Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Is denser better?
Is denser better?
Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
offer a rebuttal.
Ray
Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
offer a rebuttal.
Ray
Re: Is denser better?
On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
> risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
> straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
> mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
> offer a rebuttal.
>
> Ray
Ray...IMO, this isn't a meaningful anaolgy. You can set it up a lot
of different ways and get a lot of different answers. For example,
Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
lead rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
concrete
...best wishes and good health, ron
On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
> risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
> straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
> mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
> offer a rebuttal.
>
> Ray
Ray...IMO, this isn't a meaningful anaolgy. You can set it up a lot
of different ways and get a lot of different answers. For example,
Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
lead rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
concrete
...best wishes and good health, ron
Re: Is denser better?
ron wrote:
> On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
>> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
>> risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
>> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
>> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
>> straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
>> mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
>> offer a rebuttal.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Ray...IMO, this isn't a meaningful anaolgy. You can set it up a lot
> of different ways and get a lot of different answers. For example,
>
> Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> lead rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete
>
> ...best wishes and good health, ron
Good point, Ron. The lead rod is clearly denser, but lead is very
flexible so it won't break. The issue becomes one of flexibility as well
as density.
My concern is, are we being overly frightened about the dangers of low
density leading to increased fracture risk so as to get people on
expensive drugs? Big Pharma is notorious for doing this.
See my new post "Relative risk."
Ray
ron wrote:
> On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
>> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture
>> risk: Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
>> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
>> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
>> straw)? I dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She
>> mumbled something about things being more complex than that, but didn't
>> offer a rebuttal.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Ray...IMO, this isn't a meaningful anaolgy. You can set it up a lot
> of different ways and get a lot of different answers. For example,
>
> Imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> lead rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete
>
> ...best wishes and good health, ron
Good point, Ron. The lead rod is clearly denser, but lead is very
flexible so it won't break. The issue becomes one of flexibility as well
as density.
My concern is, are we being overly frightened about the dangers of low
density leading to increased fracture risk so as to get people on
expensive drugs? Big Pharma is notorious for doing this.
See my new post "Relative risk."
Ray
Re: Is denser better?
"Ray K" <raykosXXX@optonline . net > wrote in message news:DNDIh.82$uI1.78@newsfe12.lga...
> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture risk: Imagine dropping an
> ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a glass rod of identical size from a height of, say,
> eight feet onto concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or straw)? I
> dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She mumbled something about things being
> more complex than that, but didn't offer a rebuttal.
>
> Ray
There are two basic factors of bone that determine the likelihood of a
fracture (translation: I'm ignoring outside influences like falling).
First is the hardness of the bone. This is generally controlled by the
amount of calcium, magnesium, etc. in the bone.
Second is the amount of shock the bone can absorb without needing to
flex/bend. This is controlled by the matrix that the calcium, etc. is in and
how much it can flex/compress/etc.
Both factors are important. If the bone is too hard, it is very likely to break
or fracture when there is a significant impact. If it isn't hard enough (think of the
traditional wet noodle), it won't provide any support.
If an oak tree and a willow are right next to each other, the oak would
barely be affected in a breeze, but the willow will be moving as it's
branches are tossed around. In a strong wind, however, the oak is far
more likely to have a branch break off because it wasn't flexible enough
to bend in the wind.
The problem with all this is that the only thing we can measure - without
destroying the bone - is bone density. How do you know how flexible the
bone is? Bend it until it breaks. I wouldn't want MY bone tested that way.
Would you?
Since, pragmatically speaking, bone density is all we can measure, it is
what we do measure.
Art
"Ray K" <raykosXXX@optonline . net > wrote in message news:DNDIh.82$uI1.78@newsfe12.lga...
> Regarding the notion of denser bones being better regarding fracture risk: Imagine dropping an
> ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a glass rod of identical size from a height of, say,
> eight feet onto concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or straw)? I
> dropped that thought on my endocrinologist the other day. She mumbled something about things being
> more complex than that, but didn't offer a rebuttal.
>
> Ray
There are two basic factors of bone that determine the likelihood of a
fracture (translation: I'm ignoring outside influences like falling).
First is the hardness of the bone. This is generally controlled by the
amount of calcium, magnesium, etc. in the bone.
Second is the amount of shock the bone can absorb without needing to
flex/bend. This is controlled by the matrix that the calcium, etc. is in and
how much it can flex/compress/etc.
Both factors are important. If the bone is too hard, it is very likely to break
or fracture when there is a significant impact. If it isn't hard enough (think of the
traditional wet noodle), it won't provide any support.
If an oak tree and a willow are right next to each other, the oak would
barely be affected in a breeze, but the willow will be moving as it's
branches are tossed around. In a strong wind, however, the oak is far
more likely to have a branch break off because it wasn't flexible enough
to bend in the wind.
The problem with all this is that the only thing we can measure - without
destroying the bone - is bone density. How do you know how flexible the
bone is? Bend it until it breaks. I wouldn't want MY bone tested that way.
Would you?
Since, pragmatically speaking, bone density is all we can measure, it is
what we do measure.
Art
Re: Is denser better?
On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
> ...imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
> straw)?...
This analogy might be accurate if the bone had to only support
its own weight, but it has to primarily support the weight of the body
(and the force applied to it). Sure, if you drop just a straw, the
straw
will not break, but if you attach a 50 lb. weight to each end of the
straw and drop it, the straw will be crushed.
On Mar 10, 12:37 pm, Ray K <raykos...@optonline . net > wrote:
> ...imagine dropping an ordinary #2 pencil (or a drinking straw) and a
> glass rod of identical size from a height of, say, eight feet onto
> concrete? Which is going to break: the dense rod or the pencil (or
> straw)?...
This analogy might be accurate if the bone had to only support
its own weight, but it has to primarily support the weight of the body
(and the force applied to it). Sure, if you drop just a straw, the
straw
will not break, but if you attach a 50 lb. weight to each end of the
straw and drop it, the straw will be crushed.
