montesflus
09-11-2006, 08:29 PM
I have just been diagnosed with osterporosis after doing a bone density test. I received my ''T-Score'', but have not received my ''Z-Score''. I have asked for this to be sent to me. I was wondering what the difference, or meaning, of these two scores mean?
Thanks for any input,
Montesflus
Thanks for any input,
Montesflus
Sponsor
DesertBloom
09-11-2006, 10:22 PM
Hi: The differences, as I understand them are, the T score which measures you against much younger women from (20-30 yrs old) or the Z score which is from your own age group.
If you rec'd a densitometry scan (spelling :eek: ) and not a dexa scan, you'll probably only get your t score. If you rec'd a dexa scan it should have both readings. I was told by Eli Lily, that the z scores are not important! and very adamant about that. I had a hard time understanding this since why would they even do both scores if it wasn't important...
But on the other hand I would rather be compared to the first group since that is when you start to lose bone. If I was compared to people my age, there are way too many variables that are possibly present, meds, calcium et. al, and exercise (exact time/length spent) HRT therapy, etc, etc, and if I can't completely duplicate their treatment exactly, then it seems skewed to me, because how could we compare ourselves. IMHO The only way to compare your results to anothers is to exactly duplicate theirs, or it's not much info at all.
HTH
If you rec'd a densitometry scan (spelling :eek: ) and not a dexa scan, you'll probably only get your t score. If you rec'd a dexa scan it should have both readings. I was told by Eli Lily, that the z scores are not important! and very adamant about that. I had a hard time understanding this since why would they even do both scores if it wasn't important...
But on the other hand I would rather be compared to the first group since that is when you start to lose bone. If I was compared to people my age, there are way too many variables that are possibly present, meds, calcium et. al, and exercise (exact time/length spent) HRT therapy, etc, etc, and if I can't completely duplicate their treatment exactly, then it seems skewed to me, because how could we compare ourselves. IMHO The only way to compare your results to anothers is to exactly duplicate theirs, or it's not much info at all.
HTH
montesflus
09-12-2006, 12:40 AM
Hmmmmm. Thx for that. I (sort of) understand what you said. Thanks for taking the time to reply.:jester: Actually, I'm not really THAT bothered (even though I was diagnosed with osteoporosis (I'm 62). I'm not going to take the usual prescriptions (fosamax, boniva, etc). Too many horror stories resulting from their use. I also read - on quite a few sites - that the bone formation from fosamax, is NOT necessarily ''good bone'' - hence all the excruciating bone and muscle pain resuting from these meds, not to mention a whole host of other stuff, a never-ending list of horror::dizzy: Nobody's proven that these drugs do actually prevent fractures, either. And it's perfectly possible to have STRONG bones without them being ''dense''. So I'll just continue with my supplements (calcium, magnesium, vit D and vit K), walking 1-2 hours daily (that means plenty of sunlight, also a good source of vit D) and weight bearing exercise. I feel fine and apart from the usual aches and pains (natural for my age), I'm not having trouble with my bones, and NOT FALLING, either!! Perhaps the docs should concentrate more on the prevention of falls, than bone density:confused:
DesertBloom
09-12-2006, 01:10 AM
Hi: If there is something specific you don't understand, that I said, then don't hesitate to ask. Sometimes my explanations are hard to understand.
But one thing I wanted to mention, was I agreed with you on the falling theory, and if you can prevent falls you'll be much safer.
When I started Forteo I had to go to a meeting conducted by Eli Lily where they explained the disease, how the drug works etc. but one thing that really threw me, but now I believe, is that usually the fracture occurs "before" the fall. I was asked by the moderator how I thought fractures occured and of course said, that aside from "spontaneous" fractures, I thought it was falling that caused them. She immediately corrected me and said, that 80% of all fractures occur "before" the fall thus causing you to fall after the break because the bone can no longer keep you upright. Make of this what you will, but this was what was pounded into our heads :eek: She also mentioned that stepping off a curb was the #1 cause of fractures if you have a low enough t score, and it was the stepping down that causes the fracture and then the fall follows. They both make sense to me, but I think the point was that all of the people in the room had below -3.6 t scores and some as low as -5, so we were to be careful since we are all at the severe osteo/established level where you are at high risk for spontaneous fractures, which of course wouldn't require a fall at all. My doc told me I could fracture sneezing, coughing too hard and rolling over in bed. One of her patients fractured 7 ribs getting a spoon out of a drawer. :eek:
HTH
Pam
But one thing I wanted to mention, was I agreed with you on the falling theory, and if you can prevent falls you'll be much safer.
When I started Forteo I had to go to a meeting conducted by Eli Lily where they explained the disease, how the drug works etc. but one thing that really threw me, but now I believe, is that usually the fracture occurs "before" the fall. I was asked by the moderator how I thought fractures occured and of course said, that aside from "spontaneous" fractures, I thought it was falling that caused them. She immediately corrected me and said, that 80% of all fractures occur "before" the fall thus causing you to fall after the break because the bone can no longer keep you upright. Make of this what you will, but this was what was pounded into our heads :eek: She also mentioned that stepping off a curb was the #1 cause of fractures if you have a low enough t score, and it was the stepping down that causes the fracture and then the fall follows. They both make sense to me, but I think the point was that all of the people in the room had below -3.6 t scores and some as low as -5, so we were to be careful since we are all at the severe osteo/established level where you are at high risk for spontaneous fractures, which of course wouldn't require a fall at all. My doc told me I could fracture sneezing, coughing too hard and rolling over in bed. One of her patients fractured 7 ribs getting a spoon out of a drawer. :eek:
HTH
Pam
PikaB
09-12-2006, 06:44 AM
...Nobody's proven that these drugs do actually prevent fractures, either...
Not true. Many studies have shown that there are reduced rates of fracture in patients taking bisphosphonates, with the reduction rate as high as 50%.
Not true. Many studies have shown that there are reduced rates of fracture in patients taking bisphosphonates, with the reduction rate as high as 50%.
Titchou
09-12-2006, 12:43 PM
My main issue with these scan results is that they are comparing you to a hypothetical 25 year old...and not to what your bone scan was at 25. How do they know that your results are a change if you've never had a scan before? In other words, your density may have been this all your life! So why change what you are doing now? It isn't as if you do a baseline scan at 25 then have something to compare it to in later years.
Additionally, I am very interrested in the science of the organic vs inorganic calcium issue. If inorganic has an absorption rate of under 10% even when paired with fosamax, boniva, etc and organic has one of over 50%, why are they telling us to take any form of calcium? The science doesn't seem to bear that out.
Additionally, I am very interrested in the science of the organic vs inorganic calcium issue. If inorganic has an absorption rate of under 10% even when paired with fosamax, boniva, etc and organic has one of over 50%, why are they telling us to take any form of calcium? The science doesn't seem to bear that out.
adec
09-12-2006, 01:19 PM
Additionally, I am very interrested in the science of the organic vs inorganic calcium issue. If inorganic has an absorption rate of under 10% even when paired with fosamax, boniva, etc and organic has one of over 50%, why are they telling us to take any form of calcium? The science doesn't seem to bear that out.
I've been doing some research lately, and now think the subject of inorganic vs. organic calcium is a lot of pseudo-science. They're barking up the wrong tree. Just like coral calcium is nothing more than simple calcium carbonate. Although perhaps adding some Vitamin C to inexpensive calcium carbonate would increase its bioavailability, perhaps similar to calcium citrate.
However, the real issue here might just be chelation. This is where the makers of Ezorb are probably correct. Therefore, I would love to see more studies on chelated supplements... for instance calcium aspartate (such as Ezorb) and calcium orotate. I definitely believe there's just as much benefit to orotic acid and asparatic acid, as there is citric acid, in helping the bioavailability of calcium overall.
I've been doing some research lately, and now think the subject of inorganic vs. organic calcium is a lot of pseudo-science. They're barking up the wrong tree. Just like coral calcium is nothing more than simple calcium carbonate. Although perhaps adding some Vitamin C to inexpensive calcium carbonate would increase its bioavailability, perhaps similar to calcium citrate.
However, the real issue here might just be chelation. This is where the makers of Ezorb are probably correct. Therefore, I would love to see more studies on chelated supplements... for instance calcium aspartate (such as Ezorb) and calcium orotate. I definitely believe there's just as much benefit to orotic acid and asparatic acid, as there is citric acid, in helping the bioavailability of calcium overall.
adec
09-12-2006, 01:21 PM
Not true. Many studies have shown that there are reduced rates of fracture in patients taking bisphosphonates, with the reduction rate as high as 50%.
Yes, but at a great cost. Just consider, for instance, that these same Biosphophonates are often found in your typical household abrasive cleaner. Biophophonates also since have been replaced by more effective supplementation. In the year 2006, I wouldn't recommended Fosamax to anyone.
Currently, I would much rather see someone start taking Strontium Citrate for osteoporosis; it's been found far more effective in generating osteoblasts, and far less damaging to existing bone. *Currently Strontium Ranelate is in phase IV trials, in anticipation of FDA approval. There are also clinical trials being conducted by Eli Lilly with head-to-head comparisons of Teriparatide and Strontium Ranelate.*
I'd also recommend perhaps a simple bone formula, consisting of: calcium, magnesium, Vitamin D, and Vitamin C. I would also supplement with extra Vitamin D and Vitamin C, based on several different factors. And of course, there's nothing better than weight-bearing exercise to help build bone.
And hopefully someday, Strontium will be replaced by more effective drugs and supplements. For instance, recent studies have shown "massive bone accumulation" by slightly increasing the activity of the protein NFATc1. So perhaps help is on the way for the young adults of my generation. :)
Yes, but at a great cost. Just consider, for instance, that these same Biosphophonates are often found in your typical household abrasive cleaner. Biophophonates also since have been replaced by more effective supplementation. In the year 2006, I wouldn't recommended Fosamax to anyone.
Currently, I would much rather see someone start taking Strontium Citrate for osteoporosis; it's been found far more effective in generating osteoblasts, and far less damaging to existing bone. *Currently Strontium Ranelate is in phase IV trials, in anticipation of FDA approval. There are also clinical trials being conducted by Eli Lilly with head-to-head comparisons of Teriparatide and Strontium Ranelate.*
I'd also recommend perhaps a simple bone formula, consisting of: calcium, magnesium, Vitamin D, and Vitamin C. I would also supplement with extra Vitamin D and Vitamin C, based on several different factors. And of course, there's nothing better than weight-bearing exercise to help build bone.
And hopefully someday, Strontium will be replaced by more effective drugs and supplements. For instance, recent studies have shown "massive bone accumulation" by slightly increasing the activity of the protein NFATc1. So perhaps help is on the way for the young adults of my generation. :)
montesflus
09-12-2006, 09:11 PM
Yes, but at what cost, in terms of suffering. People have been suffering so much from side effects of this family of drugs that they have been expressing the wish that they'd rather suffer a fracture, than feel the way they do ....