'Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool'

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Now the following should be really interesting, for everyone here, I

think.

Someone developed a very quick and simple numerical technique for

reviewing whether or not an individual should be assessed for

possible/probable osteoporosis. It has been named the " Osteoporosis

Self-Assessment Tool " - or OST for short. It has been found to have

a good record for alerting people, and their physicians, as to who

has approaching osteo danger.

What is so interesting about it is how it is constructed, and what

its construction, since it is apparently regarded as fairly reliable,

has to suggest about people out there (here?) in the real world.

How the system works can be found at the following link, from

the 'land Osteoporosis Prevention and Education Task Force':

http://www.strongerbones.org/pdf/040618_Final_Risk_Assessment.pdf

As you will see on page 3 the OST is calculated as follows:

OST = (weight in kg - age in years) x 0.2

Then, having done the above calculation, you are asked to delete the

decimal point and everything to its right (no, do not 'round' it).

You then are left with an integer the relevance of which can be

determined from the table below the formula in the link.

*** THERE ARE ONLY TWO VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THIS EQUATION ***

The first variable is age - we all know the chances of osteoporosis

rise as we get older - the second variable is body weight. So

according to this formula, beyond age the ONLY thing that matters

regarding osteoporosis risk is how much you weigh.

The implication appears to be that everyone who is lighter than

average will have an above average probability of getting

osteoporosis. Everyone of above average weight will enjoy a reduced

probability (something we all know is widely believed, and is

probably even true). So, if the OST formula is half as useful as it

is made out to be, then everyone on CRON whose reduced caloric intake

has resulted in reduced weight (and if we believe that -

Benedict means anything then that should include everyone who has

reduced their caloric intake) should show up poorly on the OST, and

be subject to increased risk of osteoporosis.

Perhaps I should not be too surprised about this. We have quite

often discussed here the fact that when calories are restricted both

fat mass and lean body mass are lost, including muscle, organ weight

and bone. Is anyone arguing that the bone that inevitably must be

lost with reduced caloric intake can be lost in a way that does not

entail loss of mass from within the bone matrix? This is NOT a

rhetorical question.

If anyone thinks it is possible when losing bone to lose not only the

matter within the matrix but the matrix itself also, thereby leaving

the bone that remains fully intact, would they please explain how?

Do you get my drift here? Hopefully there is a simple answer so that

we can all adopt it and have the strongest bones on the planet while

dramatically reducing caloric intake.

TIA

Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

It may be worth adding that the OST formula (in my earlier post,

attached below) provides an incredibly simple solution by which I can

move from somewhat above the middle of the moderate risk category for

osteoporosis to just comfortably within the low risk category. I

just calculated the answer.

I need to put on thirty to thirty-five pounds of weight. Of course

fifty to eighty pounds would be even better. My brother weighs sixty

pounds more than I do and brags to me that when he has his very

occasional, major, five-year, medical checkups he is told that there

is virtually no risk he will ever get osteoporosis. Hmmmmm. Another

piece of the puzzle now fitted in place.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Now the following should be really interesting, for everyone here,

I

> think.

>

> Someone developed a very quick and simple numerical technique for

> reviewing whether or not an individual should be assessed for

> possible/probable osteoporosis. It has been named

the " Osteoporosis

> Self-Assessment Tool " - or OST for short. It has been found to

have

> a good record for alerting people, and their physicians, as to who

> has approaching osteo danger.

>

> What is so interesting about it is how it is constructed, and what

> its construction, since it is apparently regarded as fairly

reliable,

> has to suggest about people out there (here?) in the real world.

>

> How the system works can be found at the following link, from

> the 'land Osteoporosis Prevention and Education Task Force':

>

> http://www.strongerbones.org/pdf/040618_Final_Risk_Assessment.pdf

>

> As you will see on page 3 the OST is calculated as follows:

>

> OST = (weight in kg - age in years) x 0.2

>

> Then, having done the above calculation, you are asked to delete

the

> decimal point and everything to its right (no, do not 'round' it).

> You then are left with an integer the relevance of which can be

> determined from the table below the formula in the link.

>

> *** THERE ARE ONLY TWO VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THIS EQUATION ***

>

> The first variable is age - we all know the chances of osteoporosis

> rise as we get older - the second variable is body weight. So

> according to this formula, beyond age the ONLY thing that matters

> regarding osteoporosis risk is how much you weigh.

>

> The implication appears to be that everyone who is lighter than

> average will have an above average probability of getting

> osteoporosis. Everyone of above average weight will enjoy a

reduced

> probability (something we all know is widely believed, and is

> probably even true). So, if the OST formula is half as useful as

it

> is made out to be, then everyone on CRON whose reduced caloric

intake

> has resulted in reduced weight (and if we believe that -

> Benedict means anything then that should include everyone who has

> reduced their caloric intake) should show up poorly on the OST, and

> be subject to increased risk of osteoporosis.

>

> Perhaps I should not be too surprised about this. We have quite

> often discussed here the fact that when calories are restricted

both

> fat mass and lean body mass are lost, including muscle, organ

weight

> and bone. Is anyone arguing that the bone that inevitably must be

> lost with reduced caloric intake can be lost in a way that does not

> entail loss of mass from within the bone matrix? This is NOT a

> rhetorical question.

>

> If anyone thinks it is possible when losing bone to lose not only

the

> matter within the matrix but the matrix itself also, thereby

leaving

> the bone that remains fully intact, would they please explain how?

>

> Do you get my drift here? Hopefully there is a simple answer so

that

> we can all adopt it and have the strongest bones on the planet

while

> dramatically reducing caloric intake.

>

> TIA

>

> Rodney.