Bone Health Study Edited - ResearchGate

2y ago
20 Views
3 Downloads
3.11 MB
14 Pages
Last View : 29d ago
Last Download : 9m ago
Upload by : Josiah Pursley
Transcription

The Hallelujah Bone Health StudyMichael Donaldson, PhD, Hallelujah Acres FoundationAbstractObjectives: This study sought to reveal the methods by which women could maintain orimprove bone structure within the context of following The Hallelujah Diet.Study Design: Women were recruited for a 3-year observational study. Measures of bonestrength (quantitative ultrasound of heel), and a diet and lifestyle questionnaire werecompleted yearly. Women with low bone density were encouraged to consume B-Flax-Ddaily (a supplement containing vitamins B12, B6, K2 and D3 in a flax seed base), spend moretime in sunshine in the summer (for higher levels of vitamin D), eat at least one more servingof dark leafy vegetables per day than previously eaten, get weight bearing exercise daily, eatlegumes at least three times a week, and drink re-mineralized water rather than distilled water.Results: Fifty-seven women began the study. Initially there were 11 women with normal Tscores, 26 women with osteopenic T-scores, and 20 women with osteoporotic T-scores. Allwomen who were not taking vitamin D supplements had lower-than-optimal vitamin D levels.Twenty-nine women had at least three measurements for temporal trend analysis. Amongthese women the biggest dietary changes were an increase in legumes and a move towardsusing re-mineralized water rather than distilled water. Compared to an absolute standard of theBUA (Bone ultrasonic attenuation), 14 women decreased in bone strength, 7 remained thesame, and 8 increased in bone strength. Fewer women who were classified in the osteoporoticrange got worse during the study (3/10) compared to women in the osteopenic range (6/11) orwomen in the normal range (5/8).There were no correlations between dietary factors or vitamin D status and gain or loss ofbone strength. The only positive correlation, which explained more than half of the variation,was between bone strength and resistance training. Only 5 of 21 women who reportedengaging in resistance training at any time during the study lost bone, while 6 of 8 womenwho reported only aerobic type exercise lost bone strength. The relative risk of bone loss (RR 0.32, P 0.028, two-tailed Fisher exact test) for the resistance exercise group was statisticallydifferent from the aerobic group.Conclusions: Women following The Hallelujah Diet can best improve their bone strength byengaging in resistance training and vigorous weight-bearing exercise. All post-menopausalwomen need to use about 5,000 IU of vitamin D daily to help optimize their health. More maybe needed. If supplemental calcium is recommended by a health care practitioner, the mostsoluble, highly assimilated calcium is calcium aspartate anhydrous, sold as EZorb calcium(Elixir Industries).1

The Hallelujah Bone Health StudyMichael Donaldson, PhDHallelujah Acres FoundationBackgroundOsteoporosis is the disease of brittle, porous bones. Osteoporosis is pervasive in the USA—one in two women and one in four men will experience a bone fracture due to osteoporosis.Dietary and lifestyle interventions are primary recommendations prior to beginning drugtherapy.Factors that are important for osteoporosis include calcium balance, adequate protein intake,intake of fruits and vegetables that provide alkalizing minerals and compounds (to sparecalcium from being used to neutralize metabolic acid), vitamin D (for optimal uptake ofcalcium), vitamin K (for carboxylyation of osteocalcin), elevated homocysteine, imbalance ofprogesterone and estrogen, poor or weak digestion, exercise and activity level, and the use oflow mineral water. Because osteoporosis is a multi-factorial disease, it requires a multifactorial approach to reversing bone destruction.The purpose of this study was to reveal the method by which small-framed women (the mostvulnerable subpopulation) could follow The Hallelujah Diet and maintain bone strength oreven gain bone strength if they were found to have low bone density.Description of the StudyFemale Health Ministers were recruited at the Health Minister Reunion in April 2006.The study was presented in a general meeting, and women were given time to askquestions before giving informed consent the following day. We targeted women whowere petite, though a few women who were not petite also joined the study. A McCueCUBA clinical quantitative ultrasound machine was used to measure bone strength everyyear for 3 years. The McCue CUBA machine has been validated as a method formeasuring bone strength. Scores with the McCue CUBA correlate with DEXA (dualenergy x-ray absorptiometry) with a correlation coefficient of about 0.70 to 0.80 (Cook etal. 2005; Ohishi et al. 2000; Robinson et al. 1998; Taal et al. 1999). However, itspredictive score for osteoporosis and osteopenia are not specific enough to replace aDEXA scan. The McCue CUBA has stronger negative predictive score than positivepredictive power (Taal et al. 1999). This means it is better for detecting the absence ofosteoporosis than confirming a positive diagnosis. The McCue CUBA gives a T-score,which compares bone health status to young women, as well as a Z-score, whichcompares the BUA to an age and sex-matched group. Height, weight, blood pressure, andpulse rate were also measured yearly.Food intakes and lifestyle choices were queried with a two-page questionnaire. Typicaldiet (raw vegan, Hallelujah Diet, vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and length of time oncurrent diet were recorded. Intakes of meat, vegetable juice, BarleyMax, salads, fruit,nuts and seeds, legumes, fiber products, salt intake (unrefined vs. refined, not quantity),2

flax seed oil, and water were each scored on a five-to-six-point scale of frequency ofconsumption. Use of dietary supplements was given, with space to write in any specificsupplements other than B12, natural progesterone cream, and calcium/magnesium.Lifestyle questions focused on leisure activity (light, moderate, intense activitiespreferred), occupational activity (sitting, on feet a lot, light industrial, heavy lifting),sunshine exposure (frequency per week and length of time each occurrence), type ofexercise routine (aerobic or weight training / resistance), specific usual exercises (ninechoices, plus room to fill in others), and amount of exercise performed weekly (frequencyand length of each session). In the final year participants were asked if they hadexperienced any fractures or broken bones in the last 3 years.Women with T-scores in the osteopenia or osteoporotic range were encouraged to makeseveral changes to improve bone strength and density: consume B-Flax-D daily, spendmore time in sunshine in summer (for higher levels of vitamin D), eat at least one moreserving of dark leafy vegetables per day than previously eaten, get weight bearingexercise daily, eat legumes at least three times a week, and drink Willard Water (and laterWaterMax) re-mineralized water instead of distilled water.Women who attended had their blood levels of vitamin D measured in 2008 and 2009 byan independent laboratory (LabCorp, Burlington, NC). Between April 2008 and April2009, recommendations for increased vitamin D (5,000 IU/day) and supplementalcalcium citrate (1,000 mg/day) and magnesium glycinate (400 mg/day) were made forwomen with T-scores in the osteoporotic range.ResultsRecruitment and Follow-UpFifty-seven women with an average age of 57 were recruited in 2006. Another 11 womenjoined the study in 2007. Forty-seven women had at least two measurements while only 29women (average age of 58) had measurements on at least 3 occasions. Twenty women hadmeasurements all 4 years of the study (years 0, 1, 2, and 3). Many women did not return to theHealth Minister Reunion for a variety of reasons. Most of the results reported here are basedon the 29 women who had at least 3 measurements, including at least 1 measurement ofvitamin D levels (27 of the 29 women had their vitamin D levels checked at least once).Adherence to ProtocolMost of the women were following what would appear to be a bone-healthy diet at thebeginning of the study. They consumed an abundance of green salad and even some greensmoothies. Consumption of meat was almost nil, except for a few who occasionally ate meatapproximately once per month. Many were already consuming one or two servings oflegumes weekly.Overall, there was little change recorded in their diets over the 3-year period. It is possible thatthe 12-question survey didn’t capture changes that were made. Approximately half of the3

women reported the same intake of juice, BarleyMax, salad, fruit, nuts, and seeds at the end ofthe study as at the beginning.Change in legume intake was more significant. Eight of 29 women (27%) had the same intakeof legumes as at the beginning. In 2007, among this group of 29 women (25 of whom werepresent in 2007), there were none who decreased legume intake and 13 who had increasedlegume intake, indicating an effort to adhere to the protocol of the study. By the end, seven ofthe women had reduced their intake of legumes below the initial reported consumption rate.Bone Strength MeasuresIn 2006, the ultrasonic bone strength measures indicated that there were 8 women with normalT-scores, 12 with osteopenic T-scores, and 9 with osteoporotic T-scores among the 29 womenthat had at least 3 data points over the course of the study. Among all attendees in 2006, therewere 11 women with normal T-scores, 26 women with osteopenic T-scores, and 20 womenwith osteoporotic T-scores. This snapshot of scores does not indicate whether each woman isdecreasing, maintaining, or increasing bone strength.7Number of NormalFigure 1. Change in Bone Strength, Classified by Beginning Bone Strength Classification.Time trends for bone strength values are reported here for the 29 women with at least 3measurements. Compared to an absolute standard of the BUA (Bone ultrasonic attenuation),fourteen women decreased in bone strength, 8 remained the same, and 7 increased in bonestrength (see Figure 1). Compared to normal values for women of their same age (relativebone loss) 12 women decreased relative bone strength, 10 remained the same, and 7 womenincreased relative bone strength. (For these comparisons, a change of 2 BUA units or 5%4

Expected Value was considered to a significant change.) As expected the relative bone loss isslightly less than absolute bone loss because “normal” women typically lose bone density overtheir lifetime.Fewer women who were classified in the osteoporotic range worsened during the study (3/10)compared to women in the osteopenic range (6/11) or women in the normal range (5/8) (seeFigure 1.) It appears that the women with more severe conditions took their plight moreseriously, and others may have taken their bone health a bit more for granted.Vitamin D LevelsVitamin D levels were measured in 2008 and again in 2009. Many of the women reportedspending time outdoors in the sunshine at least a few days a week, and several of the womenlived in the southern USA. The results were surprising, as seen in Figure 1. Optimal levels ofvitamin D are 40 ng/ml and higher. Safe levels are below 100 ng/ml, perhaps even a bithigher. Even with encouragement to use supplementary vitamin D, many women still did nothave optimal vitamin D levels. Despite taking 4,000 to 5,000 IU/day of vitamin D3, a fewwomen still did not get above 35 ng/ml. For the 19 women who had vitamin D measures bothyears, the average value rose from 24.3 to 31.3 ng/ml. Only 3 women had levels above 40ng/ml with another 6 between 30 and 40 ng/ml. Low levels of vitamin D may contribute toweaker bones through decreasing the calcium absorption from food.87Number of People20092008Dangerous LevelsBelow Here65Optimal LevelsStart Here43210 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 100Vitamin D Level, 25(OH)D, (ng/ml)Figure 2. Vitamin D Levels in the Hallelujah Bone Health Study.5

Water IntakeWe hypothesized that low mineral drinking water might contribute to bone loss over a longperiod of time. In 2006, 22 of the 29 women with at least 3 measurements were using distilledor reverse osmosis water. Only 7 of the same women were doing so in 2007 and only 5 ineach of 2008 and 2009. No conclusion could be reached regarding this hypothesis in thisobservational study. It is one of several factors that play a role in bone health.Correlations between Bone Strength and Diet and LifestyleSince many factors determine bone strength, it was difficult to single out any one factor thatreally made a difference. It was clear that some women maintained or increased bone strengthwhile others lost bone strength. Eating habits were very similar and most of the women hadregular exercise programs. No single factor correlations were found between change in bonestrength and change in body mass index, in vitamin D level for 2008 or 2009, in bloodpressure, in pulse rate, in the product of frequency and duration of exercise, nor in a measureof how much vegetable juice, BarleyMax, salads, fruits, nuts, seeds, fiber, and flax oil thewomen consumed. The changes in bone strength were not correlated with any changes indietary patterns, either. Any reported changes in frequency of consuming vegetable juice,BarleyMax, salads, fruits, nuts, seeds, or legumes were not related to changes in bone strengthmeasures.Correlation between Resistance Exercise and Bone StrengthExercise type was the one factor that explained a significant portion of the variation betweenwhich women gained bone strength and which women lost bone strength. Women whoreported doing resistance training during any period of the 3-year study were separated in theanalysis from women who never reported doing resistance training (among the 29 womenwith at least 3 measurements). When these women were separated then into groups who eithergained or maintained bone strength and those who lost bone strength based on a 5% change inexpected value (similar to the Z-score, a relative bone strength measure compared to womenof the same age), it was clear that the women who practiced resistance training had anadvantage in keeping their bone strength. Five of 21 women who engaged in resistancetraining lost bone, while 6 of 8 women who reported only aerobic type exercise lost bonestrength (see Table 1). The difference between these two groups was significantly differentwhen tested with the appropriate statistical test, the two-tailed Fisher exact test (P 0.028). Therelative risk of bone loss was 0.32 for the resistance exercise group. The amount of risk ofbone loss attributable to lack of resistance exercise was estimated to be 68% for those who didnot do it.Because of the small number of women in the study, there is a wide range of possible error inthis number. The attributable risk possibly could be anywhere from 50 to 80%. Still, thisnumber illustrates that approximately half of the risk of bone loss could be mitigated just bydoing resistance exercises.When women who only reported once doing resistance training but not in other years weregrouped with the aerobic exercising women, the results were still in favor of resistancetraining as a powerful predictor of bone strength (P 0.052). Of the 13 women who reportedresistance training more than once, only 2 of them lost bone strength, while 9 of 16 women6

who did mostly aerobic exercise lost bone strength. The relative risk was 0.27 in this case,with an attributable risk of 73%.Table 1. Resistance or Aerobic Exercise for Bone Strength?All women who reported ever doing resistance training reported here.Lost boneMaintain / Gain BoneResistance 516Aerobic62RR 0.32P 0.028Table 2. Resistance or Aerobic Exercise for Bone Strength?Only women with more than one year of resistance exercise reported.Lost boneMaintain / Gain BoneResistance 211Aerobic97RR 0.27P 0.052DiscussionIn this observational study we found that, in this population of middle age to elderly women,the main factor determining whether an individual lost, maintained, or gained bone was thetype of exercise she engaged in. The differences between individual diets were not large, sothat even though dietary choices make a difference in bone health, the differences betweenindividuals’ diets in this study were not significant. Therefore, the impact of dietary choiceswas not detectable. However, the purpose of this study was to determine how a woman canimplement The Hallelujah Diet and maintain or even gain bone strength. The answer isresistance and vigorous weight-bearing exercise. It wasn’t the amount of protein, the amountof green leafy vegetables, the use of vitamin D or calcium supplements, or even the kind ofwater consumed that was the principal bone factor. From other studies we know that theseother factors are important, but this study indicates that resistance exercise, when added to TheHallelujah Diet, leads to strong bones.This study answers many questions that women have asked about The Hallelujah Diet.Women have wondered if this diet will cause them to lose both weight and bone strength. Doyou get enough protein for your bones on The Hallelujah Diet? Is there enough calcium forstrong bones on The Hallelujah Diet? It does help to have legumes to increase the proteinintake some, but legumes and extra protein by themselves will not make an individual’s bonesstronger.Yes, there can be enough calcium on The Hallelujah Diet. Yes, there is adequate protein. Asmall amount of nuts, seeds, and legumes will ensure that protein and minerals are sufficient.(Natural plant protein rich foods—not soy protein isolate—are also mineral rich.) A diet offruits, vegetable juice, and raw vegetables alone may not have enough protein, but that is notreally The Hallelujah Diet. Yes, you can build strong bones and follow The Hallelujah Diet.The answer is more about lifestyle, however.7

CalciumA recent population study from the United Kingdom found that vegans who had a dailydietary intake of less than 525 mg of calcium were at elevated risk of bone fractures (Applebyet al. 2007). Daily dietary intake of more than 525 mg of calcium was protective, and therewas no increased risk. Bhuddist nuns in Vietnam were compared with an omnivorous controlgroup in a recent study. Although the nuns had a much lower intake of calcium (330 205 vs.682 x 417 mg/day) there was no correlation between dietary calcium and bone mass density(Ho-Pham et al. 2009). Furthermore, there was no difference between these elderly nuns or thecontrol group for bone mass density at the femoral neck, lumbar spine, or the whole body.So, it is still debatable how important calcium is for bone health. It may depend more on otherfactors, as appears to be the case in the Hallelujah Bone Health Study. It is still wise toconsume sufficient calcium, which can be obtained from eating a sizable portion of leafygreens, other vegetables, nuts, seeds, and legumes. In our diet survey of Hallelujah AcresHealth Ministers the daily average calcium intake for women was 577 156 mg (Donaldson2001). Women with above average calcium intake wouldn’t have any problem, but anywoman with below average calcium intake may be at an increased fracture risk. A DEXAscan would really be necessary at the individual level to determine personal risk. If a womanhad already been diagnosed with osteoporosis or osteopenia, it would seem wise to use allavailable options to reduce the risk of fracturing a hip. Exercise, as vigorous as possible, is thefirst and most important recommendation. It is wise to optimize vitamin D levels and to followthe other recommendations of this study, especially increased intake of salad greens andlegumes. However, some women may want more calcium in the form of a supplement. Whatis the best form of supplemental calcium?In this study we recommended supplemental vitamin D and calcium citrate, along withmagnesium glycinate to women in the second year of the study that had low levels of vitaminD and osteoporotic bone strength scores. Since that recommendation further investigation hasled to the comparison of AdvaCal (calcium hydroxide and calcium oxide with heated algalingredient) and EZorb calcium (calcium aspartate anhydrous). AdvaCal is supported byseveral peer-reviewed studies for efficacy, including osteoporosis studies (Fujita et al. 1996;Fujita et al. 2000). EZorb calcium has been tested in an osteoporosis study and yieldedexcellent results (Tang et al. 2007). Increases in bone density were achieved with 520 mg ofcalcium as calcium aspartate anhydrous, compared to no increase with 1,500 mg of calcium ascalcium citrate.EZorb calcium is much more soluble than calcium citrate or AdvaCal, not only in an acidicpH, but all the way up to pH 11. This means that EZorb calcium can be assimilated in theacidic stomach environment, but it won’t form an unabsorbable precipitate in the smallintestine and it won’t interfere with the absorption of other minerals. Bioavailability ofcalcium citrate is around 40 to 45%, while the bioavailability of EZorb calcium was 92% inone lab study in rats (Tang 2000). For this reason Ezorb calcium is now the recommendedform of calcium for people who want a little more calcium. It is more expensive, but the bodyis able to utilize it all, it is effective at lower doses, it doesn’t interfere with absorption ofanything else, and it really works.8

Figure 3. A comparison of solubility of calcium as(left to right) calcium citrate, AdvaCal, and EZorb.200 mg of elemental calcium from each sourcewas mixed with 10 ml of distilled water and thenallowed to settle. The EZorb calcium instantlyformed a true solution, while calcium citrate andAdvaCal only formed a suspension.Vitamin DIn this study we also documented that manywomen have low vitamin D levels. Withoutsupplementation none of the women had optimallevels of vitamin D. Low levels of vitamin D willdecrease the uptake of calcium as much as 65%from the small intestines (Heaney et al. 2003).From the study just cited it appears that optimaluptake of calcium begins at a vitamin D levelaround 32 ng/ml. Clearly, the majority of womenin this study had suboptimal uptake of calciumbecause of low vitamin D levels. Even withsupplementation of 4,000 to 5,000 IU of vitaminD3 per day not all women achieved optimal levels. This indicates that supplementation ofvitamin D needs to be monitored on an individual basis to ensure optimal levels are obtained.Some people may absorb or be exposed to more sunshine to make more vitamin D throughsynthesis in the skin. As people age, their efficiency of vitamin D manufacture decreases. A70 year old only makes about 25% as much vitamin D from the same sun exposure as a 20year old (Holick 2004). This fact is not emphasized enough. Whereas 20 minutes of sunshinemay yield a significant dose of vitamin D for a youth, that same 20 minutes will not be enoughfor an elderly person’s vitamin D needs.Since vitamin D is required for many body systems beyond the bone structure, there are manybenefits to achieving and maintaining optimal vitamin D levels. We did not sample enoughwomen to conclude that all women in the USA need to use supplemental vitamin D. However,many other studies have also shown that very few women have optimal levels of vitamin D,even in southern Florida (Levis et al. 2005). For a nominal fee of 35, a blood test is availablethrough Hallelujah Acres to determine the blood level of vitamin D to ensure that thisimportant aspect of one’s health is optimized. Sunshine is free and supplemental vitamin D isvery cheap, so there is no reason to neglect one’s vitamin D status. It is perhaps the simplest,cheapest, and one of the most effective nutritional interventions a person can do (Faloon2009).Comparison with other studiesA recent study evaluated the bone density of raw vegans and compared with a control group.The raw vegans had lower bone density scores, but adequate vitamin D levels (Fontana et al.2005). That study left a question as to whether the raw vegan diet could support healthy bones.9

We found similar results in some women, but also found evidence that bone strength could bebuilt using The Hallelujah Diet. The answer is in the exercise more so than in the dietaryintakes, according to the results we found here.Many studies have shown that exercise (in particular weight bearing exercise or resistancetraining) builds bone structure. Intervention studies have shown exercise to improve bonemass density compared to just stretching or usual activity. Jogging, weight training, rowing,and aerobic exercises all were found to improve bone mass density (reviewed in Todd &Robinson 2003). Increased daily activity in older men and women has led to lower risk of hipfracture in Great Britain (Cooper et al. 1988). The same result was found among urbanChinese (Lau et al. 1988) who had a much lower intake of calcium. In a 21-year study of3,200 men aged 44 or older researchers found that those who engaged in vigorous physicalactivity were found to have a 62% reduced risk of hip fracture (Kujala et al. 2000).A meta-analysis of eight randomized clinical trials of post-menopausal women assigned towalking as exercise found evidence for benefit for the hip at the femoral neck, but no benefitfor the lumbar spine (Martyn-St James & Carroll 2008). They concluded, in agreement withthis report, that “other forms of exercise that provide greater targeted skeletal loading may berequired to preserve bone mineral density in this population.”Comparisons of resistance exercise and aerobic exercise have been mixed for effectiveness forbuilding bone density. Results depend on the intensity of the exercise because any exercisethat builds muscle will also build the associated skeletal structure. A review in 1999 concludedthat resistance exercise rather than aerobic exercise more consistently has been shown to helpbone density (Layne & Nelson 1999). Resistance and strength exercises are still therecommended type of exercise for maximizing bone strength (N. Schmitt et al. 2009).Drug TherapyBuilding bones through exercise has superior effects compared to using bisphosphonate drugsto stabilize existing bone structure. The bisphosphonate drugs prevent the breakdown of olderbone, but do not stimulate the osteoblasts to lay down new bone structure. Those who takethese drugs end up with high bone density but older, more brittle bone. Exercise improvesbone structure by encouraging the remodeling and strengthening of bone by the mechanismsdesigned for that purpose, rather than inhibiting natural processes. Side effects ofbisphosphonate drugs are a further complication. One serious complication is the high risk ofosteonecrosis of the jaw following any dental extractions or implantations while usingbisphosphonate drugs (AAOMS 2009). This infection of the jaw can lead to a partially healedfocal infection that harbors anaerobic bacteria that will continually poison the bloodstream.Individuals should not undergo tooth extractions while using any bisphosphonate drug. Recentstudies have also linked bisphosphonate drugs to increased risk of atrial fibrillation in women(Black et al. 2007; Heckbert et al. 2008).Limitations of this studyThis study was an observational study. There were some recommendations for dietarychanges, but the only significant dietary changes for most people were an increase in legumes10

and the use of re-mineralized water. Many of the women were already following the otherrecommendations. A few women also added resistance exercise over the course of the study.The strength of the study lies in its real world circumstances, following people as they usuallylive. Thus, the results can be directly applied to other women following The Hallelujah Diet inthe real world. This study shows that maintaining or even gaining bone strength is possiblewhile following The Hallelujah Diet.On the other hand, the study’s results are limited because we only know associations, ratherthan direct cause and effect. From this study alone, one cannot conclude with absolute proofthat resistance exercise causes greater bone mass and strength. The association is strong, butan observational study can never provide conclusive evidence. Another limitation is themethod of recording people’s usual dietary and lifestyle practices. We used a simple foodfrequency questionnaire querying only the most relevant foods. A dietary record would havebetter captured food intake, but would have increased the participants’ burden. Exercise couldhave been captured by a journal method as well, rather than by a simple questionnaire. Thismay have improved the precision of the study. This study was very limited in terms of findingresults of various dietary practices because participants’ diets were so similar. Suchinformation must be found in other studies.ConclusionThere were four major findings from the Hallelujah Bone Health Study:1. Strong healthy bones are not an automatic result for every woman following TheHallelujah Diet. While some of the women did have normal strength bones, and evenabove average for their age in some cases, many women had low bone strength. Someof this may be the result of previous diet and lifestyle choices before adopting theHallelujah Diet.2. Following the Hallelujah Diet won’t guarantee that you will continue to buildstrong healthy bones. It is possible, but here again, many women lost measurablebone strength over the course of the three years.3. Vitamin D levels for mostly older women, even in the southern USA, are not nearoptimal levels. Everyone living in the USA needs to use a vitamin D supplementbecause casual or even purposeful sunshine exposure is not sufficient for elderlypeople to optimize vitamin D levels.4. The most important factor in improving bone strength identified in this study isresistance training, or weight bearing exercise. Approximately half or even more ofthe risk of losing bone strength was due to lack of resistance training. In this study, thediets of t

diet (raw vegan, Hallelujah Diet, vegan, lacto-ovo-vegetarian) and length of time on current diet were recorded. In

Related Documents:

bone vs. cortical bone and cancellous bone) in a rabbit segmental defect model. Overall, 15-mm segmental defects in the left and right radiuses were created in 36 New Zealand . bone healing score, bone volume fraction, bone mineral density, and residual bone area at 4, 8, and 12 weeks post-implantation .

Keywords: Benign bone tumors of lower extremity, Bone defect reconstruction, Bone marrow mesenchymal stem cell, Rapid screening-enrichment-composite system Background Bone tumors occur in the bone or its associated tissues with a 0.01% incidence in the population. The incidence ratio among benign bone tumors, malignant bone tu-

bone matrix (DBX), CMC-based demineralized cortical bone matrix (DB) or CMC-based demineralized cortical bone with cancellous bone (NDDB), and the wound area was evaluated at 4, 8, and 12 weeks post-implantation. DBX showed significantly lower radiopacity, bone volume fraction, and bone mineral density than DB and NDDB before implantation. However,

20937 Sp bone agrft morsel add-on C 20938 Sp bone agrft struct add-on C 20955 Fibula bone graft microvasc C 20956 Iliac bone graft microvasc C 20957 Mt bone graft microvasc C 20962 Other bone graft microvasc C 20969 Bone/skin graft microvasc C 20970 Bone/skin graft iliac crest C 21045 Extensive jaw surgery C 21141 Lefort i-1 piece w/o graft C

when a bone defect is treated with bone wax, the num-ber of bacteria needed to initiate an infection is reduced by a factor of 10,000 [2-4]. Furthermore, bone wax acts as a physical barrier which inhibits osteoblasts from reaching the bone defect and thus impair bone healing [5,6]. Once applied to the bone surface, bone wax is usually not .

In the epiphysis, and in flat bones (spongy bone sandwiched between 2 layers of cortical bone) Remember: Spongy bone is never ever exposed; it is always covered by a layer of compact bone Diploë (pronounced dip-lo-we) is anatomical definition for the area of spongy bone between the two parts of cortical bone. Endosteum

The compact bone is the dense and hard part of the long bone. The spongy bone is the tissue filled cavity of the bone which is comparatively less hard and contains the red bone marrow. The gross structure of the long bone consists of many parts; proximal and distal epiphysis, the spongy bone and the diaphysis consisting of the medullary cavity, endosteum, periosteum and the

Spongy bone is lighter and contains more open spaces than compact bone. C. Incorrect! Although spongy bone is lighter, it is still strong enough to contribute to the overall strength of the bone. Only spongy bone is made up of a trabecular meshwork. E. Incorrect! There are differences between spongy bone and compact bone, including the