Re: Study: Childhood CLO intake & reduced bone mineral density

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/08, Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@...> wrote:

> http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/4/406?etoc

>

> Any insights on this?

The main issue here is that until 1999 their cod liver oil contained

3,300 IU of vitamin A and 40 IU of vitamin D per teaspoon. Way too

little vitamin D, and too much A for having so little D.

That said, I would not give this study too much weight, though it is

interesting and deserves some attention. 90% of the women took CLO

during childhood. They didn't seem to have any way of verifying

everyone in the study had lived in this rural Norwegian town all their

lives. Is it possible many of the 10% were from out of town,

somewhere more sunny perhaps?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

> The main issue here is that until 1999 their cod liver oil contained

> 3,300 IU of vitamin A and 40 IU of vitamin D per teaspoon. Way too

> little vitamin D, and too much A for having so little D.

>

Wow, that IS very little vitamin D!

> That said, I would not give this study too much weight, though it is

> interesting and deserves some attention. 90% of the women took CLO

> during childhood. They didn't seem to have any way of verifying

> everyone in the study had lived in this rural Norwegian town all their

> lives. Is it possible many of the 10% were from out of town,

> somewhere more sunny perhaps?

>

That's a good question. It seems like the study is not very well-designed,

and raises more questions than answers. Someone posted this in another group

I belong to, and now there's concern that taking CLO may reduce bone mineral

density.

On 3/14/08, Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@... <n.giuliano%40gmail.com>>

wrote:

> http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/4/406?etoc

>

> Any insights on this?

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Naomi,

> That's a good question. It seems like the study is not very well-designed,

> and raises more questions than answers. Someone posted this in another group

> I belong to, and now there's concern that taking CLO may reduce bone mineral

> density.

If they are adults, then this study should make them feel safe, since

it found that current use of CLO (among 60% of the subjects) had no

association with BMD.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> If they are adults, then this study should make them feel safe, since

> it found that current use of CLO (among 60% of the subjects) had no

> association with BMD.

>

Thanks, that's good to know. May I post what you've said to the group?

Naomi

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/08, Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@...> wrote:

> Thanks, that's good to know. May I post what you've said to the group?

Sure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Thank you!

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

wrote:

> On 3/14/08, Naomi Giuliano <n.giuliano@...<n.giuliano%40gmail.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > Thanks, that's good to know. May I post what you've said to the group?

>

> Sure.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Another thing to keep in mind is that bone density does not necessarily mean

bone strength. The assumption that it does is why fluoride is so widely

used... http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/bone/density/strength.html

The same assumption is why certain osteoporosis drugs, which actually weaken

bone by preventing old bone from being broken down, are considered

positive...

http://www.aor.ca/int/magazines/pdf/K2_Menatetrenone_winter_03.pdf (pg 8 in

the pdf marked 13 on page)

So that just leaves me with more questions about the study...

-Lana

>

> That's a good question. It seems like the study is not very well-designed,

> and raises more questions than answers. Someone posted this in another

> group

> I belong to, and now there's concern that taking CLO may reduce bone

> mineral

> density.

[Guest guest]

Lana ,

I'd forgotten that point about fluoride! Thanks for the link to the PDF

file.

Naomi

[Guest guest]

On 3/14/08, Lana Gibbons <lana.m.gibbons@...> wrote:

> Another thing to keep in mind is that bone density does not necessarily mean

> bone strength.

Low BMD is a risk factor for fracture. It accounts for about 25% of

the risk. Although it would be much better to have a fracture risk

study, it is pretty reasonable in the absence of fluoride-based or

resorption-inhibiting drugs to assume that low BMD is going to raise

fracture risk, and is a bad thing. You are certainly right, however,

that it is only part of the picture.

Chris