As Dangerous to Your Health as Smoking or Poor Diet, Over 50% of Adults Experience THIS

Possibly as Dangerous to Your Health as Smoking or Poor Diet… Over 50% of Adults Experience THIS Multiple Times a Week and Don’t Realize How Serious It May Be

If you were to ask 10 people what they thought the most important things they should do to maintain good long-term health, no doubt the vast majority would answer:

1. Eat Healthy
2. Maintain a Health Weight
3. Exercise Regularly

Though there is no doubt all three of these statements are correct, the one response that is every bit as important as any of these three that few people would mention is: Correct any SLEEP DISORDERS and get at least SIX or more hours of quality sleep most nights of the week.

Many of the significant health benefits associated with doing Numbers 1, 2 and 3 can, in fact, be undone by chronic sleep disorders and depriving the body of what I refer to as “therapeutic sleep”.

What do I mean by “therapeutic sleep?”

Again, asking these same people why they think we need to sleep at all – most would say something like “our body needs to rest and refresh itself.”

While the general statement that the body needs to refresh itself is true, many parts of our body and bodily functions are not relaxing but are busy working hard to refresh and rejuvenate ourselves both physically, psychologically, cognitively and hormonally and enzymatically.

Possibly as dangerous to your health as smoking or poor diet… over 50% of adults do not get enough quality therapeutic sleep, and don’t realize how serious it may be. Maintain good long-term health by getting at least six hours of quality sleep most nights of the week.

To the Best of Health,

Curt Hendrix, M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

MigreLief.com

Not Supplementing with THIS Vitamin on a Daily Basis? Start NOW!

If You’re NOT Supplementing with THIS Vitamin on a Daily Basis at THIS Amount …You Need to Start NOW!

I am hard pressed to name a single vitamin that has consistently shown to be able to decrease all-cause mortality as well as cardiovascular and cancer mortality as Vitamin D-3 (cholecalciferol). The studies depicting these benefits continue to accrue.

At this point in time, I recommend that everyone supplement at least 2000-5000 IU per day of vitamin D-3, with the goal being that when you have your physician check your vitamin D levels after a few months of supplementation, they be in the 40-60 ng/ml range.

If they are not in this range, double the amount of vitamin D you’re taking daily and have your levels checked again in 4-5 months. Some people, even with additional daily D-3 supplementation, do not easily increase their vitamin D-3 levels. If upon having them tested the second time, your levels did not increase very much (despite having doubled your daily dose), discuss this with your doctor.

Discuss this with your physician and you may have to take as much as 50,000 IU of vitamin D-3 a day (or more) to get up to 40-60 ng/ml. I know that going to your doctor’s office or a lab can be inconvenient but it is so worth it to decrease your risk of death from all causes as well as specifically from heart disease and cancer!

Here’s a brief summary of just two of the several studies that reported these vitamin D-3 benefits. 1.) Published in the prestigious British Medical Journal, 2014, Jun 17, a meta-analysis (a study that compiles and evaluates the reported data from multiple studies on a given topic) of both European and U.S. published studies found that: 0f the 26,000 participants (age 50-79) reported on, in all of the included studies, those who had the lowest vitamin D levels had a RR (relative risk) of 1.57 (an RR of 1 is neutral) for both all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality and a similar RR for cancer related mortality in those who previously had cancer. 2.) A second study published in April, 2013 in the American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition also reported decreasing vitamin D levels were inversely related to all-cause, cardiovascular, cancer and respiratory mortality rates.

Links to abstracts of these studies are below. For those of you who are interested, vitamin D levels can be reported as ng/ml (which is the denomination we referred to above) or nanomoles/Litre. To convert ng/ml into nmoles/liter multiply the ng/ml by 2.5. Vitamin D-3 in 5000 iu soft gels is relatively inexpensive and all of you reading this article should strongly consider supplementing this powerfully healthy vitamin today.

Links to Studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23446902

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24938302

To the Best of Health,

Curt Hendrix, M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

MigreLief.com

Advice on Saturated Fats Has No Scientific Basis

I read reams of newly published scientific and medical studies published in peer-reviewed journals every month.

It seems that barely a week goes by where I don’t read an article or blog where some physician or registered dietician talks about the dangers and health risks of consuming saturated fats.

If the most recent research disproving this is brand spanking new, then I can understand how authors may not have “caught up” yet but when its years old…there’s no explanation other than they haven’t done their homework.

A small percentage of what we think we know about science, medicine and health is irrefutable and the vast percentage of our knowledge is subject to change, or be revised completely.

This has happened innumerable times and will continue to happen as new research surfaces. In the past few decades we have seen the almost unquestionable health benefits of HRT (hormone replacement therapy) challenged and somewhat reversed.

Everyone knows that higher levels of HDL cholesterol are healthy and protective, right? Now some cardiologists and researchers are challenging this “irrefutable” fact.

Everyone from your physician to your best friend “knows” that consumption of saturated fats causes heart disease. Well, based upon all of the most recently published studies that just doesn’t seem to be true.

A study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, (Mar. 2010) analyzing over 20 studies on the risks of consuming saturated fat found:

“… there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD [coronary heart disease] or CVD [stroke and cardiovascular disease].”

And now a brand new study just recently completed confirms this and adds a really interesting twist to this whole “saturated fats are dangerous” topic.

An article published this month, in the journal PLOS-1 – found that increased dietary intake of saturated fats did not cause a rise in the blood plasma level of saturated fats. But the very interesting take-away from this study was that increasing the percentage of daily dietary intake of carbohydrates did in fact raise plasma saturated fat levels, which when elevated are known to increase the risk of diabetes and heart disease.

Reduce your total daily consumption of carbohydrates

Let’s sum up what we have learned and what you should do regarding dietary saturated fats:

Consumption of foods containing saturated fats does not increase the risk of heart disease or diabetes because for unexplained metabolic reasons dietary consumption of saturated fats does not raise blood plasma levels of saturated fat which when elevated are thought to increase the risk of developing diabetes and/or heart disease.
Consumption of foods containing high levels of carbohydrates does raise plasma levels of saturated fats, thereby increasing your risk of developing diabetes or heart disease.

According to one of the lead researchers involved in the study “Dietary guidelines that recommend restricted consumption of saturated fats are not smart or scientific.”

If you would like to reduce the risk to yourself and loved ones of developing diabetes and/or heart disease. REDUCE YOUR TOTAL DAILY CONSUMPTION OF CARBOHYDRATES AND REPLACE THEM WITH HEALTHY FATS (FISH, AVOCADO, OLIVE OIL, NUTS, ALMOND BUTTER, SUNFLOWER SEED SPREAD) AND QUALITY GRASS-FED OR FREE RANGE PROTEIN SOURCES.

My personal diet provides about 65% of my calories from fats, about 25% from protein sources and 10% from carbohydrates. This is a far cry from the age old pyramid recommendations to get 50-60% of your daily calories from carbohydrates.

While I do weight lift, I do very little aerobic exercise except for walking and my body fat percentage stays around 16-17%. (I include this information for those of you who are worried about higher fat consumption causing you to gain weight or body fat).

My total daily caloric intake ranges between 2500-3000 calories. Women, depending upon their level of activity should generally be in the 1700-2000 calories per day range if they desire to maintain their current weight.

Metabolically and physiologically…SUGAR FROM CARBOHYDRATES IS THE ENEMY NOT FATS!

I also believe there is enough published quality science indicating that reducing your intake of carbohydrates my also lead to decreased risks of developing cancer, dementia/Alzheimer’s, vision and hearing loss. But this will be addressed in another article.

To the Best of Health,

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

HPV Vaccine Danger

The HPV (Human Papillomavirus) vaccine is routinely recommended for girls 11 and 12 years of age. Doctors may give it to girls as young as 9, It has also been recommended for boys age 9-26 and for women 13-26 years of age who did not receive it when they were younger.

If you are considering having your children obtain this vaccine, please read this very informative article on the vaccine first.

Study Reveals Unavoidable Dangers of HPV Vaccine.

To the best of health,

Curt Hendrix, M.S., C.C.N., C.N.S.

Safety Concerns About Artificial Sweetener That’s Found Everywhere

Lots of people enjoy the taste of something sweet and I’m one of them. The problem is that sugar, more so than fat, is probably responsible for much of the chronic disease and accelerated aging that occurs in humans.

The body’s metabolism of sugar results in byproducts that are damaging to all of the cells and organs in our bodies. Think of sugar as being corrosive to both the inside and outside of your body, similar to the way that salt air is corrosive to the wooden exterior of homes near the ocean.

I believe the research suggesting that reducing your intake of simple carbohydrates (sugars), is one of the most important “anti aging/protective” steps you can take to reduce your risk of serious diseases.

Does this mean that all of us who enjoy a “sweet treat” just have to give up one of our most simple joys in life? Not necessarily!

First of all, moderation is important! The more sugar you eat, the more the body is exposed to the destructive byproduct of sugar metabolism. So limiting your sources of sugar (deserts, sodas, cereals, and snacks is clearly necessary). So, read the nutrition labels carefully on the products that you eat. Check to see how much sugar a serving contains.

My rule of thumb is to try to avoid eating products that contain more than 10-15 grams of sugar per serving (less is better and of course not multiple times a day). Also check out what the label is defining as a serving. Many food manufacturers, in an attempt to hide just how sugary a product is, choose to use an unrealistically small serving size that is probably much smaller than the actual amount you are going to consume (for example a quarter of a cup, when you are most likely going to eat 4 times that amount).

In light of the above information, many of us “try” to avoid the ravages of sugar by purchasing products that are sweetened with non-caloric, non-sugar, artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, this may be the equivalent of trading one unhealthy habit for another one.

Fortunately, there are naturally occurring non-caloric sweeteners like erythritol (my favorite) that you should seek out when looking for a sweet tasting food (stevia is also a good choice).

This article is meant to alert you about the potential harms that consuming “sucralose” (marketed as Splenda) may present.

Sucralose is ubiquitous. It’s in thousands and thousands of food products and unless you read the food labels very closely, you may not realize how many of the products you consume contain sucralose and how much in total you are consuming every day.

As to why you should be concerned about consuming sucralose, I refer you to a recent article written by Sayer Ji of GreenMed Info.

Sucralose-Splenda Harms Vastly Underestimated – Baking Releases Dioxin

Also, for those of you who are migraine sufferers, click the link below to learn about a possible connection between sucralose and migraines. Sucralose as a Migraine Trigger

By reducing sugar intake and eliminating artificial sweeteners, you are taking a significant step toward looking better, having less body fat, and reducing the risk of most, if not all, chronic diseases.

Knowledge is power……..be healthy.

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Millions Potentially at Risk of B-12 Deficiency

Literally, millions of people taking acid blocking drugs on a regular basis for dealing with their symptoms of acid-reflux (GERD – gastroesophageal reflux disease) run the risk of becoming B-12 deficient, which can result in troublesome side-effects. (Nerve damage/dysfunction, weakness, fatigue, anemia, memory loss, depression and dementia, just to name a few).

The 2 most popular kinds of these drugs as either PPI’s (proton pump inhibitors, i.e. Prilosec, Prevacid, Nexium) and H-2 receptor antagonists, (i.e. Tagamet, Pepcid, Xantac). Though through different pathways, both of these classes of drugs reduce the production of stomach acid. The PPI’s are more powerful and their effects last longer.

It does not come as any surprise that a recently published study done by Kaiser Permanente researchers and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that people who regularly used PPI’s for two or more years had a 65% increased risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency and those who used H-2 receptor antagonists for the same period of time, had a 25% increased risk of B-12 deficiency.

Stomach acid is used to break down proteins, which are a source of vitamin B-12. With decreased production of stomach acid, protein digestion is compromised.

Additionally, it has also been reported that the use of PPI’s increases bone fracture risk. Several peer-reviewed published studies have documented this and the FDA has notified physicians and users of this potential side-effect.

Furthermore, other studies have shown that the use of PPI’s for one year or more led to reduced levels of magnesium in many users. The FDA has warned of this PPI side-effect as well.

If you have not been able to control your gastric reflux/heartburn issues via adjustments to your diet, and find that PPI’s and not H-2 antagonists are needed to resolve your symptoms:

Supplement with 100 mcg a day of methylcobalamin (a form of vitamin B-12 that is best absorbed and utilized even by people who have B-12 genetic processing issues).
Supplement with 360 mg/day of magnesium citrate which can be absorbed even if your stomach acid is low.
Supplement with 100 mcg/day of MK-7, vitamin K-2 which is readily available in most health food stores.

To a healthier you,

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation for Bone Fractures?

Vitamin D and Calcium Supplementation for Bone Fractures? – U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Reports

I don’t know whether I should be happy, furious or frustrated

Choosing to subscribe to the concept of “better late than never,” I choose happy with a pinch of frustration.

You are probably right now asking yourself what the “h” is he talking about?

I’m talking about the advice that 95 % or more of physicians give to their patients about preventing bone fractures, and that is “Take at least 1,000-1,500 mg per day of calcium and add vitamin D as well”.

For almost 2 decades I have been telling everyone who would listen, that taking high amounts of calcium will not only not prevent or decrease your risk of bone fractures but also might increase your risk of calcification of your heart and arteries.

$fractures$

Does Vitamin D help prevent bone fractures?

Now, finally the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has issued final recommendations on vitamin D and Calcium supplementation to prevent fractures. Their findings support what I have forever been saying:

(1) There is not enough evidence to determine whether vitamin D and calcium supplements can prevent fractures in men and in women who have not yet gone through menopause.

(2) There is not enough evidence to determine whether vitamin D and calcium supplements at larger doses can prevent fractures in older women.

(3) Lower doses of vitamin D and calcium do not prevent fractures in older women and may increase the risk of kidney stones.

Though I’m glad that a governmental organization has finally reported on the lack of proven efficacy of taking ridiculously high amounts of daily calcium, I wish they had gone further and mentioned the possibility that excessive calcium intake my cause heart and artery calcification (hardening of the arteries).

I would think that the question on the mind of many of you reading this article would be….”So what do I do if bone fractures are of concern to me (because you’ve already had one or more fractures or fractures seem to run in your family)?

The answer is take magnesium (at least 300 mg/day) and a combination product of vitamin K-1 and K-2 (with at least 100 mcg of each form which is easily available in most health food stores) and at least 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily. (take more if your measured vitamin D level is below 50 ng/ml)

For more in depth information on this subject you can read my previous articles by clicking the links below.

Yours in safety and optimal health,

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

P.S. If you would like to read the release from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force please click on the link below.

http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf12/vitamind/vitdfact.pdf

DO NOT USE THESE ANTIBIOTICS – FDA Warning!

DO NOT USE THESE ANTIBIOTICS – FDA WARNING!

All of us at one time or another have been prescribed and taken an antibiotic.

The FDA has recently issued a warning about one of the most popular types of antibiotics called, Fluoroquinolones.

You are more likely to recognize them by their brand names of:

1- Cipro

2- Factive

3- Noroxin

4- Levaquin

5- Avelox

6- Floxin

The FDA statement says: “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have required the drug labels and Medication Guides for all fluoroquinolone antibacterial drugs be updated to better describe the serious side effect of peripheral neuropathy. Peripheral neuropathy as described by the FDA is a nerve disorder occurring in the arms or legs. Symptoms include pain, burning, tingling, numbness, weakness, or a change in sensation to light touch, pain or temperature.

This serious nerve damage potentially caused by fluoroquinolones may occur any time during treatment with these drugs or soon after and may last for months, years or be permanent.

The topical formulations of fluoroquinolones, applied to the ears or eyes, are not known to be associated with this risk.”

Peripheral Neuropathy is nerve damage in the arms and/or legs/or feet, which causes, pain, tingling, burning, numbness, sensitivity to touch or these symptoms in various combinations. This condition is also associated with diabetes.

If you are currently taking any of these drugs discuss this information with your prescribing physician and discuss the possibility of switching to other less problematic antibiotics.

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Read victim stories on Facebook and find link to petition for black box warning:
“The Fluoroquinolone Wall of Pain”

Are Calcium Supplements Dangerous to Your Health?

Dear Valued MigreLief Fans,

For decades I have been telling all women that the need to take 1000-1500 mg per day of calcium to protect your bones is a hoax and a myth which is propagated in part by the pharmaceutical companies that own some of the calcium marketing companies and a general lack of familiarity with the published literature demonstrating the dangers of supplementing with calcium product, within certain segments of the healthcare community.

Sayer Ji, is an excellent chronicler of huge amounts of published, peer-reviewed medical trials and studies and has written a compelling article spelling out why supplementing with high levels of calcium is not just necessary but potentially very dangerous to a women’s health.

Should women take calcium supplements?

Please read his article “Why Most Calcium Supplement Recommendations are Dead Wrong” and then read my past article on bone health and how to protect your bones against fractures. “Say NO to Osteoporosis Drugs & the Dangers of Calcium Supplementation”

As always, protecting your health,

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Can Increased Body Weight Reduce Your Lifespan?

We have all known skinny women who think they are fat. Some of us have known people who are overweight but just don’t see themselves that way.

I’ve had men friends whose stomachs looked like they swallowed a small beach ball, bang on their abdomen and show me how hard it is. (Of course it’s hard because all that dangerous abdominal fat, which lies underneath their abdominal muscles, is pushing hard against them in an effort to burst out!).

The point here is that many people’s body image of themselves is just not accurate, probably due more to emotions and psychological issues than “bad” eyesight.

For the past few decades healthcare professionals have been using and recommending that people get or calculate their body mass index (BMI) to help them determine if they are over-weight/over-fat.

How to Calculate BMI

You can calculate your BMI by dividing your weight in pounds by your height in inches times itself and multiplying that amount by 703.

So for example a woman who weighs 125 lbs and is 5’4” (64 inches tall) has a BMI of:

125 divided by the product of 64 times 64 then this amount is multiplied by 703, since 64 times 64 = 4096

Then 125/4096 = .0305175 X 703 = 21.45 BMI (in the healthy range)

A 5’9” fashion model who weighs 120 lbs would have a BMI of 17.7 (which is considered extremely underweight.)

BMI’s of less than 20 are considered to be underweight.

BMI’s between 20 and 25 are considered to be normal weight.

BMI’s between 25 and 30 are considered to be overweight.

BMI’s over 30 are considered to be obese.

The Issue with BMI

The problem with using BMI to make these body weight decisions is that BMI doesn’t take into consideration people who are large boned, people who are very muscular and people (especially those above 50 years old, who may have lost lean muscle as they aged). In essence it doesn’t differentiate between bone weight, fat weight and muscle weight.

For those in the older group, their weight may have stayed the same or gone up only slightly but they replaced the lean muscle weight they lost, with fat weight. So, although their BMI comes out looking normal, a much greater percentage of their weight is fat than is probably ideal.

A good example of the above is in the elderly who can actually look thin and frail and yet have body fat percentages in the 30% range.

Obviously BMI measurements have their short comings but an even more important question about BMI measurements is now being asked: “Are they helpful in predicting future health or illness/disease and longevity?

The answer seems to be that they are not as “predictive” of what your future health situation will be as originally thought and that a better measurement to predict the effect of your weight and body composition on your health and longevity is the “Waist to Height” ratio.

Keeping the ratio of your waist in inches divided by your height in inches to below .5 (or in other words your waist in inches less than 50% of your height in inches) helps you to avoid the illnesses and diseases that can shorten your life span (heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer) and add years to your life expectancy.

So a 5’10” male (70 inches tall) should have a waist measurement of less than 35 inches.

The 5’4” woman we mentioned before (64 inches tall) should have a waist measurement of less than 32 inches.

Researchers from Oxford followed the waist-to-height ratio and the BMI of thousands of people for 20 years and found that the waist-to-height ratio was much more predictive of poorer health and reduced life-span than the BMI measurement, as the participants waistlines increased in size.

Men whose ratio approached .8 (a waist measurement of 80% of their height measurement) on average, lived 17 years shorter than people who were below .5.

Women with the .8 ratio lived on average 8.2 years less.

Assuring an accurate waist measurement:

I can’t speak to how women measure their waists but some men are “notorious” cheats or delusional or both when it comes to measuring their waists. They may have a 40 inch waist but wear their “34 inch jeans” six inches below their navel with their big bellies hanging over the waistline and state that they have a 34 inch waist.

The accurate way to measure your waistline whether you are a man or a woman is to measure either about an inch above the belly button or midway between the top of your hips and the bottom of your rib cage. They should both come out around the same spot.

Curt Hendrix M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.

Eating Right May Be The Key to Better Health

Eating Right May be the Key to Better Health: Study Suggests Typical Western Diet Lessens Quality and Length of Life

A new study with results that will appear in the May issue of The American Journal of Medicine finds that those who follow a Western-style diet which typically consists of fried and processed foods, sweets, red meat, refined grains and high-fat dairy products, reduces the likelihood of reaching old age in good health and with high functionality.

The study, reported by ScienceDaily.com, was led by Dr. Tasnime Akbaraly, PhD, Inserm, Montpellier, France, with the research team seeking to identify dietary factors that can promote ideal aging and prevent premature death.

Dr. Akbaraly noted that “avoidance of ‘Western-type foods’ might actually improve the possibility of achieving an older age,” but more important,” achieve a lengthier life that is “free of chronic diseases” allowing the individual to remain highly functional.

The study reveals what many have suspected and even experienced in their own lives already. There has been much research done on the connection between inflammation and virtually all chronic illness and disease, including migraines, arthritis, diabetes, obesity as well as heart disease, cancer, depression and dementia.

An easier way to explain the devastating effects of inflammation is to imagine a car that is left out in the elements for a period of time. Eventually, that car begins to rust and ultimately disintegrate and fall apart completely. The process is similar within the body. A little inflammation, such as swelling after an injury, is a natural and positive part of the healing process. It is uncontrolled inflammation that is allowed to remain over longer periods of time that does serious damage.

Pro-inflammatory foods contribute to this overabundance of inflammation. This includes those foods that are typically of the Western diet, such as:

Packaged and processed foods including fast food and packaged desserts or snacks like cookies and cakes
Common cooking oils that contain unhealthy fats such as sunflower, safflower and vegetable oil
Margarine and heavily processed foods that contain Trans Fats
Refined sugar and sugary foods
Fried foods
Many high-fat dairy products (the exception is kefir and some yogurts like plain Greek-style yogurt)
Gluten and refined grains
Feedlot-raised meats, red meat and processed meats
Alcohol

Of course, as with anything, moderation is key. It would be difficult if not impossible for a person who eats the average American’s diet to change overnight. Limiting the above items and filling your diet with as many nutritionally packed, high anti-oxidant foods will go a long way in reducing the chances of developing chronic illness or reducing symptoms in someone who is already suffering.

Foods that are high in anti-oxidants can help neutralize the free radicals that result from too much inflammation.

A bowl of kale

Include as many whole fresh foods in your diet as possible. Foods that are especially rich in antioxidants include deeply-pigmented vegetables and fruits. Dark leafy greens such as kale, spinach and arugula as well as beets, blueberries and any richly colored purple, red, orange and yellow fruits and vegetables.

Include healthy fats like the omega-3 fatty acids in wild-caught salmon and monounsaturated fats in most nuts and olive oil.

Making gradual diet changes can lead to a happier, healthier, and much higher quality of life – without the constant pain and debilitation that can come with chronic illness and disease. Isn’t your life worth it?

Do Osteoporosis Drugs & Calcium Prevent Fractures?

Recent studies indicate that high levels of calcium are potentially dangerous to your cardiovascular system, and increases both calcification of arteries and MI risk.

There is a much better option for long-term bone health.

Your physician tells you that your Bone Mineral Density (BMD) is low (2.5 standard deviations below average and that you have osteoporosis) and he wants you to go on one of the prescription medications to prevent bone fractures. He or she goes on to tell you that these drugs have been found to reduce your risk of a fracture by 50%. Sounds impressive and necessary…so you get nervous. Just the image of an incapacitating hip fracture, is enough to make you rush out to fill a prescription for bisphosphonate drugs like Fosamax, Boniva or Actonel. Aclasta, Aredia, Bondronat, Didronel, Reclast, Skelid and Zometa.

Being scared sometimes makes people do things too quickly without gathering all of the facts. Also over reliance on their doctors recommendation without independent research of their own, can sometimes lead to uninformed choices.

As you will learn shortly, these drugs can have some very serious side-effect and in addition, many experts are troubled by the quality of bone that these drugs create. In addition the 50% reduction in fracture risk quoted by the manufacturers of these drugs and some physicians, is at best misleading and at worst down right deceptive.

Let’s say that everyone had a 100% risk (a certainty, 100 out of 100 people would all have a fracture sometime after age 65). Then a drug that reduced that risk by half so that only 50 out of 100 people would have a fracture, might be a drug worth taking, assuming it was safe and wasn’t going to hurt you because of serious side-effects. This drug (if one existed, it doesn’t) could legitimately state it reduced fracture risk by 50%

Bone health is important for both men and women

What if your risk was only 2% of having a fracture sometime after age 65? In others words only 2 out of every hundred people will experience a fracture and 98 will never have one. Another way of saying this, is that if you take absolutely NOTHING, the odds are 98% in your favor of never having a fracture. Would you then be in a rush to use this or any other drug?

How do drug manufacturers play with the quoted efficacy percentages to fool you into thinking these drugs work much better than they really do?

Well, they do a study approved by the FDA and show that when you take their drug, instead of 2 people out of 100 people experiencing a fracture, only 1 person out of 100 people experienced a fracture. So they report the drop from 2 out of 100 to 1 out of 100 people as a 50% reduction in fracture rate. And to make matters worse, many physicians quote this misleading 50% drop in fracture rate to their patients.

Another way of putting this into perspective is that for every hundred people who take this drug, 98 of them didn’t need it, but it gets worse. The 98 who didn’t need but took it anyway are now exposed to, what in some cases, can be very serious side-effects.

In addition to the multiple, potential side-effects of these drugs which will be listed shortly, these drugs do not create new healthy bone, instead they create bone that is unnatural and nothing like new bone formed by the body.

Instead of the body’s normal process of breaking down old bone (known as resorption, which is carried out by cells called osteoclasts) and rebuilding new strong bone with other cells known as osteoblasts, these drugs stop the rebuilding of new bone by stopping resorption (turning off the osteoclast activity).

So people wind up with bone that is architecturally very different from new bone created by the body. This bone does allow for minerals to be absorbed which can quickly in the short term reduce fracture risk by the tiny absolute amount described above, but many researchers are concerned about the long-term wisdom of using these drugs to create this “unnatural type of bone”.

In fact, recent research has shown an increase in femur fractures in patients who have taken these drugs for 5 or more years. These drugs have demonstrated no benefit for primary prevention. This means that for men or women who may have below average BMD (bone mineral density) but whom are not diagnosed with osteoporosis, there is no reason to take these drugs, yet the drug companies and some physicians recommend them to these lower risk patients as well. It just doesn’t make sense.

Potential Side-effects:
So, In addition to not giving much absolute protection from fractures, you will also be exposed to the following side-effects, some of which, though low in risk, can be very serious and even life threatening:

•Ulcers of the esophagus

• Esosphageal cancer

• Upper GI irritation

• Irregular heartbeat

• Fractures of the femur

• Low calcium in the blood

• Skin rash

• Joint, bone, and muscle pain

• Jaw bone decay (osteonecrosis)

• Increased parathyroid hormone (PTH)

*Users of some of these drugs can develop osteonecrosis of the jaw which is associated with significant and death of jawbone tissue. The Journal of the American Dental Association reports that osteonecrosis is actually more common than initially thought.

**An article in the New England Journal of Medicine stated that 23 cases of esophageal cancer have been reported due to Fosamax. Then, in an issue of the American Dental Association, were reports that the drug’s jaw die off risk is actually more common than initially thought. The jaw bone die off is actually known as a disease.

*** As reported by the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research

There are Sensible, Effective and Much Safer Options to Reduce Your Fracture Risk

High dose calcium is NOT a needed or even sensible option, no matter what your doctor tells you.

Regarding Calcium and the ubiquitous advice given by so many healthcare professionals to consume anywhere from 1000-1500 mg. for bone health, it is just plain wrong and recent studies indicate that these high levels of calcium are potentially dangerous to your cardiovascular system, increasing both calcification of arteries and MI risk.

Vitamin D & K for Calcium Absorption

The problem is not that most of us don’t get enough calcium but that the calcium we get doesn’t get absorbed efficiently into our bones. This calcium is then free and available to go deposit where we don’t want it, into the insides of our arteries, causing calcification which can lead to decreased arterial function, high blood pressure and cardio-vascular disease.

It might surprise you that the Chinese and Japanese cultures, which historically eat little or no dairy products and therefore get less than half the calcium that is in American diets containing dairy, have substantially lower fracture rates than Americans.

Cultures that consume far less than the 1500 mg of calcium per day recommended by many physicians, experience much lower fracture rates than we do. This is because their diets contain some specific ingredients that help calcium to enter their bones.

These two ingredients are Vitamin D and Vitamin K. In the proper amounts both of the simple vitamins have been shown to be incredibly safe and healthy for many reasons beyond just bone health, and can safely decrease fracture risk in susceptible people.

For professionals who specialize in staying on top of the literature that is published about the benefits of certain herbs and dietary supplements, it is well known that vitamin D, vitamin K and magnesium are KEY players in bone health.

Two recent studies, one examining the fracture reducing potential of bisphosphonate drugs and the second measuring the fracture reducing potential of Vitamin D, demonstrated that Vitamin D is perhaps more effective than the drugs, with none of the inherent risks and side-effects of the drugs.

Interestingly, several studies have shown that both Vitamin K-1 and K-2 have decreased fracture risks in humans without increasing Bone Mineral Density (BMD).

In fact, it is my opinion, that intakes of magnesium (at least 500 mg/day), vitamin D (at least 1000 IU/day) and vitamin K-1 and K-2 (at least 500 mcg/day) with small daily amounts of calcium from dairy or 250-500 mg/day from a supplement, will offer more protection against fractures than these dangerously high doses of 1000-1500 mg of calcium per day that are being recommended, without all of the unwanted health risks.

Cardiologist routinely measure “coronary artery calcium” (CAC) levels because they are known to be a reliable marker for atherosclerosis. Calcium actually can build up in the arteries, a phenomenon known as “arterial calcification”, which can also lead to stroke, heart attack and eye problems.

In fact, a recent study of 24,000 people, done at the University of Zurich, suggests that older Americans taking calcium supplements to reduce fracture risk may be increasing their risk of getting a heart attack. The researchers said this risk came about only in those taking dietary supplements of calcium and not in those getting their calcium from food.

The researchers reported an 86% increase in heart attack risk in people who took regular supplements of calcium versus those who didn’t take any supplements.

The study is somewhat controversial with some experts questioning “why there would be increased heart attack risk with taking dietary supplements of calcium but not with taking foods containing calcium?”

Personally, I don’t know why this surprises these experts because many foods that contain calcium also contain magnesium which is very important for bone health. Other factors in foods like vitamin K may help the calcium to get into the bone and not be absorbed by the arteries which is dangerous.

The bottom line for me is: If you eat reasonable amounts of dairy products you probably don’t need to supplement calcium at all. If you don’t eat dairy products at all you can still get sufficient calcium from foods such as:

Salmon 6-8 ounces 440 mg.

Shrimp 6 ounces 300 mg.

Mackerel 6 ounces 600 mg.

Kale, collard greens, broccoli (1 cup) – 200 mg.

Almonds 6 ounces 700mg

Walnuts 6 ounces

I suggest that for normal healthy, men and women no more than 500 mg /day of calcium is necessary. If you have normal digestive function calcium carbonate is fine despite what certain advertisers state. If you do have digestive issues and perhaps are low in stomach acidity, then calcium citrate is a good choice.

Regarding the amounts of Vitamin D to take, I suggest that you start with 2500 IU per day. When you get your blood checked ask your physician to also measure you calcium levels. I believe optimum levels are between 50 ng/ml – 80 ng/ml.

As for the Vitamin K, though both form K-1 and K-2 have been shown to work, a product containing a combination of both K-1 and K-2 in the amounts of 1-2 mg (1000-2000 mcg) and 200 mcg respectively should be adequate.

Knowledge is power. Empower your health,

Curt Hendrix, M.S. C.C.N. C.N.S.