RE: Osteoporosis & Body Weight

[Guest guest]

I have been upset that I was diagnosed several years ago as having osteopenia

( pre-osteoporosis). I am 57 years old, weigh 123, have drunk milk three

time a day most days of my life, and I have exercised regularly. I was certain

there had to be something wrong with the machine that measured my bones.

I have recently read in more that one source that weighing less than 127

lb. is one risk factor for osteoporosis. That is so maddening, but it may

support what you are saying.

Lukas

apricot85 wrote:

I

once read an explanation that bones respond directly to how much

weight they must carry. When one gains weight, the bones get signals

that they must get stronger & that bones respond accordingly. When

one

loses weight, the signals induce a "lax" effect in the bone

absorption/resorption activities. [assume no other metabolic/wasting

disease] Do find merit with this explanation? If this is true, then

shouldn't we be able to walk around carrying weighted sand bags on our

backs to promote stronger bones? All I ever read about is weight

lifting to improve bones, which isn't quite the same thing (IMO).

Rodney wrote:

>OBESE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER OSTEOPOROSIS!

>

>

[Guest guest]

One of the easy things that a person can do to increase bone mass is to jump

up and down a few times a day. There was a little known study that

schoolchildren who did this increased their bone mass. Ever since I heard

this, I do a few of sets of jumping jacks on most days (when I remember).

A school-based exercise intervention elicits substantial bone health

benefits: a 2-year randomized controlled trial in girls.

MacKelvie KJ, Khan KM, Petit MA, Janssen PA, McKay HA.

Endocrinology and Diabetes Unit, British Columbia Children's Hospital and

Food, Nutrition and Health, Canada.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood weight-bearing physical activity is recognized as an

important determinant of peak bone mass, and physical activity intervention

may represent a feasible strategy for primary prevention of osteoporosis.

Previous school-based exercise interventions have all been of <10 months in

duration. We implemented a high-impact, circuit-based, jumping intervention

(10 minutes, 3 times a week) over 2 school years and compared changes in

bone mineral content (BMC) over 20 months (2 school years) in 9.9 +/-

0.6-year-old intervention girls (N = 32) and controls

(10.3 +/- 0.4 years, N = 43). METHODS: We measured BMC for the total body,

lumbar spine, proximal femur (and femoral neck and trochanteric subregions),

and lean and fat mass by dual-energy radiograph absorptiometry (Hologic

QDR 4500), and height, sitting height, leg length, and weight at baseline

and 20 months. We assessed Tanner stage, general physical activity, and

calcium intake by questionnaire.

RESULTS: Girls were Tanner breast stage 1 to 3 at

baseline. There were no significant differences in baseline or 20-month

change in body size or composition, average

physical activity, or calcium intake between groups. There were

substantially greater gains in lumbar spine (41.7% vs

38.0%) and femoral neck (24.8% vs 20.2%) BMC in intervention than in

control girls (P <.05, analysis of covariance;

covariates were baseline BMC and height, change in height, physical

activity, and final Tanner stage).

CONCLUSION:

Three brief sessions of high-impact exercise per week implemented over 2

consecutive years within the elementary school curriculum elicited a

substantial bone mineral accrual advantage in pubertal girls.

Publication Types:

Clinical Trial

Randomized Controlled Trial

PMID: 14654643 [PubMed]

on 5/9/2004 7:30 PM, apricot85 at apricot85@... wrote:

> I once read an explanation that bones respond directly to how much

> weight they must carry. When one gains weight, the bones get signals

> that they must get stronger & that bones respond accordingly. When one

> loses weight, the signals induce a " lax " effect in the bone

> absorption/resorption activities. [assume no other metabolic/wasting

> disease] Do find merit with this explanation? If this is true, then

> shouldn't we be able to walk around carrying weighted sand bags on our

> backs to promote stronger bones? All I ever read about is weight

> lifting to improve bones, which isn't quite the same thing (IMO).

>

> Rodney wrote:

>

>> OBESE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER OSTEOPOROSIS!

[Guest guest]

Hi Apricot:

Are you a mind reader too? LOL.

I have given some thought to the design of a weight jacket!

Rodney.

>

> >OBESE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER OSTEOPOROSIS!

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Yes, bone growth respond to stress/micro-fractures. Of course you need to

make available the raw materials and right conditions (calcium, vit D, ?).

NASA has done research into appropriate exercises to maintain bone mass

which an obvious issue during extended space travel and weight belts don't

work in space :-). I think they are having some success with vibration

devices.

For us land-lubbers, weight bearing exercises are helpful (resistance,

running, walking, etc). Some serious CRONies have taken to walking or hiking

with weight vests (sold in exercise/sports training shops). There is debate

over which is best or most calorie efficient (for those trying to optimize

every last calorie spent)...some favor mini-trampolines. Sitting around

being vibrated would be the CR winner...!

I run therefore I am (not buying a vibrator).....

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: apricot85 [mailto:apricot85@...]

Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 6:31 PM

Subject: [ ] Osteoporosis & Body Weight

I once read an explanation that bones respond directly to how much

weight they must carry. When one gains weight, the bones get signals

that they must get stronger & that bones respond accordingly. When one

loses weight, the signals induce a " lax " effect in the bone

absorption/resorption activities. [assume no other metabolic/wasting

disease] Do find merit with this explanation? If this is true, then

shouldn't we be able to walk around carrying weighted sand bags on our

backs to promote stronger bones? All I ever read about is weight

lifting to improve bones, which isn't quite the same thing (IMO).

Rodney wrote:

>OBESE PEOPLE DO NOT SUFFER OSTEOPOROSIS!

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>I have given some thought to the design of a weight jacket!

I have used these when walking. I have tried several others and these are

by far the best made, the most comfortable, and the easiet to adjust from 5

lbs to 50 lbs that I have found ....

www.weightvest.com

Jeff

PS I have no association with this site or the manufacturers of the weight vest

other than I have owned 3 of them.

[Guest guest]

Regarding the notion that obese people don't get osteoporosis:

I have to say that IN MY CASE, that has proven to be true. According to tests I

had done in 9/2003, I'm way over the 90th percentile for bone density for even a

25-year-old woman, and I'm over fifty.

However...

My mother and maternal grandmother both fought overweight their entire lives

(through " yo-yo dieting " ), and they both had very severe osteoporosis.

Also, being overweight is very hard on your joints, as it causes a lot of

premature wear-and-tear on the knees and ankles.

So I would conclude that my own good bone density probably has a lot more to do

with eating a varied, balanced diet and doing a lot of weight-bearing exercise

(i.e., I don't own a car and so I do a lot of walking). I also suspect that if

I hadn't gotten off of the " diet rollercoaster " about 15 years ago (which

stabilized my weight) that my bones would be suffering right now.

There is NO WAY that would I ever advocate being too-heavy to save ones bones!

I think that doing a lot of walking would be a much saner solution (and remember

that you can also carry a heavy backpack or suchlike when you walk to increase

the " weight bearing " effects when you walk).

Cyn

Click on the Gallery Link to View My Newly-Posted Art

http://groups.msn.com/AstarteGalleryandDecor/shoebox.msnw?albumlist=2

Sign up for Internet Service under $10 dollars a month, at

http://isp.BlueLight.com