Osteoporosis and Acid/base balance

[RRM]

Other studies show that increased protein intake reduces bone loss in osteoporotic patients

The patients in Schurtz et al received protein supplements. It doesn't say meat.

I didnt say meat either.
I said protein.

the only difference in BMD was at the hip in some cases.

No, "the BMD at the hip was significantly lower in vegetarians at some sites".
("some sites", not "some cases")
So, at some sites of the hip, BMD was significantly lower in vegetarians (on average) compared to omnivores (on average).

As far as incurable disease goes... that's a bit glass half empty thinking.

Its the essence of the entire osteoporosis debate.
Yes, we can manipulate bone mineral density to some extend, but we still cannot prevent or cure osteoporosis.

[djkvan]

There is no opinion as to the consequence of these site-specific BMD's. Is that a good thing, a bad thing, did such lowered densities contribute to hip fractures or were they healthier densities for the specific area of the structure.

"BMD in vegetarians appeared to be positively correlated with energy, protein and calcium intake"

[RRM]

Was that a question?

[djkvan]

From: http://www.springerlink.com/content/480pu7m6q1817w61/

although vegans have much lower intakes of dietary calcium and protein than omnivores, veganism does not have adverse effect on bone mineral density and does not alter body composition.

[RRM]

What is the purpose of this post and that other study?
Are you trying to say something?

[djkvan]

I didn't say anything. The study did. It's on-topic.

[RRM]

Yes, its on-topic and the study said something, but you posted it.
So, why did you post it?
Does this study raise a question that you wanted to ask?
Or does it support a thought that you might have?
Or something similar?

[djkvan]

I post a study indicating that meat consumption can lead to osteoporosis and you counter it with two studies that help me to prove my point, and the first, which is supposed to counter the meat theory (I guess??) has nothing to do with meat whatsoever. Did you think I wasn't going to read the links or something?!

Edited by Oscar.

[RRM]

Science is not about jumping to conclusions, djkvan.

I post a study indicating that meat consumption can lead to osteoporosis

No, you did not.
The word osteoporosis is mentioned once, when they state:

The inability to compensate for the animal protein-induced calciuric response may be a risk factor for the development of osteoporosis.

They mentioned a possible risk factor.
They did not find a case in which animal protein consumption led to osteoporosis.
It has never been shown that animal protein consumption can lead to osteoporosis.
Certainly this study does not do so.

Did you think I wasn't going to read the links or something?!

Ha ha
I think you misinterpret my post a little.
I was posting those studies as examples of the numerous studies that have been done about the relationship between
diet and bone metabolism.
One can find all kind of correlations, but the loss of calcium does not at all equal osteoporosis.
We all, at some point, lose calcium, without having osteoporosis.
Can you describe what osteoporosis is, in your own words?

[djkvan]

From: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 171735.htm

Researchers from the University of Edinburgh studied a protein called osteoprotegerin (OPG) in people with celiac disease – a digestive condition that affects 1 in 100 people.
In healthy people, OPG plays a crucial role in maintaining bone health by controlling the rate at which bone tissue is removed.
The latest research shows that 20 per cent of celiac patients produce antibodies that attack the OPG protein and stop it working properly. This results in rapid bone destruction and severe osteoporosis.
It was previously thought that osteoporosis – a known complication of celiac disease –develops in celiac patients because they cannot properly absorb calcium and vitamin D from their diet.

The National Institute of Health estimates that 3 million Americans have celiac. This may be a conservative estimate which would bring its numbers closer to par with the number of Americans suffering from osteoporosis. This disease generally takes several years to correctly diagnose and could certainly be considered to be a contributing factor in development of osteoporosis. Lower incidence of osteoporosis in certain Asia-Pacific countries might in fact be due to low-wheat diets.

Re: celiac. From: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19702902

important determinants of prevalence include the per capita consumption of wheat and the frequency of a specific human leukocyte antigen (HLA) type genetically defined as HLA-DQB1*02 (*0201 or *0202) and serologically defined as HLA-DQ2. These determinants predict low prevalence rates for celiac disease in the Pacific Islands, South-East Asia and eastern China but higher rates in countries west of India and China. There is also the potential for a rising incidence of celiac disease if traditional rice-based diets are replaced by Western-style diets with a higher content of wheat products.

The last statement goes without saying.

More fun with statisitcs.

[RRM]

This disease generally takes several years to correctly diagnose and could certainly be considered to be a contributing factor in development of osteoporosis.

Thats a relatively well-balanced statement,
and with e few minor changes it may even get a little better:

This disease generally takes several years to correctly diagnose and could be considered to be a contributing factor in the development of some types of osteoporosis.

I cant say the same about this one:

Lower incidence of osteoporosis in certain Asia-Pacific countries might in fact be due to low-wheat diets.

"be due" suggests that this person thinks that one can cure osteoporosis by eliminating wheat from the diet.

More fun with statisitcs.

Which ones?
I didnt see any...

[dime]

"be due" suggests that this person thinks that one can cure osteoporosis by eliminating wheat from the diet.

well not cure, but maybe prevent, who knows.

[RRM]

So, how strong is the statistical correlation between Celiac and osteoporosis?

[djkvan]

20%; however, it's is estimated by NIH that 97% of celiac cases are undiagnosed, and due to the time frame involved in correct diagnosis one can imagine how skewed the osteoporosis stats may be. If the figures are correct, imagine the implications for the undiagnosed elderly. I'm not proposing a universal theory, just saying is all.

RRM wrote:"be due" suggests that this person thinks that one can cure osteoporosis by eliminating wheat from the diet.

That citing article is about celiac. I was attempting to establish correlation, not causation. For example as part of the original definition process of celiac, as per wiki:

the link with wheat was not made until the 1940s by the Dutch paediatrician Dr. Willem Karel Dicke.[100] It is likely that clinical improvement of his patients during the Dutch famine of 1944 (during which flour was scarce) may have contributed to his discovery.[101] Dicke noticed that the shortage of bread led to a significant drop in the death rate among children affected by CD from greater than 35% to essentially zero. He also reported that once wheat was again available after the conflict, the mortality rate soared to previous levels.

After all science isn't just about hard data, It's also about being able to ask the right questions, see patterns and use one's imagination.

Thats a relatively well-balanced statement,
and with e few minor changes it may even get a little better:

This disease generally takes several years to correctly diagnose and could be considered to be a contributing factor in the development of some types of osteoporosis.

I totally agree with this correction. Mea culpa.

[RRM]

So, how strong is the statistical correlation between Celiac and osteoporosis?

20%;

Do you mean that 20% of people with Celiac have osteoporosis,
or that 20% of people with osteoporosis have Celiac?
What is your source?

however, it's is estimated by NIH that 97% of celiac cases are undiagnosed

Statistically, the number of diagnosed cases is large enough to render reliable data for correlations,
and would a larger number of actual Celiac patients not make the outcome drastically different.
(the exactness of the estimation is kind of funny though)

Lower incidence of osteoporosis in certain Asia-Pacific countries might in fact be due to low-wheat diets.

"be due" suggests that this person thinks that one can cure osteoporosis by eliminating wheat from the diet.

That citing article is about celiac. I was attempting to establish correlation, not causation.

The sentence i was referring to is about osteoporosis and wheat consumption.
"might in fact be due to" does not suggest correlation, but causation.