Search results for bone loss

Plums…delicious, sweet. And, good for bone health?

Posted by Liz on Aug 19, 2011 in bone health | 0 comments

[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.

Whole body vibration training: what’s the lowdown on bone health?

Posted by Liz on Aug 15, 2011 in bone health | 2 comments

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!

Your bone health: the role of diet

Posted by Liz on Mar 11, 2011 in bone health | 1 comment

Osteoporosis. That scary condition that can result in bone fracture in up to 40% of US women after the age of 50. In the UK, it’s been estimated at least half of women over age fifty will have some sort of osteoporotic fracture. So it’s truly no laughing matter.

I’ve tried to cover osteoporosis extensively since starting Flashfree and you can find many of those posts here. However, I am especially intrigued by novel research that demonstrates that dietary pattern, that is, particular combinations of foods that we eat, may influence bone turnover, a term used to describe the balance between bone formation and bone loss (a process that goes on constantly through our lives) resulting in a net loss or gain in bone tissue. Moreover, dietary pattern may also specifically influence bone resorption, i.e., the process by which cells called osteoclasts break down bone so that minerals (like calcium) can be released into the bloodstream.

The researchers, who studied 3,236 postmenopausal women between the ages of 50 and 59, say that to date, most research has focused on link between specific nutrients and bone health, nutrients such as vitamin D or calcium. However, they point out that most individuals eat a variety of foods the contain combinations of nutrients. Therefore, they believed that there might be value in actually examining how the whole diet and the presence or absence of certain nutrients, affects the skeleton.

Consequently, they took initial body mass index measures, bone mineral density measures, assessed dietary habits by consumption of 98 foods, how often they were consumed and by portion size, and then, based on evaluation of how often these foods were consumed by the participants, further characterized them as the following dietary patterns: “healthy,” “processed,” “bread/butter,” “fish and chips” (the study took place in Scotland!) and “snack food.”

Overall, the women in the study actually consumed a large proportion of fruits and vegetables and on average, at least three cups of tea daily. Bread and potatoes tended to comprise the greatest source (at least percentage-wise) of “energy” to the diet. To a lesser extent, yogurt, cream, fats, oils, biscuits and milk also contributed a substantial amount of energy to the diet. However:

• Of the five types of dietary patterns, a healthy diet was most associated with better bone health, and specifically, a reduction in bone resorption. Specific foods included fruits and vegetables, white meat, white and oily fish and dairy, all nutrients that have been previously associated with beneficial bone health.This combination of foods also provided adequate protein.
• Conversely, eating mainly a ‘processed foods’ (i.e. cereal, processed meats, cake, desserts, dried fruits, soup, bread, and fats and oils) diet, and a “snack foods” diet (i.e. candy/cookies, potato chips, sauces) were both associated with reductions in bone mineral density.
• The results didn’t change when factors, such as whether or not women were taking drugs to fight osteoporosis, were taken into account.

The bottom line is that when it comes to bone health, it’s important to eat healthy, pack your diet with fruits and vegetables, and stay away from junk and processed foods. Focus on foods that are risk in calcium and balanced levels of good protein. Although this may seem intuitive, the findings emphasize that  a poor diet may ultimately result in poor bone health and increase fracture risk as you age.

Time to restock the fridge? No bones about it!

Dem bones! Isoflavones, S-equol and aging

Posted by Liz on Feb 7, 2011 in bone health | 1 comment

I love it when readers of this blog point me to research that I might have missed or just not stumbled across. That happened a few weeks ago after I wrote a post on soy and safety. By following the links, reader Carol Land directed me to a newly published study on S-equol and bone health.

S-equol is a metabolite of a major soy isoflavone called daidzein. It has a particular affinity for estrogen receptors and possesses some estrogen-type activity of its own. S-equol  is produced in the gastrointestinal tract however the ability to actually manufacture it depends on the presence of certain microflora. Consequently, only 30% to 60% of individuals are actually able to produce S-equol on their own (although this figure is believed to be higher among Asians and vegetarians).

The surge in interest in S-equol is related to its potential for augmenting the benefits of isoflavones; in fact, it is possible that women who are naturally producers of S-equol actually experience greater effects from soy products, and this is especially true when it comes to bone health.

I cannot stress enough the importance of bone health as we age. Declining levels of estrogen are a primary cause of bone loss and resulting osteoporosis in women; indeed, one in five American women over the age of 50 have osteoporosis and about half will experience a fracture in the hip, wrist or spine as a result. What’s more, because osteoporosis is silent in its early stages, causing no symptoms, it’s critical that bone loss is halted or at least slowed either before or during the most critical phases strike. There is no time like the present to take preventive measures, even if you are in your 30s and 40s.

Where does S-equol fit in?

For the first time, researchers have shown the daily S-equol supplements taken by women who are not naturally producers of S-equol, may improve bone metabolism and attenuate bone loss!

In this 1 year study of 356 healthy, postmenopausal Japanese women between the ages of 41 and 62, daily intake of 10 mg S-equol via supplement markedly reduced markers of bone resorption in blood and urine compared to women taking placebo pills or 2 mg or 6 mg of S-equol daily. In fact, in women taking the 10 mg dose for a year, declines in a  urinary marker of bone resorption (i.e. DPD) were roughly 21% greater compared to placebo. Measures of whole body bone mineral density also showed that S-equol supplementation protected against bone loss, although not to the extent as bone resorption. These results remained even after changes in height, weight, body mass index, lean and fat mass were accounted for. No participant experienced serious side effects from taking S-equol and hormone levels were not adversely affected.

Does this mean that you should rush out and purchase S-equol supplements?

One of the primary limitations of this study is that the process of bone recycling can take as long as 18 months and the time required to complete a cycle may actually increase with age. Thus, the duration of time that the women were studied might be too short to draw any definitive conclusions. Hence,  you may want to wait before you start taking S-equol. However, the evidence that’s building continues to put the weight on the benefits versus risks side. Only time will tell. Meanwhile – here’s to your bone health. Keep on doing all you can do to keep dem bones.

The B’s have it – bursting the belly and bones myth

Posted by Liz on Dec 3, 2010 in bone health | 2 comments

When it comes to aging and women, bone health is a big deal. As I’ve written time and again on Flashfree, women are at a particularly high risk for bone loss as they age because of declining estrogen levels, and in turn, a reduced ability to prevent an increase in net bone resorption (i.e. bone loss due to the activity of bone cells). And while we’ve been told that excess body fat actually protects against bone loss, novel research is putting that myth to rest. This news may affect the millions of women who are considered obese based on their body mass index (BMI > 30), who, although at greater risk for heart disease, diabetes and joint disease, were at least believed to have a weapon against osteoporosis.

In a small study that was presented at this week’s Radiological Society of North America meeting, an assessment of the abdominal and total fat and bone mineral density of 50 premenopausal women of varying BMI showed surprising results. According to the lead researcher, Dr. Miriam Bredella, “the general consensus has been that increased body fat protects against bone loss and obese women are at decreased risk for developing osteoporosis. However, we found that visceral fat — the deep belly fat — makes bone weaker.” In fact, the researchers found that women with more belly fat had significant declines in their bone mineral density and increases in the degree of fat within their bone marrow, but that total body fat or fat existing right below the skin had little impact on bones.

An important challenge for women is not only that metabolism slows and the risk for obesity increases as we age, but also, a natural increased risk for redistribution of fat to the abdominal area. And unfortunately, it’s one of the most challenging areas to address, requiring significant increases in physical activity and decreases in caloric intake. Some data suggest that isoflavones might help reduce waist circumference as well, although they are hardly definitive at this point. Still, a word to the wise: that belly fat is not going to protect your bones. Time to start moving and eating correctly; your bones will thank you.