hand at the time! Am I wrong or is that
> nuts?

It sounds strange, but I don't have any idea if it would work or not.

Art

[John]

Again Art is correct. You need to know if the exact same
DXA scanner was
used to begin with. The machines all have a standard
variance so her
scores might well be within those variances to the plus or
minus side
and there is nothing to do about it.

You might also consider this = as we age, we naturally
loose bone density.
The fact that she stayed close indicates to me that the drug
is working.

You make no mention of her taking Calcium and Vitamin D and
both are critical
for bone health, especially for an osteoporotic person.

Exercise might be very hard for an elderly person and what
she does is very
good but some type of strength exercise would be even more
helpful if possible
to do.

As for frequency, i have come to the conclusion that DXA
scans are best done
every two years. ALL of my doctors agree with that - the
changes to the body
are exceedingly slow. I agonized over this and wanted them
earlier but all
the info i have read or been showed has indicated two years
as the best option.

Lastly - is she has not broken anything and is getting
around well then i would
make sure that all tripping hazards are resolved in the home
and then accept what is.
In many cases, osteo is found ONLY after some major
fracture.

John M

John Ross wrote:
>
> My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
>
> Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> Spine: -3.7
>
> So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> These are the results:
>
> Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> Spine: -3.9
>
> So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
> Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
> that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
> Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
> Actonel still prevents fractures?
>
> Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
> thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
> told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
> that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
> believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
> very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
> stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
> lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
> looks and acts much younger).
>
> John

[Beach Runner@nospam.com]

New endocrinologist!


John Ross wrote:

> "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<Ozj9b.14727$NX3.5357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> > My DEXA report cover sheet includes places for them to note the % change and
> > whether or not it's "significant", as well as any recommendations that a
> > change should be made to maintain or increase bone density.
> >
> > Do you have copies of the actual reports? or just numbers noted from what
> > the doctor told you?
> >
> When they did the scan, they just gave her a booklet with a graph
> where they wrote the numbers and placed a mark on the graph. She has
> not been to the doctor yet, I didn't realize his report would include
> percent changes and the if it is considered significant.
>
> > Not that your mother made *two* changes in her meds. So you really can't
> > tell which to "blame". Next year *might* be more revealing as to whether the
> > Actonel is doing any good.
> >
> > It's a real bummer when you get back test results so different from what you
> > expected (BTDTGTTS). Maybe your mother can take out that hissy-fit on the
> > exercise equipment! I work out temper-tantrums on walks & runs, it can
> > certainly add some "oomph" to my sessions.
> > bj
> >
> > "John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:eb38ee55.0309150132.107e591e@posting.google.c om...
> > > My 79 year old mother had her first bone density test a year ago after
> > > stopping estrogen therapy. That test a year ago was as follows:
> > >
> > > Hips: -2.7 and -2.9
> > > Spine: -3.7
> > >
> > > So the doctor started her on Actonel once weekly exactly a year ago.
> > > She then took another bone density test last week (one year later).
> > > These are the results:
> > >
> > > Hips: -2.9 and -3.0
> > > Spine: -3.9
> > >
> > > So the Actonel did not improve the situation at all. Is this common?
> > > Also, with the small(?) changes would that be considered statistically
> > > that she stayed the same? Can it take more than a year to improve?
> > > Finally, even if the scores don't improve, is there evidence that the
> > > Actonel still prevents fractures?
> > >
> > > Any comments would be appreciated. She was so excited to see what she
> > > thought was going to be a big improvement and then this happened. I
> > > told her it was great that she basically stayed the same and maybe
> > > that's all the medicine can do in her case--but I am not sure I really
> > > believe that, I just didn't want her to feel devastated. BTW, she is
> > > very active and goes to the gym 3 times a week and rides the
> > > stationary bicycle and does a little treadmill also. She also walks a
> > > lot since she likes to go shopping (no one believes she is 79--she
> > > looks and acts much younger).
> > >
> > > John

[bj]

Write to the place that did the scan and request a complete copy of her
record. She'll have to sign the request. The provider may have their own
form for this -- call & ask them -- but under HIPAA she's entitled to a copy
of her own medical records.
bj

"John Ross" <pdr3535@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb38ee55.0309160027.25cfd5da@posting.google.c om...
> "bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:<Ozj9b.14727$NX3.5357@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>...
> >
> > Do you have copies of the actual reports? or just numbers noted from
what
> > the doctor told you?
> >
> When they did the scan, they just gave her a booklet with a graph
> where they wrote the numbers and placed a mark on the graph. She has
> not been to the doctor yet, I didn't realize his report would include
> percent changes and the if it is considered significant.
>

[bj]

"John" <n2rdv@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3F67AC32.E99ED4C2@optonline.net...
>
> As for frequency, i have come to the conclusion that DXA scans are best
done every two years. ALL of my doctors agree with that - the changes to the
body are exceedingly slow. I agonized over this and wanted them earlier but
all the info i have read or been showed has indicated two years as the best
option.
>

Interesting.
I was going on the routine post-menopause, every-other-year scan, after a
couple of "stable" scans, when I got thyroid cancer. My orthopedist told me
I should have a scan every year for at least several years.

My first 2 after that were about the same as "before". The 3rd had a notable
change. So now I've started Fosamax.
bj

[Françoise]

Art S wrote:

> If you can't get her to do weight lifting, have her try
> jumping (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8655-2003Sep14.html [you may need
> to cut and paste the address])
>
> Art

At 79, it is not recommended to jump because it can create problems in the articulations. She may end
up worst than before. Exercise with weight is excellent for everyone old or young. I am younger than
her and a few years ago J decided that since jumping was good for osteoporosis, I would try it. I
regretted it I developed pain in my feet and my knees. I went for physiotherapy and she told me that
it is not advisable to jump or jog after a certain age. The cartilages are worn out so they cannot
absorb the shock that is normal on the younger ones. I do weight lifting and a lot of aerobics. I am
fine now.

Françoise.

[Art S]

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:DnQ9b.317$t93.140@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> re: trainers
> It might be useful to have a few sessions with a physical therapist to get
> exercise ideas, learn how to adapt/limit/expand the routine, etc. PTs deal
> with these things all the time.
> bj

True. Many (most?) states don't let PTs "diagnose" - they need a
doctor's prescription with the "diagnosis" (i.e. instruct in exercises
to increase bone density).

Art

[Françoise]

Art,

It is after reading this study that I decide to restart jumping. I got plantar fasciatis and pain in my
knee again.

The article does not tell how many women participated and if all did the jumping independent of their
age.

Miriam E. Nelson, PhD in her book "Strong Women, Strong Bones" writes: " Unfortunately, vertical jumping
is not for everyone. Only premenopausaul owmen who don't have osteoporosis can safely benefit from this
form of exercise." I did not have this book at the time. Pity, I would have prevented both my knees and
foot problems.

I am satisfied with my program of exercise. I increase my T score. I wentfrom -3.1 3 years ago to -2.8
in my spine last year. I do not take any medication for osteoporosis. My hips are fine; no problem
there. I have no fracture.

I have been thinking of a weighted vest. They are expensive. I thought I would make one and use the
weight from my ankle’s weight. I will soon need other ankle’s weights. Mine go to 10 pounds and I have
reached 9.5 pounds. I would be at 10 pounds if I did not have to work on a muscle in my right leg that
is weaker. I was given extra exercises to do for that muscle.

I do not want to take Glucosamine. I am not sure what it will do to the blood sugar. Also I have not
seen a study reviewed by peers saying that it replaces the lost cartilage. Since I do not have pain, and
since as we get older, we have to take medications for one thing or another, why taking more stuffs that
may be detrimental to me in a way or another. I already take calcium, vitamin D magnesium and multi
vitamins.

Françoise


Art S wrote:

> "Françoise" <jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3F67D85F.442DA70A@sympatico.ca...
> Art S wrote:
>
> > If you can't get her to do weight lifting, have her try
> > jumping (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8655-2003Sep14.html [you may need
> > to cut and paste the address])
> >
> > Art
>
> At 79, it is not recommended to jump because it can create problems in the articulations. She may
> end
> up worst than before. Exercise with weight is excellent for everyone old or young. I am younger than
> her and a few years ago J decided that since jumping was good for osteoporosis, I would try it. I
> regretted it I developed pain in my feet and my knees. I went for physiotherapy and she told me that
> it is not advisable to jump or jog after a certain age. The cartilages are worn out so they cannot
> absorb the shock that is normal on the younger ones. I do weight lifting and a lot of aerobics. I am
> fine now.
>
> Françoise.
>
> Whoops - I think I included the wrong URL. Try
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/May00/boneloss.htm
>
> That study refers to several women in their 70's, so this could be a "your
> mileage may vary" type of thing or it could be that you were not jumping
> (well, landing) the same way that they did in the study.
>
> It is certainly something to be aware of.
>
> Oh yes - have you tried taking Glucosamine and Chrondroitin? They
> help many (though not all) people grow more cartilage. Most people
> that it helps know within two or three weeks.
>
> Art

[Art S]

"Françoise" <jackf@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:3F691933.3603E50B@sympatico.ca...
> Art,
>
> It is after reading this study that I decide to restart jumping. I got plantar fasciatis and pain
in my
> knee again.
>
> The article does not tell how many women participated and if all did the jumping independent of
their
> age.
>

The impression I have is that all of the women who were "strong enough" (ankles, etc.) jumped. I
could
easily be wrong, though.

> Miriam E. Nelson, PhD in her book "Strong Women, Strong Bones" writes: " Unfortunately, vertical
jumping
> is not for everyone. Only premenopausaul owmen who don't have osteoporosis can safely benefit from
this
> form of exercise." I did not have this book at the time. Pity, I would have prevented both my
knees and
> foot problems.
>
As you may recall, my opionion of Ms. Nelson is very different from yours. To put it mildly.

> I am satisfied with my program of exercise. I increase my T score. I went from -3.1 3 years ago
to -2.8
> in my spine last year. I do not take any medication for osteoporosis. My hips are fine; no problem
> there. I have no fracture.

Can't argue against that.

>
> I have been thinking of a weighted vest. They are expensive. I thought I would make one and use
the
> weight from my ankle's weight. I will soon need other ankle's weights. Mine go to 10 pounds and I
have
> reached 9.5 pounds. I would be at 10 pounds if I did not have to work on a muscle in my right leg
that
> is weaker. I was given extra exercises to do for that muscle.
>
What is "expensive"? Can you get a day pack and put water in it? (1 gallon is roughly 8 lbs, so 5
quart
containers would be a little over what you want. Note that 1 gallon = 3.78 Liters.).

> I do not want to take Glucosamine. I am not sure what it will do to the blood sugar. Also I have
not
> seen a study reviewed by peers saying that it replaces the lost cartilage.

It looks like you find whatever you want. A quick search of PubMed shows peer-reviewed,
double-blind
studies that:
1) show no benefit;
2) show a decrease in pain, but no increase in cartilage; or
3) show an increase in cartilage (actually, most of these show that the space between the bones
doesn't
get smaller over a few years while it does get smaller with a placebo. A few show an increase
in
cartilage) .

None of the studies showed any side effects. Of course, the participants weren't paying for them,
so
none of them got smaller wallets as a result of taking glucosamine and/or chondroitin.

> Since I do not have pain, and
> since as we get older, we have to take medications for one thing or another, why taking more
stuffs that
> may be detrimental to me in a way or another. I already take calcium, vitamin D magnesium and
multi
> vitamins.
>

OK

> Françoise

Art