Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  Supp Right For Your Type  /  Calcium Supp and Heart Attack
Posted by: Lin, Friday, May 25, 2012, 11:16pm
Any one have thoughts on this?

http://preventdisease.com/news/12/052512_Researchers-Expose-More-Evidence-That-Calcium-Supplements-Increase-Heart-Attack-Risk.shtml?utm_source=052512&utm_campaign=052512&utm_medium=email

For years, the medical industry has been promoting the use of calcium supplements to prevent osteoporosis, reinforcing age-old myths that calcium supplementation builds strong bones and teeth. Newly published research is reinforcing previous studies warning that calcium supplements should be 'taken with caution' after findings suggested consumption of the supplements could double the risk of heart attack incidence.
The belief that calcium is what builds strong bones is absolutely ingrained in our society, but has no basis in reality--calcium is but ONE of the many minerals your body needs for building strong bones. Calcium supplements have demonstrated little benefit, and here is one more piece of research suggesting they may increase your risk for a cardiovascular event.

This is just another example of marketing madness taking precedence over a deeper understanding of human biology, and why we need well-designed scientific studies before making blanket statements about any intervention. This isn't the first study to suggest your calcium supplement may be doing more harm than good.

A 2004 study showed that people with excess calcium in their coronary artery and who take statins have a 17-fold higher risk of heart attacks than do those with lower arterial calcium levels; researchers concluded that the two most definitive indicators of heart attack were LDL levels and calcium build-up.

A 2007 study showed that calcium from dietary sources has more favorable effects on bone health than calcium from supplements in postmenopausal women (Am J Clin Nutr 2007).

A 2008 study found calcium supplements are associated with a greater number of heart attacks in postmenopausal women (BMJ 2008)

A 2010 meta-analysis showed calcium supplements (without coadministered vitamin D) are associated with increased risk for heart attack (BMJ 2010)

According to the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF), food will always be the best source of calcium: "People who get the recommended amount of calcium from foods do not need to take a calcium supplement. These individuals still may need to take a vitamin D supplement. Getting too much calcium from supplements may increase the risk of kidney stones and other health problems."

The current study -- published in Heart -- questions the safety of calcium supplement pills, suggesting that the mineral causes changes in blood vessels that could lead to twice the risk of heart attack.

"Calcium supplements have been widely embraced by doctors and the public, on the grounds that they are a natural and therefore safe way of preventing osteoporotic fractures," said the researchers, led by Professor Sabine Rohrmann, from Zurich University's institute of social and preventative medicine.

"It is now becoming clear that taking this micronutrient in one or two daily [doses] is not natural, in that it does not reproduce the same metabolic effects as calcium in food," they added.

Rohrmann and her team argued: "We should return to seeing calcium as an important component of a balanced diet, and not as a low cost panacea to the universal problem of postmenopausal bone loss."

Meanwhile, Natasha Stewart, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation (BHF), noted that whilst the research indicates there may be an increased risk of having a heart attack for people who take calcium supplements... "this does not mean that these supplements cause heart attacks."

"Further research is needed to shed light on the relationship between calcium supplements and heart health," said Stewart. "We need to determine whether potential risks of the supplements outweigh the benefits calcium can give sufferers of conditions such as osteoporosis."

April McCarthy is a community journalist playing an active role reporting and analyzing world events to advance our health and eco-friendly initiatives.

•Calcium Levels Linked to Strokes




Posted by: 18545 (Guest), Saturday, May 26, 2012, 12:09am; Reply: 1
(ondrugs)Looks like my aversion to supplements worked out in this instance.
Posted by: Amazone I., Saturday, May 26, 2012, 5:00am; Reply: 2
I'd go for aspartate-orotate or sometimes citrat... nothing else and always combined with magnesium ;) ;D...(whistle)
Posted by: Spring, Saturday, May 26, 2012, 6:21am; Reply: 3
Just shows the wisdom of the remark about a "little knowledge" being dangerous. That is the sum total of the conundrum within the medical establishment about vitamins and supplements of all kinds. They grab a supplement, etc., and start promoting it without a clue about what they are doing. I have been knowing for decades that calcium needs magnesium needs vitamin D needs the lesser minerals, etc., etc. They just don't get it!! And throwing in a pile of drugs on top of calcium is probably the main problem if not the problem itself. Who knows.......? These bottles with the labels about "asking your doctor blah, blah, blah," is another pack of foolishness! They know less than anyone on this forum!!

Oh, and another thing, what about the report that American women take more calcium than they do in any other country in the world, but they wind up with more broken bones --- even than in the poorest countries!! So go figure.....!
Posted by: veggiequeen, Saturday, May 26, 2012, 6:45am; Reply: 4
I have avoided taking supplemental calcium for years for several reasons... it makes me constipated almost instantly, my levels of blood calcium never test low, bone-density tests are all good, I don't eat/drink the things that 'deplete' calcium, and I eat calcium-rich foods regularly ie greens, kefir, etc.

But a few years ago I also developed rosacea (or possibly sun 'allergy' or some such thing...) and have not been able to get enough sun on my skin etc. So recent blood work turned up really low Vitamin D levels.

My doc prescribed ergocalciferol (prescription D2 50,000 mg 1x/week) but I decided I didn't want to take that and asked about taking cholecalciferol D3 instead. So he 'prescribed' Caltrate D instead. And I thought... but that is calcium with a little D3... if I don't need the calcium, why would I take Caltrate D for the D3?

So I'm taking 1,000 mg D3 2x/daily and will be tested again in 2 months.

And when my hubs told me about this article... I thought... cool, this is what I am doing instinctively! And I think ER4YT is what has given me confidence to make these personal decisions all these years!!  :)
Posted by: Lin, Sunday, May 27, 2012, 11:58am; Reply: 5
Kibble,
good instincts.

Spring,
"American women take more calcium than they do in any other country in the world, but they wind up with more broken bones --- even than in the poorest countries".  I read this some years ago in Dr. John Lee's books on Menopause.  Such a shame our doctors are not taking note.

Amazone,
I agree only certain forms of calcium seem to be really recommended, and often the doctors fail to talk about all the other minerals needed unless you go to one that also embraces holistic healing which are hard to find.  

Veggiequeen,  Good for you, you are on the right track.

Lin
Posted by: Loops, Sunday, May 27, 2012, 2:09pm; Reply: 6
yes calcium must be taken with magnesium, even as much as a 1:1 ratio or higher for some people (higher magnesium).  And I agree the mineral wheel is complicated - each mineral antagonizes another, so if one is supplemented care must be taken to provide ALL the other minerals.  Heart attacks can be caused by hypomagnesia, even if it isn't clinical (which it never is as blood serum measured magnesium doesn't reflect cell magnesium content).  That is my understanding from doing extensive reading on the subject.

TAking large amounts of zinc for example can deplete copper and iron (which may be a good thing if you have Wilson's disease but otherwise not).  
Posted by: C_Sharp, Sunday, May 27, 2012, 2:32pm; Reply: 7
Quoted from veggiequeen
So I'm taking 1,000 mg D3 2x/daily and will be tested again in 2 months.


Several points here:

You wrote mg.  I presume you meant IU. This is a vast difference in dose!! 1000 mg is equivalent 40,000,000 IU. Assuming you meant 1000 IU.

I am not sure what you blood levels are and how much sun exposure you get.

But many people find they need more than 2000 IU per day to raise levels to desirable levels if they are starting very low.

Posted by: DoS, Sunday, May 27, 2012, 9:12pm; Reply: 8
Don't take over 4,000 UI vitamin D unless a doctor tells you too.

I'm glad everyone here knows about the magnesium situation. It is especially important for those that have any kind of insulin issues. People with metabolic issues of any sort may suffer from excessive calcium in cells, and magnesium prevents that problem.
Posted by: AKArtlover, Monday, May 28, 2012, 3:16am; Reply: 9
A lot of the soil is deficient in calcium. Learn up on BRIX and why it is important for the food to take in nutrients. There is a whole cycle that has been disrupted. :-/

There are certain substances that can be put on plants for one purpose that also has the effect of inhibiting mineral intake. Looks the same, but it's not... ::)
Posted by: veggiequeen, Monday, May 28, 2012, 6:28am; Reply: 10
Quoted from C_Sharp
You wrote mg.  I presume you meant IU. This is a vast difference in dose!! 1000 mg is equivalent 40,000,000 IU. Assuming you meant 1000 IU.

I am not sure what you blood levels are and how much sun exposure you get.

But many people find they need more than 2000 IU per day to raise levels to desirable levels if they are starting very low.
Yes, I meant IU... late nite, fingers on autopilot...  ::)  Thanks!  :)

Recent blood level for Vit D was 10.
Almost no sun exposure due to geographic location, rosacea/sun 'allergy', modesty in clothing, etc.
Get a little more in summer, but in winter almost nil.

Quoted from DoS
Don't take over 4,000 UI vitamin D unless a doctor tells you too.

I'm glad everyone here knows about the magnesium situation. It is especially important for those that have any kind of insulin issues. People with metabolic issues of any sort may suffer from excessive calcium in cells, and magnesium prevents that problem.
Well, my doc prescribed the Caltrate with only 1600 IU of Vit D. Kind of wondering if he wanted it to 'fail' and force me onto the ergocalciferol... So yes, I wonder if I need more than 2,000 IU but don't want to overdo it... assuming I'll need to wait until I'm tested to see how quickly it is coming up??

Still wondering if I should take magnesium even though I'm NOT supplementing with calcium...
and if so, how much? And what type?  :-/
Posted by: Lin, Monday, May 28, 2012, 12:33pm; Reply: 11
Veggiequeen,
I felt like you.  My vitamin D level was around 30, and the doctor was pushing me to take vitamin D, but I kept it down to about 1,000 iu, and over the many months of testing it became apparent I needed more and slowly increaded to 3,000.  I need to retest in the near future, but am hoping this has done the trick.  I have vitamin D drops that I take with Omega oil.
Lin
Posted by: shoulderblade, Monday, May 28, 2012, 3:17pm; Reply: 12
Quoted from veggiequeen

Almost no sun exposure due to geographic location, rosacea/sun 'allergy', modesty in clothing, etc.
Get a little more in summer, but in winter almost nil.


At northern latitudes winter exposure is pretty well nonexistent no matter who you are. The actual volume of sunlight hitting the Earth is roughly 4X higher in midsummer than in midwinter then there is the cold to deal with.

The body can apparently store Vit. D in fat cells and the liver but I have been unable to track down to what extent this is so. (The body can store roughly a years supply of Vit. A if anyone is interested) I assume this to mean that you can overshoot your D intake a little and the body can absorb it.

I have also read, that in Canada at least, more people die in March than any other month. D could be better managed it would appear.

Posted by: Mrs T O+, Wednesday, May 30, 2012, 3:38am; Reply: 13
I take cal-mag in approx. the same amounts & have taken boron the last several years almost every night. I also take D3, usually more than recommended by the establishment.

I take these at night as I have trouble sleeping. I can skip it once in a while though, but the next night have trouble sleeping if I forget again!  Manganese & selenium are also helpful

Yes, we all have to take minerals in balance. It used to be difficult as multi-vitamins were unbalalnced & certain minerals like selenium & chromium were hard to find. Now those things are much more available.
One of my senators(Durbin)seems to always be fighting our rights to get supps, but people keep fighting him & other ignorant politicians. Both parties are to blame here. I'm sure some motives are pure, but some pols are control freaks!

Like cholesterol, it isn't the calcium alone; it is  if it sticks to our vessels or hardens them.  
Posted by: Patty H, Thursday, May 31, 2012, 8:35pm; Reply: 14
I take 4000 IU D in liquid form.  The stuff I buy is 2000 IU per drop, so it is easy to take.  I also take a lot of magnesium.
Posted by: Jane, Friday, June 1, 2012, 3:43pm; Reply: 15
I take 5000 IUs of D3 per my endocrinologist and have at times take much more - as much as 10,000 IUs a day especially in the winter when I get very little natural sunlight.  There's also a little in the Cal-Mag-Zinc that I take too.  I had a parathyroid tumor removed in 1996.  The parathyroids control the calcium in your body and the tumor was causing the calcium to leach from the bones.  
Posted by: Suzanne, Thursday, June 7, 2012, 5:15pm; Reply: 16
I had so many thoughts that I wrote a blog.

http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/blog1.php/sgvitamins/calcium-supplements
Print page generated: Saturday, December 20, 2014, 3:17pm