Does Fosamax really help?

Does Fosamax really help?

This page, * w w w .womentowomen . com /bonehealth/osteoporosis.asp,
makes two points:

1. New bone is denser and more flexible.
2. Osteoblasts come into play only after osteoclasts remove old bone.

If that's the case, the whole strategy of inhibiting osteoclasts with
Fosamax or any other similar drug seems flawed. Wouldn't you be left
with a bunch of old, brittle, bone, even if denser?

It would seem much better to let the clasts do their job and figuring
out how to increase the activity of the blasts so the result is a net
gain of newer, denser, stronger, more flexible bone.

Another site offering info on osteoporosis from a dentist's perspective
is here: * w w w .wholebodymed . com /library education details.php?pid=51


Ray

Re: Does Fosamax really help?


"Ray K" <raykosXXX@optonline . net > wrote in message news:JNDIh.83$uI1.74@newsfe12.lga...
> This page, * w w w .womentowomen . com /bonehealth/osteoporosis.asp,
> makes two points:
>
> 1. New bone is denser and more flexible.
> 2. Osteoblasts come into play only after osteoclasts remove old bone.
>

First, and foremost, the author is an Ob/Gyn. The specialties that are
concerned with this are Endocrinologists and Gerontologists (sp?).
While much of the initial general flow seems correct, she has some
misconceptions - the most important one being the second statement
above. Think about it - if that was true, bone density could never be
increased without medication. Since it can, the statement is incorrect.
The last 25 - 33% seemed so far off (junk science) that I stopped reading.

Assuming no physical imparities, adequate nutrition, etc. and ignoring
the amount of bone rebuilding due to hormonal levels, there are two
factors:

1) bone is torn down as part of the maintenance process. Presumably,
it is "old" bone being removed. These are the osteoclasts discussed
above.
2) bone is built up when the bone is stressed enough to get it to flex
or compress without breaking. The mechanism I use to conceptualize
it is when the bone is compressed, there are changes in the electrical
field around the bone. Those changes attract calcium ions to the bone
and help increase the bone density.

There are some implecations from this:
1) If you stop doing things that stress the bone, you will lose bone
density - the osteoclasts will tear down the bone, but nothing will
signal that it needs to be replaced, so minimal rebuilding will occur.
2) If someone has been walking a mile a day for several years, then
simply increasing the amount of walking (keeping the impact the
same) won't increase bone density - the body has already adapted
to it.
3) To increase bone density, the amount of stress on the bone must be
increased. Continually increase the amount of weight being lifted.
Continually increase the stress on the bone (if you are sedentary,
start walking. If you already walk, jog. Or run. Or jump. Or
walk on a harder surface. Or walk on the same surface, but go
down hill.

> If that's the case, the whole strategy of inhibiting osteoclasts with Fosamax or any other similar
> drug seems flawed. Wouldn't you be left with a bunch of old, brittle, bone, even if denser?
>

The level of activity is reduced, not eliminated. This allows more bone
to be added than is being removed, causing increased density. Since
there still is activity from the osteoclasts, the worst of the bone is still,
presumably, being removed. So far as I know, we don't have any way
to test that hypothesis, though.

> It would seem much better to let the clasts do their job and figuring out how to increase the
> activity of the blasts so the result is a net gain of newer, denser, stronger,

Of sourse. Until recently, we didn't know how to do that, though.

> more flexible bone.

Different issue: now you are talking about the bone's matrix, and not
the density.

>
> Another site offering info on osteoporosis from a dentist's perspective is here:
> * w w w .wholebodymed . com /library_education_details.php?pid=51
>

Fair. Not his area, either, but he doesn't go off the deep end.

Much of what you are talking about has been discussed here.
You might want to explore, using * groups.google . com /advanced_search?q=&

>
> Ray
>

Re: Does Fosamax really help?

Art,

Thanks for the informative responses to my posts. Lot's of this OP stuff
is still new to me.

Ray

Art S wrote:
> "Ray K" <raykosXXX@optonline . net > wrote in message news:JNDIh.83$uI1.74@newsfe12.lga...
>> This page, * w w w .womentowomen . com /bonehealth/osteoporosis.asp,
>> makes two points:
>>
>> 1. New bone is denser and more flexible.
>> 2. Osteoblasts come into play only after osteoclasts remove old bone.
>>
>
> First, and foremost, the author is an Ob/Gyn. The specialties that are
> concerned with this are Endocrinologists and Gerontologists (sp?).
> While much of the initial general flow seems correct, she has some
> misconceptions - the most important one being the second statement
> above. Think about it - if that was true, bone density could never be
> increased without medication. Since it can, the statement is incorrect.
> The last 25 - 33% seemed so far off (junk science) that I stopped reading.
>
> Assuming no physical imparities, adequate nutrition, etc. and ignoring
> the amount of bone rebuilding due to hormonal levels, there are two
> factors:
>
> 1) bone is torn down as part of the maintenance process. Presumably,
> it is "old" bone being removed. These are the osteoclasts discussed
> above.
> 2) bone is built up when the bone is stressed enough to get it to flex
> or compress without breaking. The mechanism I use to conceptualize
> it is when the bone is compressed, there are changes in the electrical
> field around the bone. Those changes attract calcium ions to the bone
> and help increase the bone density.
>
> There are some implecations from this:
> 1) If you stop doing things that stress the bone, you will lose bone
> density - the osteoclasts will tear down the bone, but nothing will
> signal that it needs to be replaced, so minimal rebuilding will occur.
> 2) If someone has been walking a mile a day for several years, then
> simply increasing the amount of walking (keeping the impact the
> same) won't increase bone density - the body has already adapted
> to it.
> 3) To increase bone density, the amount of stress on the bone must be
> increased. Continually increase the amount of weight being lifted.
> Continually increase the stress on the bone (if you are sedentary,
> start walking. If you already walk, jog. Or run. Or jump. Or
> walk on a harder surface. Or walk on the same surface, but go
> down hill.
>
>> If that's the case, the whole strategy of inhibiting osteoclasts with Fosamax or any other similar
>> drug seems flawed. Wouldn't you be left with a bunch of old, brittle, bone, even if denser?
>>
>
> The level of activity is reduced, not eliminated. This allows more bone
> to be added than is being removed, causing increased density. Since
> there still is activity from the osteoclasts, the worst of the bone is still,
> presumably, being removed. So far as I know, we don't have any way
> to test that hypothesis, though.
>
>> It would seem much better to let the clasts do their job and figuring out how to increase the
>> activity of the blasts so the result is a net gain of newer, denser, stronger,
>
> Of sourse. Until recently, we didn't know how to do that, though.
>
>> more flexible bone.
>
> Different issue: now you are talking about the bone's matrix, and not
> the density.
>
>> Another site offering info on osteoporosis from a dentist's perspective is here:
>> * w w w .wholebodymed . com /library education details.php?pid=51
>>
>
> Fair. Not his area, either, but he doesn't go off the deep end.
>
> Much of what you are talking about has been discussed here.
> You might want to explore, using * groups.google . com /advanced search?q=&
>
>> Ray
>>
>