phylwill1152
07-14-2006, 05:30 PM
This is my first post on this board. I was DX with osteo a couple of months ago and put on actenol. I was ok for a the first few weeks then started experiencing blurry vision and dry eyes. I called the dr. and told him i wasn't taking it anymore that i'd rather risk a fracture than damage my eyes. I walk daily, do weight training, take calcium/D and eat a good diet. I feel i am doing all the right things to keep my bones strong, if not dense. I have been reading about strontium and am thinking its a better choice than the meds. Has anyone tried it and if so what were your results? I'd much rather take something with no side effects and can be taken long term. Thanks for your help...phyllis:wave:
Sponsor
ncperry
07-16-2006, 03:01 PM
I, too, was prescribed Actonel in Feb. 2004 as soon as I was dx w/ severe osteo. I'm 57 yrs. old, very healthy, walk 2 mi. daily, eat only healthy foods, take calciuim, have NO risk factors, etc. and have been doing this for years. I recently developed trouble swallowing and aches in my legs at night. I've also noticed blurring vision at times. My gynec. (who prescribed the Actonel) sent me immediately to a gastroenterologist who did an endoscopy last week and found minor gastritis and esophagitis, put me on Nexium for 4 weeks, and said Actonel is not to blame. I just can't buy that, so I am now off Actonel. You must read the book The Myth of Osteoporosis. It vlaidates what I've thought for a while and may help you decide what is best for you. The only ones who seem to win are the pharmaceutical companies.
Piano0105
07-18-2006, 03:22 PM
Strontium Ranelate is being marketed under the brand name, Protelos, in Europe. However, it hasn't received FDA approval in the U.S. yet. There are a few places on the Internet where you can purchase strontium supplements. No long-term studies have been done as yet. I've tried it briefly, but it aggravated another medical condition I have. I can't take any of the other osteo drugs due to side-effects from all of them.
In my opinion, most doctors are too quick to prescribe these drugs without taking side-effects into consideration. Perhaps strontium will prove to be better than what is available so far. I agree that everyone should read "The Myth of Osteoporosis". I did, and now I don't feel as panicky about the situation.
In my opinion, most doctors are too quick to prescribe these drugs without taking side-effects into consideration. Perhaps strontium will prove to be better than what is available so far. I agree that everyone should read "The Myth of Osteoporosis". I did, and now I don't feel as panicky about the situation.
phylwill1152
07-18-2006, 05:56 PM
Thank you both for responding. I think i'll call the library and ask them to get me a copy of the book. Another good book is the Mayo Clinic Book on Osteoporosis 2003 editon. I have been given the ok from my dr. to try the stontium. There have been some studies in Europe and here also that have had good results with very few side effects. I believe upset stomach was the cause for people leaving the studies. I'm hoping i won't have that problem. I'll try it till my next scan and hope to see some improvement. What i'm also hoping is that if there are improvements that my dr. will then recommend it to others that don't want to risk the osteo drugs. take care...phyllis
hypatia
07-19-2006, 07:04 PM
Interesting reference site. I would think the DEXA-scan tech might get a little testy if they had to review the abstracts cited and make adjustments accordingly for patients taking Strontium. Does this apply to the natural strontium, I wonder? I will look forward to seeing DEXA results for those of you taking it.
The info and photos on dowager's hump/kyphosis (vertebral fractures) was also good and proof that osteoporosis is no myth but life threatening. I just hope Fosamax keeps working for me; if not, I will try all options to avoid the kyphosis my mother suffered.
The info and photos on dowager's hump/kyphosis (vertebral fractures) was also good and proof that osteoporosis is no myth but life threatening. I just hope Fosamax keeps working for me; if not, I will try all options to avoid the kyphosis my mother suffered.
phylwill1152
07-21-2006, 11:21 AM
Hi Klibros, Have you had any side effects from the strontium? I've read that it can cause upset stomach. The one I ordered and have just recieved has 340mg/cap with no additional fillers and you are to take 2 a day with or without food. Is strontium citrate a natural form? In some articles it says to take at night and others first thing in the morning. Do you think it would matter or does it work best while sleeping? I'd prefer to take it in the morning since i also take synthroid which can't be taken near calcium either. I stopped the actenol last week after taking 8 doses and am waiting till Aug.1st to start the strontium, so hopefully the actenol will be out of my system by then. Some one posted 480hours/20 days. if there is any personal insight you can share i'd appreciate hearing it. thanks...phyllis
Piano0105
07-24-2006, 03:13 PM
Phylwill1152,
Strontium is best taken at night at least two to three hours after a meal or any calcium. The reason for this is that strontium is very slow to be absorbed by the body. I know the label says with or without food, but that's incorrect. You can take it in the morning, however, you have to wait two to three hours before eating. For me it's pretty inconvenient since I'm a person who snacks late into the evening (I know I shouldn't do this, but it's difficult to break a long habit).
Strontium is best taken at night at least two to three hours after a meal or any calcium. The reason for this is that strontium is very slow to be absorbed by the body. I know the label says with or without food, but that's incorrect. You can take it in the morning, however, you have to wait two to three hours before eating. For me it's pretty inconvenient since I'm a person who snacks late into the evening (I know I shouldn't do this, but it's difficult to break a long habit).
PikaB
07-25-2006, 08:11 PM
There was a health news article on the web yesterday discussing Strontium Ranelate. The article was generally very favorable, with treatment trials indicating the risk reduction in vertebral fractures is around the same range (37%) as is achieved by bisphosphonates. However, the risk reduction in non-vertebral fractures was only 14%, and the director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center says that doesn't compare favorably with the 40 percent to 50 percent reduction in risk seen with the most commonly prescribed drugs for osteoporosis, Fosamax and Actonel. The article also mentions other strontium supplements, but states that their effectiveness is unknown.
phylwill1152
07-28-2006, 09:04 AM
I started taking the stontium the other day in the early morning. I know eating is a no no and since i don't eat for several hours anyway its not a problem, but would drinking a cup of coffee interfere with absorbtion? thanks...phyllis
John39840
07-28-2006, 09:29 AM
There was a health news article on the web yesterday discussing Strontium Ranelate. The article was generally very favorable, with treatment trials indicating the risk reduction in vertebral fractures is around the same range (37%) as is achieved by bisphosphonates. However, the risk reduction in non-vertebral fractures was only 14%, and the director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center says that doesn't compare favorably with the 40 percent to 50 percent reduction in risk seen with the most commonly prescribed drugs for osteoporosis, Fosamax and Actonel. The article also mentions other strontium supplements, but states that their effectiveness is unknown.
This reminds me of the shortsightedness of doctors, intent on lowering LDL (bad cholesterol,) without ever trying to raise HDL (good cholesterol.) Overall, just the fact that Strontium builds new bone (osteoblasts) makes it a winner, while Fosamax only reabsorbs old bone (osteoclasts.) Honestly, where in the doctor's conclusion is this simple fact being stated?
In fact, most of the osteoporosis drugs being marketed: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitonin simply are antiresorptive agents. In other words, they don't have the ability to create, or even maintain, new bone. So... while the illusion of bone density is increased, the actual reabsorbed older bone is formed weaker and more brittle.
Of course, the potential for osteocronsis on bisphosphonates makes its usage scary. Another concern with Fosamax is how it stays in the bone for years after being taken -- not so with strontium.
I also have no doubt that Strontium Ranelate is no different in effectiveness than strontium citrate. In fact, it's probably a lot more gentle on the stomach. Of course, for strontium to be completely effective, it must be taken 2-3 hours in the absence of any food.
My mom actually discontinued Fosamax due to unbearable stomach discomfort. She actually had no appetite for two days upon taking her weekly 70mg. of Fosamax... no matter what was tried to alleviate the problem. Yet, she's been on 2 grams of strontium citrate daily for six months, and so far, there's being a positive change in her appetite, as well as her mobility. I look forward to her next DEXA scan, and plan on posting the results at that time.
This reminds me of the shortsightedness of doctors, intent on lowering LDL (bad cholesterol,) without ever trying to raise HDL (good cholesterol.) Overall, just the fact that Strontium builds new bone (osteoblasts) makes it a winner, while Fosamax only reabsorbs old bone (osteoclasts.) Honestly, where in the doctor's conclusion is this simple fact being stated?
In fact, most of the osteoporosis drugs being marketed: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitonin simply are antiresorptive agents. In other words, they don't have the ability to create, or even maintain, new bone. So... while the illusion of bone density is increased, the actual reabsorbed older bone is formed weaker and more brittle.
Of course, the potential for osteocronsis on bisphosphonates makes its usage scary. Another concern with Fosamax is how it stays in the bone for years after being taken -- not so with strontium.
I also have no doubt that Strontium Ranelate is no different in effectiveness than strontium citrate. In fact, it's probably a lot more gentle on the stomach. Of course, for strontium to be completely effective, it must be taken 2-3 hours in the absence of any food.
My mom actually discontinued Fosamax due to unbearable stomach discomfort. She actually had no appetite for two days upon taking her weekly 70mg. of Fosamax... no matter what was tried to alleviate the problem. Yet, she's been on 2 grams of strontium citrate daily for six months, and so far, there's being a positive change in her appetite, as well as her mobility. I look forward to her next DEXA scan, and plan on posting the results at that time.
PikaB
07-28-2006, 10:53 AM
In theory, I don't like the way the bisphosphonates work, and I plan to avoid them for as long as possible (hopefully forever). But the bottom line goal in all osteoporosis treatment is reduced incidence of fracture (particularly hip fracture) and in this area the bisphosphonates have solid evidence of good results.
John39840
07-28-2006, 03:13 PM
I'm certainly not declaring strontium citrate/ranelate a panacea. But I don't believe the risks of biphosphonates outweigh the benefits either... except in very dramatic cases.
I haven't read the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Dr. McClung comments are based. Although, according to the July 2006 Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vertebral fractures were reduced 59% and nonvertebral fractures were reduced 37% within one year on 2 grams of strontium daily. And after three years vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were reduced 32% and 31% respectively. So I'm not completely certain from where The Cochrane Collaboration are deriving their information.
I haven't read the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in which the Dr. McClung comments are based. Although, according to the July 2006 Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, vertebral fractures were reduced 59% and nonvertebral fractures were reduced 37% within one year on 2 grams of strontium daily. And after three years vertebral and nonvertebral fractures were reduced 32% and 31% respectively. So I'm not completely certain from where The Cochrane Collaboration are deriving their information.
phylwill1152
07-28-2006, 03:39 PM
Thanks for the input, all those new responses over asking about a cup of coffee. I've been reading the book The Myth of Osteoporosis and one thing that really made sense to me was the the statement...ostoeporosis doesn't cause fractures, falling does. Anyone, regardless of bone density, can break a bone if they fall just right, and even with osteo you'd have to fall just right...I am going to give the strontium a try, keep exercersing, eating right and be careful. I'm not going to alter how i live or what i do on the chance that something may or may not break. Have a good weekend and thanks for the advice...phyllis
tulsatime
08-29-2006, 11:49 PM
My mother and I are both on Strontium citrate. She had a spontaneous fracture last december. She feles that the Strontium is helping her, of course we won't know until the next DEXA. My Gynecologist told me about 6 or 7 years ago that the biophophates did not build new bone...he explained it this way...that is like a cast over the bones...he keeps up with research and says hes hoping and waiting for them to come out with something safe and effective. At that time he did not know about Strontium.
Blessings to all
Blessings to all
phylwill1152
08-30-2006, 10:27 AM
Hi Larry Penny, thanks for the info. I also take thyroid meds and have talked to the dr. about the strontium. He ok'd using it and i am going to try if for a year to see if there is an improvement in the next DEXA scan. I haven't read about the bone cancer/luekemia risk from the stontium, can you tell me where you read that? thanks...phyllis
moderator2
08-30-2006, 01:11 PM
Please contact the administrator to change your username, as per the posting rules.
PikaB
08-30-2006, 04:10 PM
...EZorb has a Medical Staff of MD & PhD so I ask them the question about Strontium and that is there reply...So with that type of answer I felt they were being very truthful.
If you are going to trust what the EZborb staff says, then you should trust them when they say on their web site: "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." So they are saying that EZorb is not intended to treat or cure osteoporosis. Don't you believe them? :jester:
If you are going to trust what the EZborb staff says, then you should trust them when they say on their web site: "This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease." So they are saying that EZorb is not intended to treat or cure osteoporosis. Don't you believe them? :jester:
adec
08-31-2006, 07:40 PM
Anyone can claim a substance could interact with Osteoblasts and Osteoclasts. Bottom line is: Sr (Strontium) does not and should not exist in bones. If it does enter the bones, it causes bone cancer and leukemia, especially for kids
Your doctor is confusing radioactive strontium (Sr-89/90) with stable strontium. High doses of radioactive strontium indeed can cause leukemia and cancer. Radioactive strontium will probably never be available to the general public. However, some doctors do use radioactive strontium to more effectively treat bone cancer.
Strontium is a naturally occurring element found in the Periodic Table of Elements, right underneath calcium; they are both in the same family. You can also find trace amounts in the human body, even before any supplementation. Strontium's also abundantly available in the earth on which we stand, in the food we eat, and the water we drink.
And unlike Ezorb, a synthetic form of strontium (ranelate) or Protelos has been patented -- by Servier, a French pharmaceutical manufacturer -- and submitted for FDA approval. This has enabled the generation of major reputable scientific studies... including the ongoing FDA study. A Google search on "strontium ranelate" will bring up a list of a few of these studies.
So far, strontium has been proven, using a scientific method, to build new bone in adults -- unlike bisphosphonate -- and decrease fractures. *Yet, in children, strontium can have the opposite effect in actually decreasing bonemass.* Therefore, pending FDA approval, I'm sure you will see plentitudes of doctors prescribing strontium for osteoporosis. Unless of course, they demonstrate a firm allegiance to American drug manufacturers.
I feel blessed to have a Medical Doctor with an open mind that did his research and recommended EZorb to me and I hope passing this
along to you that you can in several months from now can do the same for others.
I am happy that you have experienced a healthy recovery. Yet, anyone actually experiencing true osteoporosis is going to need treatment with something a lot stronger than calcium/magnesium/vitamin D supplementation. Although, I could much better see calcium supplementation used for the onset of osteopenia, a fairly recent classification. Incidentally, I haven't really seen too many reputable scientific studies that demonstrably prove the bioavailability of many forms of calcium. There's no extra money in receiving FDA approval, hence not as many studies. However, lots of claims have been made, but again, not as much documented proof to be trusted... claims about everything from simple calcium citrate and aspartate to calcium hydroxyapatite (MCHC) and calcium bis-glycinate.
However, I do believe we could reliably state that calcium citrate and aspartate is more absorbable and gentle on the stomach than calcium carbonate. But those claims by Ezorb about organic sythesized calcium (aspartate) being more absorbable than inorganic forms are highly questionable. There's not even a single ounce of proof that inorganic strontium ranelate is any more absorbable than organic strontium citrate.
Your doctor is confusing radioactive strontium (Sr-89/90) with stable strontium. High doses of radioactive strontium indeed can cause leukemia and cancer. Radioactive strontium will probably never be available to the general public. However, some doctors do use radioactive strontium to more effectively treat bone cancer.
Strontium is a naturally occurring element found in the Periodic Table of Elements, right underneath calcium; they are both in the same family. You can also find trace amounts in the human body, even before any supplementation. Strontium's also abundantly available in the earth on which we stand, in the food we eat, and the water we drink.
And unlike Ezorb, a synthetic form of strontium (ranelate) or Protelos has been patented -- by Servier, a French pharmaceutical manufacturer -- and submitted for FDA approval. This has enabled the generation of major reputable scientific studies... including the ongoing FDA study. A Google search on "strontium ranelate" will bring up a list of a few of these studies.
So far, strontium has been proven, using a scientific method, to build new bone in adults -- unlike bisphosphonate -- and decrease fractures. *Yet, in children, strontium can have the opposite effect in actually decreasing bonemass.* Therefore, pending FDA approval, I'm sure you will see plentitudes of doctors prescribing strontium for osteoporosis. Unless of course, they demonstrate a firm allegiance to American drug manufacturers.
I feel blessed to have a Medical Doctor with an open mind that did his research and recommended EZorb to me and I hope passing this
along to you that you can in several months from now can do the same for others.
I am happy that you have experienced a healthy recovery. Yet, anyone actually experiencing true osteoporosis is going to need treatment with something a lot stronger than calcium/magnesium/vitamin D supplementation. Although, I could much better see calcium supplementation used for the onset of osteopenia, a fairly recent classification. Incidentally, I haven't really seen too many reputable scientific studies that demonstrably prove the bioavailability of many forms of calcium. There's no extra money in receiving FDA approval, hence not as many studies. However, lots of claims have been made, but again, not as much documented proof to be trusted... claims about everything from simple calcium citrate and aspartate to calcium hydroxyapatite (MCHC) and calcium bis-glycinate.
However, I do believe we could reliably state that calcium citrate and aspartate is more absorbable and gentle on the stomach than calcium carbonate. But those claims by Ezorb about organic sythesized calcium (aspartate) being more absorbable than inorganic forms are highly questionable. There's not even a single ounce of proof that inorganic strontium ranelate is any more absorbable than organic strontium citrate.
spettro
09-11-2006, 10:29 PM
Larry,
thanks for all the info. I did a google search and saw your DEXA's. Pretty impressive and congratulations! If you don't mind me asking...did you do any resistance type exercises in addition to taking the Ezorb?
thanks again
thanks for all the info. I did a google search and saw your DEXA's. Pretty impressive and congratulations! If you don't mind me asking...did you do any resistance type exercises in addition to taking the Ezorb?
thanks again