Calcium Study – No Cause for Alarm

Recently there has been some negative publicity surrounding calcium supplementation for those susceptable to osteoporosis. There have been suggestions made by a highly publicized study in the british medical Journal that it increases heart attack risk. Just for the record, this is ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! Many prominent researchers and health experts have analyzed the data from this study and as expected, it has some glaring errors. What you need to know is that the pharmaceutical industry in the U.K. along with many in the medical profession, view natural therapies and anything other than pharmaceutical medicine as a major threat and are seeking to have it tightly controlled. There of course is no need for this. So it is no surprise that a medical journal has latched onto such a negative piece of poor research and tried to ride it for all it’s worth. Get those nasty naturopaths wanting to make people well!!! Yet again ‘they’ poke a hole in their own flimsy credibility and do us in the natural health fields a massive favour! Good on yu!

What follows below is from www.blackmores.com.au professional website for practitioners. I can not add a direct link as you must login to see it. I have copied it and published it here for you to read so you can see how poor the science is behind this study. Many holes and so on left out so that the findings are ridiculous at best. Enjoy the read and stay informed!

 

August 23, 2010
Controversy has erupted over a high-profile New Zealand study published in the British Medical Journal in July, which found that calcium supplementation increased the risk of heart attack by about 30%.1
This study has made media headlines internationally, with many people ceasing their supplementation, even if they were encouraged by their health professional to take calcium to prevent osteoporosis fractures.
However, the meta-analysis has several shortcomings –– identified by the study authors themselves and respondents to it –– that diminish its relevance to public health policy or clinical practice.
Like the 2008 PLoS Medicine meta-analyses showing antidepressants were no better than placebo2, a 2005 Lancet report revealing a similar verdict about homeopathy3, or the 2007 JAMA study finding antioxidants increased mortality4, it would seem meta-analyses are particularly vulnerable to data mining and shaping to fit any hypothesis.
Out of step with consensus
As many experts and health promotion organisations comment, the BMJ study’s results may be a statistical curiosity because they contrast with public health advice derived from the weight of evidence from other large trials into calcium supplementation, such as:

•The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) trial in 36,282 postmenopausal women, which found 500 mg calcium carbonate and 200 IU vitamin D3 daily over seven years did not affect heart attack or stroke risk at all.5 The NZ researchers thought this may have been because the WHI included low-dose vitamin D, which “has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease and vitamin D supplementation with decreased mortality”1
•A systematic review by Harvard researchers, funded by the American Heart Association and published earlier this year, which concluded that evidence from 17 studies suggested “that vitamin D supplements at moderate to high doses may reduce CVD risk, whereas calcium supplements seem to have minimal cardiovascular effects”.6
•A new Australian 5-year trial of 1200 mg/day calcium carbonate in 1,460 elderly women with additional 4.5-year post-trial follow-up found no increase in heart attacks over the near-decade of observation.7 This study confirmed the heart attacks through hospital admission data, whereas the BMJ study often relied on the patients to report heart attacks. In fact, “further analysis suggested calcium supplementation may reduce the risk of hospitalisation and mortality in patients with pre-existing CVD”, concluded the trial authors.7

How applicable to current practice?
It has also been established within the last decade that calcium also requires vitamin D for bone metabolism, and now most supplements for bone health contain both ingredients, yet the BMJ meta-analysis did NOT include trials where calcium was coadministered with vitamin D. The study authors admit this limitation: “The results therefore may not apply to coadministered calcium and vitamin D supplements.”1
The BMJ study did not look at magnesium status of its subjects, nor any of the other cofactors needed for calcium absorption in bones that are often deficient, such as boron or vitamin K. Without adequate levels of these nutrients, calcium will more likely continue circulating in the blood and be deposited on vessel walls than in bones. Magnesium competes with calcium for the same cellular binding sites and thus moderates its excesses; it also aids vitamin D metabolism.
 

As is well known to practitioners, the difference between treatment and toxicity is dosage. In the BMJ study, the total calcium intakes of the participants were up to 2400 mg per day (dietary calcium plus supplements –– much higher than the current recommended calcium intakes of 1000–1300 mg per day for adults and the elderly. Levels of calcium exceeding 2000 mg per day may cause concern. In the New Zealand study, when dietary calcium intakes were less than 804 mg/day, no adverse effects were reported.

Expert reaction: ‘alarmist’ and ‘absurd’
Some of the fiercest criticism of the New Zealand study has come from Australia. Professor Chris Nordin from the Royal Adelaide Hospital has been working on calcium metabolism and osteoporosis for more than a half-century. He drafted the World Health Organization (WHO) dietary calcium recommendations, which have been used in the US and Australia.
Professor Nordin said that the BMJ review is misleading because it includes studies of both men and women: “Men are much more liable to heart attacks than women but women need calcium far more than men, so it is absurd to publish a study of the effect of calcium on the heart without separating men from women,” he told ABC News.8
“Concluding that calcium supplements can lead to a 30 per cent increase in heart attack risk is quite premature and alarmist,” Prof Nordin said.8
Osteoarthritis Australia have not changed their recommendations for calcium intake and issued a statement saying it was safe to continue supplementing, although doses higher than 500–1000 mg/day should be discouraged to keep within the total (including food sources) upper limit of 1300 mg.9
In a rapid response to the BMJ, Professor Nordin and colleagues from the University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne complained: “We cannot prove that the authors are wrong (it is impossible to prove negative) but we maintain that their evidence is far too weak to justify any change in public policy. At present, it is simply a hypothesis without a biologically rational explanation and unsupported by a recent genuine meta-analysis[6], which they do not quote. Unfortunately their paper is causing widespread concern among the public – even among some doctors – and threatens to set back the cause of osteoporosis prevention by a decade or more. It can only bring satisfaction to the manufacturers of more expensive pharmaceuticals.”10
Ediriweera Desapriya, Research Associate with the Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Canada, criticised the NZ authors for making no attempt to appraise the quality of the trials they were analysing. These trials may not have adequately accounted for their subjects’ smoking, diabetes or hypertension, which are known to increase heart attacks. To Dr Desapriva, flaws in the study’s methodology meant “we conclude that the finding has no scientific value for evidence based medicine and practice.”11
Along with systematic reviews, meta-analyses occupy the highest echelon in evidence-based medicine and they command prime space in prestigious bioscience journals, and are usually picked up in broader media reports. They inform public health policy, funding decisions, further research and clinical practice but are only accurate when performed according to specific criteria.
As Cleveland Clinic researchers wrote recently11: “Meta-analysis is powerful but also controversial—controversial because several conditions are critical to a sound meta-analysis, and small violations of those conditions can lead to misleading results.” How is it then that the BMJ publishes a flawed meta-analysis with an accompanying editorial supporting its outcomes? It presents another occasion for the emerging criticism of the power and credulity invested in evidence-based medicine.

REFERENCES
1. Bolland MJ, Avenell A, Baron JA, et al. Effect of calcium supplements on risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular events: meta-analysis. BMJ 2010;341:c3691
2. Kirsch I, Deacon BJ, Huedo-Medina TB, et al. Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Med 2008;5(2):e45.
3. Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L, et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726–32.
4. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, et al. Mortality in Randomized Trials of Antioxidant Supplements for Primary and Secondary Prevention: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2007;297:842–57.
5. Hsia J, Heiss G, Ren H, et al. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events. Circulation 2007;115:846–54
6. Wang L, Manson JE, Song Y, Sesso HD. Systematic review: Vitamin D and calcium supplementation in prevention of cardiovascular events. Ann Intern Med 2010;152(5):315–23.
7. Lewis JR, Calver J, Zhu K, Flicker L, Prince RL. Calcium supplementation and the risks of atherosclerotic vascular disease in older women: results of a 5-year RCT and a 4.5-year follow-up. J Bone Miner Res. 2010 Jul 7. [Epub ahead of print].
8. ABC News. Calcium supplement heart attack study ‘absurd’. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/03/2972399.htm, accessed 10 August 2010.
9. Osteoarthritis Australia Statement on safety of calcium. Calcium Supplements and Heart Disease. http://www.osteoporosis.org.au/, accessed 10 August 2010.
10. BMJ Rapid Response. Making too much of a weak case. B.E. Christopher Nordin, et al. bmj.com, 5 Aug 2010.
11. BMJ Rapid Response. Meta-analysis methods. Ediriweera Desapriya, Namrata Dut. 5 Aug 2010.
12. Walker E, Hernandez AV, Kattan MW. Meta-analysis: Its strengths and limitations. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 2008(6);75:431–9

I.I.C.T. New Website

Hi folks. As many of you know I am a member of the IICT – International Institute of Complementary Therapists. This is a fantastic organization that provides professional affiliation for the natural health industry for over 600 natural therapy modalities, I am pretty sure that is more than any other! The I.I.C.T. also recognize many, many distance education courses, modalities and colleges that other more publicized associations do not or refuse to, this in my opinion is a major step forward for the natural health industry and one the I.I.C.T. should be applauded for. In time I feel they will become the prefered association for natural therapists because of this forward step.

The I.I.C.T. is able to provide affiliate membership to other practices such as those practicing the Psychic Arts, something rarely done by others and a welcome addition I am sure for all those legitimate exponents of these arts which are fast gaining popularity.

The  I.I.C.T. also provides what I personally see as the best value practitioner liability and indemnity insurance going around as well, far cheaper than many of the more publicized associations I can tell you from experience! Aside from all this the  I.I.C.T. provides it’s members with great articles and tools to help grow and make your business successful ethically and offers members a rewards programme for refering new members as well as directory listings and advertising opportunities on the website. These are all at low cost to the member, a welcome difference.  Membership renewal is made dead simple as well and can be done online in a jiffy!

Whenever I have needed to contact them either by email or in person, I have found staff that are informed, and most helpful and above all, very friendly and personable and responses were all made in a very timely manner, unlike others I have dealt with!

The  I.I.C.T.’s new website is just great. Easy to navigate and loaded with all the useful information you’d expect from such a professional and up to date outfit that has it’s member’s wellbeing at heart. All this and more has made the  I.I.C.T. my prefered association for my natural health practice and business and I honestly recommended it for yours. Why not check them out here at http://www.iict.com.au and if you join, remember to place my name, Craig Hitchens as your referer and whilst you are at it, why not refer some friends yourself!

Best of health to you.

Craig Hitchens – Natural Health Specialist

Food Colouring Contamination

Food colourings have long been looked upon by those in the natural health fields as the enemy of good wellbeing, particularly that of young children. A recent story on Today Tonight on channel 7 has highlighted the threat these are to the health and wellbeing of us all. The full story can be read here http://au.todaytonight.yahoo.com/article/7607377/none/colour-contamination I applaude this news coverage and it is high time these things were bought to the public’s attention.

The most alarming aspect of this report to me is the lack of action taken once again by the Australian Food standards authorities in implementating a total ban of these products and ingredients due to so called inconclusive research! Strangely enough our European allies have found it research enough to proect their citizens! I applaud ALDI’s stane on removing from their shelves anything containing the colourings quoted in the article and their committment to furthing this action.

Our authorities are pathetic! Wake up, catch up and start getting this poison off our shelves. I personally have seen many clients who suffer from sensitivities to such ingredients and far more as well such as flavourings and sweetners which are still covertly added to many foods. The real story here is how useless and slow our authorities are at getting vital information out to the public and taking action to remove threats. makes you wonder why??

Read all labels folks, stay away from artifical sweetners, flavourings and colourings and you will be a country mile in front with your wellbeing. Do read the article and also further on aspartame here http://www.naturalnews.com/aspartame.html learn all you can about what this stuff does to you and your family and avoid it.

Until next time.

Craig Hitchens – Natural Health Specialist

Next Page »