For Active Girls, Vit. D Beats Calcium and Dairy
for Bone Building
By Kimberly Beauchamp, ND
Vitamin
D was the only factor that seemed to lower the risk of stress fractures.
Physically
active young girls could avoid sports-related fractures by getting enough vitamin
D in their diet, reports a study in the Archives of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine.
Building bones for life
The
preteen and teenage years are a critical time for bone development. This is
when most of the bone mass is laid down, so it’s important that children,
especially girls, do everything they can to maximize bone health while they
can.
Calcium
is a major component of bone, so it follows that the mineral has received a lot
of attention for its bone-building ability. But there’s more to strong bones
than calcium alone. Vitamins D and K, along with other minerals like boron and
zinc also play a role.
A
total of 6,712 girls between 9 and 15 years old took part in a study to see
just how important three of the “major players” in bone health stood up to
scrutiny. Using information gathered from food-frequency questionnaires,
investigators estimated how much vitamin D, calcium, and dairy the girls got on
a daily basis. Then, they looked at how likely the girls were to develop stress
fractures. This type of fracture occurs when the bone isn’t strong enough to
take the pressure (or stress) put upon it. Stress fractures are more common in
girls who play competitive high-impact sports.
Vitamin D takes the cake
Over
the course of seven years, about 4% of the girls developed stress fractures.
Almost all of these occurred in girls who participated in high-impact
sports—like basketball, running, soccer, tennis, cheerleading, or
volleyball—for more than one hour per day.
The
amount of dairy in the diet did not seem to affect fracture risk. In fact,
girls who consumed three or more servings of dairy per day did not have a lower
fracture risk than those who consumed none.
Calcium
consumption didn’t seem to lower fracture risk, either. Very active girls with
high calcium intake actually had a fracture risk two times greater than girls
with the lowest intake. “This unexpected finding warrants further inquiry,”
commented the researchers.
This
isn’t the first study to suggest that dairy and calcium might not be “the”
answer to building strong bones. Another recent investigation showed that while
very low calcium intake can hinder bone development, very high amounts of dairy
or calcium (as compared with adequate amounts) aren’t correlated with stronger
bones or lower fracture risk. Vitamin D was the only factor that seemed to
lower the risk of stress fractures. Among very active girls, those with the
highest vitamin D intake had a 52% lower chance of stress fractures than those
with the lowest intake.
“Our
findings support the Institute of Medicine’s recent increase in the Recommended
Dietary Allowance for vitamin D for adolescents from 400 IU/d to 600 IU/d,” the
team concluded.
Best bets for healthy bones
While
the jury is still out on the exact vitamin D, calcium, and dairy that are
needed for strong bones, you can count on a few constants:
Exercise
is good. It may seem obvious, but it bears
a reminder. Bones cannot form properly if they aren’t exposed to the forces put
upon them during weight-bearing exercise. It is essential that young girls get
enough of this type of exercise during their bone formative years.
Greens
go far. Dark green leafy vegetables like
spinach, collards, and bok choy provide a full complement of the vitamins and
minerals needed for healthy bones.
Protein
is necessary. Protein provides the building
blocks for strong bones. But too much might make bones more prone to fractures.
About 50 grams of protein per day is a reasonable amount for most young girls.
Vegetarian protein sources, like beans and nuts, may promote better calcium
absorption than animal sources.
Kimberly
Beauchamp, ND, received her doctoral degree from
Bastyr University, the nation’s premier academic institution for science-based
natural medicine. She co-founded South County Naturopaths in Wakefield, RI,
where she practiced whole family care with an emphasis on nutritional
counseling, herbal medicine, detoxification, and food allergy identification
and treatment. Her blog, Eat Happy, helps take the drama out of healthy eating
with real food recipes and nutrition news that you can use. Dr. Beauchamp is a
regular contributor to Healthnotes Newswire
My Comment:
While the Recommended Dietary Allowance for vitamin D for adolescents is 600 IU/d, many well respected health experts generally recommend over 2,000 IU per day for adolescents, and up to 8,000 IU per day for adults. Higher dosages are often recommended for short-term treatment when fighting a cold or other illness. It is esiest to buy tiny liquid capsules of D-3 in the 2,000 IU dosage for simpler supplementation when you are not exposed to direct sunshine for at least 20 minutes every day. Vitamin D is one of the core vitamins everyone should take if you are not exposed to direct sunshine on a daily basis.
Low Cholesterol May
Increase Cancer Risk
As reported by Jenny Thompson at Health Sciences Institute
As reported by Jenny Thompson at Health Sciences Institute
Researchers have discovered a new cancer risk. And it's easy to increase this
risk accidentally.
But don't bother asking your doctor about it. There's a very good chance he
hasn't even heard of it.
What's worse, research on this risk has been sparse. And mainstream media reporting has been virtually absent.
Gee...it's almost as if nobody wants to come right out and say it: Low LDL cholesterol may increase cancer risk.
Uh oh -- not too loud! After years of telling us that we need to drive LDL down as low as it can possibly go, you can be sure that an LDL/cancer link is the LAST thing the medical mainstream wants to admit.
But there it is. Hiding in plain sight.
Here's an astonishing comment from a recent Science Daily article...
"Previous studies of cholesterol-lowering drugs have suggested a strong association between low levels of LDL-C and cancer risk."
Stunning! And yet...
NBC? CBS? Fox News? New York Times? Hello! Anybody out there care to share this information with the world? No? Okay. It seems we'll have to follow this one under the mainstream radar.
The Science Daily article covered a study that looked at low LDL and cancer risk among patients who never took cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.
Here's a comment from one of the researchers: "The evidence so far tells us that the drugs themselves do not increase the risk of cancer."
Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight. Low LDL increases cancer risk. Statins lower LDL. But statins don't increase cancer risk.
See how that works? The statins can't be to blame. Heavens no! It's the low LDL. THERE'S your culprit!
A few years ago, I told you about a Canadian Medical Association Journal study that caught the low LDL link to cancer. And before that, in 2007, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology study also recognized the link.
But each time this association emerges, researchers go out of their way to parrot the mainstream medicine party line about statins. They almost act like they HAVE to remind everyone that statins are indispensable.
These guys will never let go.
I'll be on the lookout for further research about cancer and LDL -- and, of course, any additional warnings about statins.
What's worse, research on this risk has been sparse. And mainstream media reporting has been virtually absent.
Gee...it's almost as if nobody wants to come right out and say it: Low LDL cholesterol may increase cancer risk.
Uh oh -- not too loud! After years of telling us that we need to drive LDL down as low as it can possibly go, you can be sure that an LDL/cancer link is the LAST thing the medical mainstream wants to admit.
But there it is. Hiding in plain sight.
Here's an astonishing comment from a recent Science Daily article...
"Previous studies of cholesterol-lowering drugs have suggested a strong association between low levels of LDL-C and cancer risk."
Stunning! And yet...
NBC? CBS? Fox News? New York Times? Hello! Anybody out there care to share this information with the world? No? Okay. It seems we'll have to follow this one under the mainstream radar.
The Science Daily article covered a study that looked at low LDL and cancer risk among patients who never took cholesterol-lowering statin drugs.
Here's a comment from one of the researchers: "The evidence so far tells us that the drugs themselves do not increase the risk of cancer."
Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight. Low LDL increases cancer risk. Statins lower LDL. But statins don't increase cancer risk.
See how that works? The statins can't be to blame. Heavens no! It's the low LDL. THERE'S your culprit!
A few years ago, I told you about a Canadian Medical Association Journal study that caught the low LDL link to cancer. And before that, in 2007, a Journal of the American College of Cardiology study also recognized the link.
But each time this association emerges, researchers go out of their way to parrot the mainstream medicine party line about statins. They almost act like they HAVE to remind everyone that statins are indispensable.
These guys will never let go.
I'll be on the lookout for further research about cancer and LDL -- and, of course, any additional warnings about statins.
Jenny
Thompson
Health Sciences InstituteUse this Website to help find integrative and alternative doctors. You can find doctors who use an integrative approach combining traditional medical and alternative treatments. Go to:
Flax Seed Helps Remove Radiation and For Cancer Treatment
An
article by Jenny Thompson at Health Science Institute
I
was surprised to find out my body keeps a "savings account."
Unfortunately, this savings is radiation. And I hate to tell you, but your body
keeps the same account.
We all get exposed to radiation. You get dental x-rays. A chest x-ray here and there. Some security scanners use x-rays. You even pick up radiation when you fly by jet.
Any one of those exposures alone poses little risk.
But two years ago, scientists found out that these exposures are cumulative. Years of exposure can add up to considerable risk. Naturally, risk rises for those who receive higher exposures. For instance, radiation therapy places a huge "deposit" in this unwanted savings.
That's the bad news.
The good news: University of Pennsylvania researchers believe they found a way to make withdrawals from your radiation savings account.
Imagine a drug that protects you from radiation damage. That would be a true wonder drug! It would revolutionize radiation therapy for cancer.
But since we're imagining, let's go all the way. Let's say the drug is inexpensive and easy to find. And best of all, comes with no side effects. None. In fact, when you take this drug, it provides additional health benefits.
Ridiculous, isn't it? It's inconceivable.
But that's exactly the treatment the U. Penn team developed. Only it's not a drug. It's flaxseed.
The researchers gave flaxseed to mice. Some got it before radiation exposure, and some after exposure. Twice as many of the mice survived compared to healthy mice that didn't get flaxseed.
But the results went far beyond survival.
Flaxseed-fed mice had higher body weight and less lung inflammation. Lung fibrosis was significantly limited. Fibrosis causes irreversible stiffening of tissue.
Most importantly, these benefits occurred even in mice given flaxseed AFTER radiation exposure.
Researchers typically caution that animal studies are too preliminary to recommend promising treatments. But in this case, the authors say they've actually incorporated flaxseed into their own diets. And why not? Flaxseed is loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants.
Side effects: zero.
The U. Penn team is planning a flaxseed trial for cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Needless to say, I'm going to follow that one closely. We can't overstate the effects it might have on cancer patients' quality of life.
We all get exposed to radiation. You get dental x-rays. A chest x-ray here and there. Some security scanners use x-rays. You even pick up radiation when you fly by jet.
Any one of those exposures alone poses little risk.
But two years ago, scientists found out that these exposures are cumulative. Years of exposure can add up to considerable risk. Naturally, risk rises for those who receive higher exposures. For instance, radiation therapy places a huge "deposit" in this unwanted savings.
That's the bad news.
The good news: University of Pennsylvania researchers believe they found a way to make withdrawals from your radiation savings account.
Imagine a drug that protects you from radiation damage. That would be a true wonder drug! It would revolutionize radiation therapy for cancer.
But since we're imagining, let's go all the way. Let's say the drug is inexpensive and easy to find. And best of all, comes with no side effects. None. In fact, when you take this drug, it provides additional health benefits.
Ridiculous, isn't it? It's inconceivable.
But that's exactly the treatment the U. Penn team developed. Only it's not a drug. It's flaxseed.
The researchers gave flaxseed to mice. Some got it before radiation exposure, and some after exposure. Twice as many of the mice survived compared to healthy mice that didn't get flaxseed.
But the results went far beyond survival.
Flaxseed-fed mice had higher body weight and less lung inflammation. Lung fibrosis was significantly limited. Fibrosis causes irreversible stiffening of tissue.
Most importantly, these benefits occurred even in mice given flaxseed AFTER radiation exposure.
Researchers typically caution that animal studies are too preliminary to recommend promising treatments. But in this case, the authors say they've actually incorporated flaxseed into their own diets. And why not? Flaxseed is loaded with omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants.
Side effects: zero.
The U. Penn team is planning a flaxseed trial for cancer patients treated with radiation therapy. Needless to say, I'm going to follow that one closely. We can't overstate the effects it might have on cancer patients' quality of life.
Until
next time, stay healthy and happy
JD
Roma
No comments:
Post a Comment