Plums…delicious, sweet. And, good for bone health?
[Image: all rights reserved 2012. Used with permission by Tartella. Visit them online at http://www.tartella.com/ and if you love this print as much as I do, you can purchase it in their Etsy store.]
Yowza! I am excited about study findings published in the British Journal of Nutrition linking dried plums (better known as the lowly prune) to improved bone mineral density in menopausal women. If these findings ring true and can be duplicated in larger groups of women, they may have a tremendous impact on the steps we take to preserve our bones as we age — most notably, the ability to avoid bisphosphonates — which have been linked to collapse of jaw bones and even an increase in the fractures they are supposed to protect. Moreover, although calcium supplementation is broadly recommended, there is an indication that it may increase heart disease risk in some women.
However, as one of the investigators note in BJN, study findings consistently show that greater intakes of fruits and vegetables have positive effects on bone resorption (the breakdown of bone), adding prunes among fruits and onions among vegetables, to be the most effective functional foods in terms of their actions on modulating the process by which bones break down and build up again.
In animal studies, prunes were shown to prevent bone loss as well as restore bone mineral density in conditions created to mimic bone loss associated with osteoporosis. In addition to these studies, researchers had also a conducted a short, three-month study in menopausal women in whom bone mass was improved simply by eating around 10 prunes (100 g) daily.
In this latest iteration, the same researchers compared two groups of menopausal women assigned to eat around 100 gm of prunes (~10) or 75 gm dried apples (the equivalent of the prunes in terms of energy, carbohydrates, fats and fiber) daily for a year. All of the women had been in menopause for anywhere from one to 10 years, were not on hormone therapy and were also asked to take 500 mg calcium plus 400 IU vitamin D with their daily dried fruit.
The findings? By the end of one year, women eating prunes had significantly lower levels of several markers for bone turnover compared to their peers who ate dried apple. Conversely, the prune eaters had significantly higher levels of bone mineral density in their ulnas (one of two long bones in the forearm) and spine compared to the other group. The researchers say that this is partly due to the fact that prunes suppress the rate at which bone cells break down bone, which exceeds the rate at which they build it up as we age.
Women in particular lose up to 50% of their spongy, or trabecular bone (the network that makes up most of bone structure) and up to 30% of their cortical bone (the outer shell) within the first 10 years of the onset of menopause. Of the investigators, Professor and chair of Florida State University’s Department of Nutrition, Bahram Arjmandi, suggests that women (and men) interested in maintaining or even improving bone health start eating two to three prunes a day and gradually build to six to 10. Arjmandi says to “do something meaningful and practical beforehand, ” and “don’t wait until you get a fracture or are diagnosed with osteoporosis” and need medication.
Sure, prunes get a bad rap. But aren’t ‘bad’ bones even worse? Truly, prunes can be ‘as delicious and sweet’ as plums. The writing on the wall suggests that you don’t wait until it’s too late.
Read More
Wednesday Bubble: not your mama’s menopause?
I have been writing about the medicalization of menopause for several years now. So I was intrigued when I stumbled across a review in the Journal of Aging Studies discussing how the social construct of menopause has shifted to “an increasingly more medicalized perspective that emphasizes the biological deficits of the aging female body.”
In this piece, researcher Rebecca Utz reports on qualitative interviews that she conducted with a small group of pairs of mothers and daughters, divided by generation and apparently, attitudes towards menopause. Medicalization, she writes, “is defined as the way in which the apparently scientific knowledge of medicine is applied to a range of behaviors that are not self-evidently biological or even medical, but over which medicine has control.” Therefore, in the case of menopause, our definition has shifted from something that a natural part of our development to an illness-based perspective “requiring medical intervention.”
Accordingly, when she interviewed both groups of women (mothers born during the 1920s and 1930s, and daughters born in early to mid-1950’s) she discovered that despite the commonality of physical symptoms, attitudes were significantly different:
- The older women did not perceive menopause as a problem or disease but rather, something that “just happened.” As such, it was not part of their narrative and most were uncomfortable discussing it, primarily because they considered it private and “inappropriate for public discourse” much like sexuality or emotional instability. And the steps taken to address it: Watch and wait for it to be over.
- The daughters, on the other hand, were likely to seek medical treatment as soon as symptoms appeared. This behavior is consistent with the premise that menopause has been increasingly medicalized. However, it wasn’t simply menopause that the younger women were fighting but on a larger level, aging. “In other words, menopause was just the beginning of a long, downhill battle that cannot possibly be won,” but can be controlled and self-managed. Moreover, these women’s fear was not necessarily entrenched in hot flashes and night sweats, but in what the start of menopause meant in terms of the delineation between youth and middle/old age and even “end of life as we know it,” a new older life stage that was unwelcome. The “cure” of course, were hormones and other pharmaceutically-derived interventions, which represented a way to “suspend old age” and control the physiological aspects of aging.
Not surprisingly, Utz also points to the ‘Menopause Industry:’ a “profit-seeking enterprise comprising pharmaceutical companies and perpetuated by the media intent on “turning 40 million baby boomer women into patients for life by defining menopause as an estrogen deficiency disease requiring significant medical intervention.” While the companies create the drugs, the media (whose increased attention attention to menopause, largely fueled by the wave of 1970s feminism and in part, funded by corporate interests) not only provide women with access to the information and resources that they seek but also contribute to perceptions of personal control among women who do not want to “sit back and let menopause just happen to them.” The result is that the Menopause Industry has not only developed products that these women crave that allows them to win their battle against old-age, but, continues to highlight the need for them.
Where does this leave us?
Although some women have fallen off the HRT wagon post-WHI study findings, others have remained. And even more expect the pharmaceutical industry to come up with something different to “quell the realities of their aging bodies.” Are we/they in for a surprise? Perhaps, because as Utz writes, aging is inevitable, even with quick fixes, and that at some point “the perceived autonomy and need for personal control may make [these women] more vulnerable or less prepared than their mothers to face the realities of old age.”
I’d like to offer another, more positive construct up for consideration:
Taking control doesn’t have to mean that the aging process is denied, stopped or obliterated, medicalized or industrialized. Rather, it means taking charge to feel better, more vibrant, healthier so that you/we/I can live the best life I can live while we are alive. For me personally, that doesn’t mean hormone replacement or botox or lipo; it means trying to make more healthier decisions, control or address my symptoms with evidence-based alternatives and accept the transition as a natural part of my journey. So, much like the mothers in this research, I consider this time an opportunity for shifting priorities and interests that open all sorts of possibilities. And like the daughters, I want to take the experience out of the closet and foster discussion and sharing. Ultimately, I’d like the see a more natural course driven by women themselves, as opposed to societal expectations and stigmatization of the aging process and as opposed to the Menopause Industrial Complex.
What about you?
Read More
Whole body vibration training: what’s the lowdown on bone health?
Back in 2009, I wrote a post about the positive effect that whole body vibration training might have on body composition. Now, researchers are suggesting that it may actually affect bone health in a beneficial way. Who would have thunk it?
If you don’t know what I’m referring to, whole body vibration training utilizes a vibration platform for a number of theoretical benefits ranging from weight loss and rehabilitation for muscles to improved balance However, it is also promoted a low-impact alternative to drugs and other therapies to counteract bone loss associated with aging. The concept itself is a bit strange; a person stands, feet shoulder length apart , knees locked and hands to their sides on a vibrating platform producing between.3g’s and 1.1g’s (28Hz-60Hz) of vibration for up to 30 minutes a day (the maximum recommended vibration exposure without adverse effects). That’s it. No cardio, no weight training, no nothing. Just a whole lotta vibration.
So, does it or doesn’t it?
According to a study in the Journal of Osteoporosis, just 20 minutes of intermittent vibration (one minute on, one minuter rest) at low frequency, low magnitude strength (i.e. 12 Hz) resulted in significant and clinically meaningful declines in a primary marker for bone resorption (when bone cells break down bone). In this study, 46 postmenopausal women received vibration once or three times weekly over eight weeks compared to sham vibration (minimal, continuous vibration) once weekly. Of note, a third had already been diagnosed with osteoporosis, osteoporotic fractures or osteopenia, and 41%, with osteoarthritis. In other words, two thirds of these women already had issues with bone health.
The findings?
For the first time, whole body vibration training was shown to benefit bone health. In fact, the primary marker for bone resorption was reduced by 34.6% in women who had vibration therapy three times a week compared to women who had the sham vibration, which researchers say is clinically meaningful. The key was training at least three times week with high frequency, low magnitude vibration whereas training only one day a week only had minimal benefit.
Importantly, this decline is also significant when compared to a 25% reduction in markers of bone resorption in women with osteoporosis/oteopenia who take medication and regularly walk.
Information is still needed on factors like the duration of vibration training, if more or less would suffice and if benefits can actually be maintained over time. It’s also unclear if gender, nutritional or hormone status or use of medications affects the value of vibration training. Still, the results are pretty encouraging.
Positive vibrations? Yeah, you bet!
Read More
Spanx a lot…active wear and a whole lotta hot
A few years ago, I ran a hilarious video, posted by Fighting Mad Mary featuring her friend GloZell (star of the You Tube Glozell channel), trying to squeeze her frame into a pair of spanx capri. For those of you who are unfamiliar with spanx, it was clearly invented by a man because no sane woman would ever do that to another female.
That’s what I thought. Until I encountered SpanxActive. Say what? The hottest, most uncomfortable material to hold in the stuff for your workout? Talk about torture! And whole lotta hot. Seriously, why are you wasting your time and dollars on Hot Yoga when you can buy Spanx and sweat to your heart’s desire?
In any case, I would love to share GloZell’s experience with Spanx because we need to laugh as much as we need to cry. In this particular case, you may do both as you watch GloZell attempt to deal with the challenge at hand.
This one’s for you GloZell. You had me at Spanx!
Happy Friday!
Read More
Wednesday Bubble: Soy takes another hit
We’re live!
Welcome to the new home of Flashfree! Our URL has changed but the same content that you’ve grown to know and ‘love’ is the same.
Let’s kick off http://flashfree.me with the latest and ‘greatest’ report on soy: it does not help menopausal symptoms or prevent bone loss.
Isn’t this contrary to what’s been reported previously, at least with regards to women with the ability to produce S-equol?
In this latest nail to the soy coffin, research appearing in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that part of the issue in proving or disproving the utility of soy for menopause is the lack of trials of long duration, consistent use of low doses of soy isoflavones, small number of participants and too much breadth and depth of age and menopausal status. However, the SPARE trial (Soy Phytoestrogens as Replacement Estrogen), aimed to change this paradigm by examining the effect of daily 200 mg soy isoflavones in tablet form in 248 women between the age of 45 and 60. All participants had been in menopause for one to five years or for six to 12 months. These women were studied for two years, were instructed to take the active pill or placebo tablet before breakfast, and stop taking any hormones for at least six months before the study started. Calcium was supplemented in women who were taking less than 500 to 1000 mg daily. Importantly, women taking the isoflavone tablets were actually receiving a dose equal to approximately twice that normally obtained through food in Asian diets.
At the study’s end, the researchers found that women taking soy or placebo were on equal footing and that soy did not appear to prevent bone loss or reduce bone turnover. Moreover, soy did not appear to have any significant effect on hot flashes, night sweats, libido or vaginal dryness. They also say that even though women who are able to produce S-equol in their guts were likely to benefit from soy compared to women who are not, they did not see any specific benefit when these women were studied separately. Although not considered a dangerous side effect, constipation was experienced by more than a third of women taking soy.
So, what are we to think? Some studies say soy is effective, particularly among S-equol producers while others, like this well designed trial, show that it is now. However, there has been some data suggesting that the ratio of specific isoflavones may play an important role, and there is no information in the published study about this ratio other than to say that the soy supplement used is similar to those obtained in health food stores.
When it comes to soy, the verdict isn’t quite out yet, although the studies that have been conducted to date can’t seem to tease out what’s what. As always, use caution and lower your expectations. There are other non-hormonal approaches that may provide greater benefit when it comes to bone loss and menopausal hot flashes and other symptoms.
Want to read more on soy isoflavones? Check out the Flashfree archives.
Read MoreArchives
Tags
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.