Came across this in the Daily Mail today.
dailymail.co.uk/health/arti...
GCA since December 2015 and now down to 4.5mg of Pred. Stopped taking Alendronic Acid ages ago and only take 1 tablet of Calcium VitD a day. Do I need to be taking it anymore.
Regards
I saw the same report in the Telegraph. Can anyone here shed some light on the real science of this study and it's implications for those of us on ADcal? It seems a bit worrying but I also know that these kinds of headlines aren't always very accurate.
If you are worried, ask your GP for a full spectrum blood test. This is more expensive than the run of the mill ones. This test will show calcium, Vit D. magnesium and other minerals.
Then when you get results you will know what you need and what you do not.
You can get most of what you need by a varied diet with as much freshly prepared as possible. Try and keep ready meals to no more than two a week.
I stopped taking them,but l do have to take over the counter tablets for heartburn,at least they are a smaller amount of calcium,and hopefully that will be enough !l always try to keep to a healthy diet,my previous GP did not approve of vitamin supplements,said a good diet is best.
Erm. 1. It's the daily mail. Tomorrow they will be telling you it's good to triple your dose of everything. And 2. I think it's aimed at people without health issues that potentially deplete "normal" levels of vits and minerals.
If you are concerned ask for repeat tests from Dr.
There was a story a couple of weeks ago reported by BBC and others about a Dr that prescribed a woman a monthly dose of vitamin d3 that s/he said to take daily. Now that's an issue as it killed her. The normal daily dose for someone who has a deficency shouldn't be a major problem. If we started or stopped doing everything according to DM/Nd other news outlets we would sit in a chair quietly dying from starvation and confusion.
For me this is the key part -
Supplementing some vitamins and/or minerals can benefit those at risk (e.g. folic acid in pregnancy) or who may benefit for specific medical reasons (such as osteoporosis).
'However, in general terms, those otherwise healthy may do better overall to concentrate on consuming a healthy diet rich in vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grain and fruit than to spend money on supplements.
The issue is whether people with a particular chronic condition can benefit from a specific supplement or not. And whether those benefits outweigh the risks. The rest is spin.
I think they call this sort of article “click bait”. It’s why I don’t watch or read news these days!
Ah yes - that well known medical journal the DM!! Next week it will tell you take double doses of everything. And it is relative risk they quote - which always sounds SO dramatic when in fact if the risk is 2 cases in 100,000 an increase of 50% takes it to 3 cases in 100,000.
I'm far from sure that this is new work - there was a similar result trumpeted a few years ago. And the key bit is that this is for HEALTHY subjects who are not taking medication. We are not healthy and we are taking a medication (pred) that depletes the body stores of certain nutrients. That includes calcium and vit D (and most of us are deficient in vit D anyway). The calcium part is that pred increases the rate it is excreted via the kidneys - and the idea of the extra calcium is that there are more fish swimming around for the fisherman to catch so the chances of getting some are improved. Studies in the past showed that supplementing with calcium and vit D reduced the risk of loss of bone density in patients on corticosteroids. An infinitely preferable approach to bisphosphonates I'd say and for many patients it is adequate.
Unless it is causing problems (which is possible but unlikely at 1 tablet per day and it does vary with brand), I'd keep taking it. And of course, eat a good diet as well ...
There was an article in the BMJ last year on this. There had been a recent trial saying calcium and vitamin D treatment elevated the risk of precancerous polyps nearly fourfold – as the BMJ said does this result matter?
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find all sorts of things that correlated.
But, famously, correlation is NOT causation ...
I think it was the BMJ article which instigated the DM bit. Of course they never read the thing properly and then bias it towards ridiculous scenarios. Not as bad as the Express though.
Thanks for your comments guys. DM eh; should have known better.
As stated, the important part is :-
"Supplementing some vitamins and/or minerals can benefit those at risk (e.g. folic acid in pregnancy) or who may benefit for specific medical reasons (such as osteoporosis).
'However, in general terms, those otherwise healthy may do better overall to concentrate on consuming a healthy diet rich in vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grain and fruit than to spend money on supplements."
Regards
Anthony
I wonder how robust this research was - or just headline scare tactics. Calcium though can contribute to cardio vascular problems.
Cannot see how Vit D supplements can increase disease - Vit D does need to be taken with co factors like Vit K and magnesium.
I only have one tablet a day Slosh,and l seem to have plenty of acid,l don’t always take a tablet because the heartburn sometimes just goes away .
Vitamin D and calcium
Calcium with vitamin D and K?
Pmr/vit d deficiency 
VIT D
