Industry dismisses recent calcium study as ‘flawed’

[Guest guest]

Following publication of a recent BMJ study slamming calcium supplements

over their potential heart risks, industry has been keen to give its

response to NutraIngredients.

The study, published in the *British Medial Journal *and reported by

NutraIngredients

here<http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/New-analysis-slams-calcium-sup\

plements-over-heart-problems>,

warned that the risks of heart problems outweigh the potential

benefits of

calcium

supplement<http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/content/search?SearchText=calcium\

+supplement & FromNews>ation,

with the lead researcher Professor Ian Reid saying that the results suggest

that the indiscriminate use of calcium supplements ‘should be abandoned’.

However, leading industry figures have come out to counter-slam the results

of the study, questioning the *“flawed”* methodology and statistical

interpretation of the meta-analysis.

Hathcock, senior vice president of scientific and international affairs

at the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) told NutraIngredients that he

*“wouldn’t put a lot of weight”* on the conclusions, adding that he believed

the methodology of the study *“raises more questions than it provides

answers.”*

*Rich history*

Last year, Professor Reid and his research team published a study (reported

here<http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Risks-outweigh-benefits-for-ca\

lcium-supplements-Meta-analysis>)

suggesting that regular calcium supplementation, taken to reduce the

risk

of osteoporosis may in-fact cause more heart attacks than the number of

fractures they prevent.

The research team then re-analysed the data from this study, but this time

included data of three new trials which looked at the effects of calcium

plus vitamin D; something that the previous study received criticism

for<http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Industry-Calcium-research-cherr\

y-picked-results>omitting

last time around.

This new meta-analysis, with data from 29000 people, reported similar

findings, suggesting that the risk of heart problems outweigh the potential

benefits of calcium supplementation.

*Flawed analysis?*

*“We saw this same flawed analysis last year with some slight changes, but

we’re still looking at a meta-analysis of other studies […] This latest

analysis does not present compelling evidence against calcium and vitamin D,

and in fact, there are many more studies touting the beneficial effects for

both,”* said Dr. Cara Welch, vice president of scientific and regulatory

affairs for the Natural Products Association (NPA).

Welch added that she hoped that individuals who use calcium supplements for

bone health will continue supplementation *“and not be swayed by this flawed

analysis.*

*“We have seen over and over the argument that Americans can get all the

nutrients they need from a balanced diet. But the fact is, most don’t*,” she

argued.

Hathcock of the CRN added to this sentiment by questioning the way the

statictics have been interpreted in the new analysis:

*“Instead of considering these findings a coincidence or a statistical

abnormality as there are with many analyses of large pools of data with many

variables, the authors instead suggest that the abrupt change in blood

calcium levels after supplementation is what causes the effect … It seems

more likely that findings are a procedural or statistical anomaly,”* said

Hathcock

However, Prof. Reid responded to the claims that the studies methods were

flawed, telling NutraIngredients that the methodology and statistical rigour

of the studies findings have been independently tested, and commended, on

two occasions during the research’s review and publication process.

*High stakes*

Reid said that he knew the research findings would be *“a high stake

statement,” *adding that the *“net losers would of course be industry

*[…]*because it has substantial impact on all the people who take

calcium and

also on all the people who make it.”*

*“For that reason we have been expecting very close scrutiny and I think we

have been particularly meticulous in the way we carried out this analysis so

that any scrutiny doesn’t hold problems for us,”* he said.

*Further consideration*

Harry Rice, V.P., Regulatory & Scientific Affairs for the United Natural

Products Alliance (UNPA), told NutraIngredients that the he believes that

the study provides *“far too little evidence”* to dictate public health

policy.

*“The reported results are interesting and there’s little doubt in my mind

that the association between cardiovascular events and calcium

supplementation with or without vitamin D warrants further consideration via

future research,”* said Rice.

Ross, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation added to

the calls for further investigation:

*“The study showed there was a modest increase in heart attack or stroke

risk but that’s not the same as saying calcium supplements with vitamin D

cause heart attacks and strokes, only that there was an increased risk …

It’s very important further studies are carried out to determine the effects

of calcium supplements on heart health,”* said Ross.

*“There is still not enough evidence to confirm the association between

calcium supplements and cardiovascular risk,”* she added.

Link<http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Industry/Industry-dismisses-recent-calc\

ium-study-as-flawed/?c=T0QtS5cvuDXSb5zm3uuY4A%3D%3D & utm_source=newsletter_daily & \

utm_medium=email & utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily>

--

Ortiz, MS, RD

*The FRUGAL Dietitian* <http://www.thefrugaldietitian.com>

Check out my blog: mixture of deals and nutrition

Synovate – Take online surveys and win prizes – strongly

recommend!!<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=19111>Get

a $20 credit @ Rue LaLa (Daily deal site) exp. 4/25 and use by

5/25<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=19048>The

Frugal Dietitian: Mother's Day Giveaway<http://thefrugaldietitian.com/?p=19156>

New movie: Dietitian meets the Mis-guided Health Food

Clerk<

* " I plan on living forever - so far so good " *