I'm on bisphosphonate treatment (zoledronic acid), I've already had 5 of those injections and I recently learnt that it could lead to severe side effects and not that effective for treating Osteoporosis.
Meanwhile I underwent a genetic testing and the result came out as I have COMP8 mutation which leads to Multiple epiphyseal dysplasia or Pseudo-achondroplasia; Both of which affects bones to different extent and I have symptoms for both.
I'm now looking for treatments which can help improve my bone density or at-least prevent further deterioration, CCN3 looks really promising. I even started a project to monitor bone health using BMD (Dexa) reports[1] and to submit reports for research (I'm looking for researchers in this area).
1 in 3 women over the age of 50 years and 1 in 5 men will experience osteoporotic fractures in their lifetime, According to this article more than 200 million people worldwide suffer from osteoporosis but I feel investment in bone health research is not enough.
What is the biological mechanism behind this statement?
Cortisol is also released during strength training, though.
Seems like a real issue is low impact cardio, which isn't negative for bone density (as far as I can tell) but does have a theoretical opportunity cost when you could be doing weight-bearing cardio, which does improve bone density.
Agreed with littlestymaar's comment higher up, though, that exercise rates being what they are, the theoretical opportunity cost may be quite theoretical.
more than compensated for by the compressive loading signals from lifting heavy.
Would that also be true for caffeine consumption? IIRC it increases cortisol levels, but I don't really know much about what else it does, I've only read the Wikipedia page and gone "Wow, I'm really glad I've already cut back".
What you said about caffeine worried me somewhat, so I looked it up on Wiki and what I found about it was mostly innocuous and some properties are even beneficial, it's even on WHO's list of essential medicines.
Many vegetables have much more dangerous compounds and toxins: oxalic acid (a rust remover and bleach that can rot your kidneys) in rhubarb and Popeye's spinach and many other green-leaf vegies, solanine in potatoes, and very dangerous cancer-causing aflatoxins in peanut butter, and that's just the beginning, there are many dozens more! Now you know, are you going to starve?
And to boot, caffeine is a nice looking heterocyclic purine-like molecule with a six and a five-member ring both heavily laden with nitrogen, so what's the worry about? What's not to like about it?
"""Consumption of 1–1.5 grams […] per day is associated with a condition known as caffeinism.[141] Caffeinism usually combines caffeine dependency with a wide range of unpleasant symptoms including nervousness, irritability, restlessness, insomnia, headaches, and palpitations after caffeine use."""
"""cases of very high caffeine intake (e.g. > 5 g) may result in caffeine intoxication with symptoms including mania, depression, lapses in judgment, disorientation, disinhibition, delusions, hallucinations or psychosis, and rhabdomyolysis."""
>5g. Now, who do you know consumes more than 50 cups of coffee per day consistently? I'd suggest none.
If you scaled up oxalic acid daily doses in the same ratio as for the caffeine example then in the first instance the person would almost undoubtedly have kidney stones. In the second example the person would be dead. Right, at that dose Popeye's spinach meal would almost certainly have killed him.
At least the 'caffeinated' person, whilst off his head, would likely be still alive.
Even water has a LD50 rating. As millions attest, caffeine is one of the safer less harmful chemicals that plants use to defend themselves with. Almost every other organic molecule that plants use to ward off insects is more toxic.
Here's a few we actually eat: www.mashed.com/1299947/most-dangerous-vegetables/ There are tens of thousands of others that you'd want to keep well away from, Nux vomica, Manchineel, Death caps, Atropa belladonna, etc. By comparison, in the danger stakes, caffeine doesn't even get off the starting block.
Me in 2009, by dose, as a result of constantly increasing my consumption and ending up at multiple tablespoons (not teaspoons) of instant per cup and nothing else but coffee as daily fluid intake.
Hence being glad I'd already cut back by the time I'd read about the impact of too much.
They warned us in school about the dangers of tobacco and alcohol (and all the illegal drugs*), but nobody ever said "there is such a thing as too much caffeine".
There is, and the unlimited free coffee in most workplaces turns out to be a problem for me.
* regarding your point about LD50 water, school also lied about the dangers of Ecstasy. Leah Betts' actual cause of death was water overdose, but she was the literal poster-child for the anti-drugs campaign in my time.
In the wash-up I reckon our views are likely closer to each other than it first seems. I agree completely with you being indignant about being lied to at school.
The whole matter of drug education I reckon is in an unholy mess. However, it's difficult to blame anyone in particular because there are so many factors involved and almost every one of them is complicated by multiple factors. I don't envy anyone involved in setting policy in this area.
There are social and moral issues involved not to mention that both schools and parents often have little factual knowledge about drugs, drug taking, addiction, and likely most have no personal experience of drugs having never taken them, etc. This itself is a major problem.
Thus, often the information they impart to kids comes more from emotion than from actual fact. This often misleading information is also the source of why there are so many views and why it's so difficult to reach a common agreement or consensus.
No doubt both teachers and parents want to keep their kids safe, so they'll tell kids what they think is necessary whether it's correct or not, and they'll do so without due consideration or whether it's prudent to even raise certain matters.
Therefore, it's sort of understandable that teachers, schools and parents lie to kids about such matters. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that lying to kids doesn't pay off as in the long-term it has negative consequences (and I'd reckon that's especially so when it comes to information about drugs).
In my opinion, misinforming kids is a serious matter for whatever reason.
My views and opinions about this go back a long way and owe their origins to an incident that happened when I was very young. (Fortunately it wasn't about drugs because there weren't† any around when I was growing up decades ago, we kids were very lucky in that regard.)
The incident occurred before I'd started school when my mother took me to see a matinee and during the newsreel there was a news clip about cancer and cancer research. Later when I asked her about it, so as not to worry me she told me that cancer was a very rare disease and that I'd never have to worry about it. She also failed to tell me that one of her sisters died of cancer before I was born. So a woman who would have been my aunt died of the disease. Now that's damn close to home I reckon.
It all unraveled a couple of years later when I was about 7 or 8 when I was on holidays at my grandmother's place. Her next-door neighbor was dying of lung cancer and it was my grandmother who told me so—not my mother. That's when I found out my mother had lied to me. I never mentioned to my mother what my grandmother had told me—and I've never forgotten that I was lied to.
We adults almost always underestimate how intelligent kids really are and the moment they get a whiff that they've been hoodwinked is the moment when mistrust first sets in. In my opinion that's really bad, especially so early on because the earlier things are imprinted into kid's minds the harder they are to shift later.
Back to the matter of your sensitivity to caffeine, these issues arose again in another current story that you may be interested in under HN title A chemist explains the chemistry behind decaf coffee (it's not the actual story title): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41067616.
I've made several posts here but the one that's probably the most relevant to you is this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41076191
__
† Thus, we had no instruction about drugs at school except to be told that if we were caught smoking we'd be in trouble (especially so if anyone was caught doing so at school). And several were caught, they'd sneak off and smoke behind the toilet block down the end of the school yard. BTW, I wasn't one of them (and I don't smoke).
I said "cut back" not "cut out".
(And that's a significant issue in itself)
Breast cancer dropped with a step function when HRT was stopped in general for meopausal women.
I haven't seen any studies to the contrary.
Could be worth a look? I didn't dive into the study itself, but it seems decent at a glance.
They do tend to cause an increase in blood clots though. The risk is manageable in relatively fit women. In overweight/sedentary women that gets a bit harder to balance out.
That risk factor is specific to the oral route, and/or conjugated equine oestrogens. Injections, patches etc. of synthesised oestrogens don't seem to have that problem. https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.k4810
> Transdermal preparations were not associated with risk of venous thromboembolism, which was consistent for different regimens
Don't eat your HRT: rub it on your gums!
It's not that frail people need to be inactive, but that inactivity causes frailty.
I can see a rapid increase in untrained people but more marginal increases in trained people because of this.
A 40% increase in bone density over 6 weeks sounds like someone’s DEXA scanner is broken. Bones just don’t change that quickly.
I've observed this as being a very widespread belief too, and it seems like we need to be giving women a better biology education or something, because holy shit is it wrong.
I guess it's more a misconception among the general non weight training public that this stuff is so easy you can basically develop a muscular, masculine body on accident.
For all but the youngest and most genetically blessed males it takes years of very specific diet and exercise regimes. Or steroids.
Whereas just adding some weighted squats into her routine will have immense health benefits for most women as well as making their body look more feminine and attractive.
Well, I’m not sure if that’s true, many men like “curvy” women, but generally even they are regularly working out. It would be more accurate to say that men dislike unhealthy women. But then you could say the same thing about men.
This sounds like some really insecure men
So I will say it again: any woman who thinks she will accidentally develop a masculine physique is a fool. She has a poor understanding of weight training and the human body.
Just as any man who thinks he'll get that physique on accident is also a fool!
> they're worried that muscle tone will make them look masculine
Yes, this is a common concern. It would be good to show women what it looks like to workout hard six days a week for more than one year. (My point: That is an unrealistic weight lifting schedule for 99% of women.) They still won't look very masculine. Very well toned, but not very masculine. My advice when women raise this concern: "If you get too big, just ease off. Maintaining is way easier than growing."It's been done. It doesn't matter that you can't see the abs on 50% of the women on the Olympic team. Some think they'll get the physique of a professional body builder who's been abusing steroids for a decade anyway.
I've been lifting weights on and off for over a decade and although I do have visible abs, that's more by nature of low body fat percentage than lifting. The point is - no matter how hard I train, I've never even gotten close to what I would consider as "too big" for my preference. Even as your muscle mass increases, the end result just seems to be a more _compact_ and efficient look rather than "bulky" in any sense of the word.
The same applies to cardio, where the general population over-estimates the calories burned and imagines that all runners will become skeletons.
Not a comment on the parent post, just highlighting that biology is not so straight forward.
But once cancer has occurred, adding more testosterone doesn't matter because the sponge is already super-saturated.
In fact, doctors who have this perspective will permit men with prostate cancer to continue testosterone therapy.
Of course there are many types of cancer so this may not be true for all prostate cancers.
Once you get on this your only options are 1. use till you die 2. stop and face consequences of suppressed natural estrogen production from HRT.
Is that right?