It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....

Osteoporosis Message Board

Osteoporosis Board Index

Hi Klibros, Have you had any side effects from the strontium? I've read that it can cause upset stomach. The one I ordered and have just recieved has 340mg/cap with no additional fillers and you are to take 2 a day with or without food. Is strontium citrate a natural form? In some articles it says to take at night and others first thing in the morning. Do you think it would matter or does it work best while sleeping? I'd prefer to take it in the morning since i also take synthroid which can't be taken near calcium either. I stopped the actenol last week after taking 8 doses and am waiting till Aug.1st to start the strontium, so hopefully the actenol will be out of my system by then. Some one posted 480hours/20 days. if there is any personal insight you can share i'd appreciate hearing it. thanks...phyllis

Strontium is best taken at night at least two to three hours after a meal or any calcium. The reason for this is that strontium is very slow to be absorbed by the body. I know the label says with or without food, but that's incorrect. You can take it in the morning, however, you have to wait two to three hours before eating. For me it's pretty inconvenient since I'm a person who snacks late into the evening (I know I shouldn't do this, but it's difficult to break a long habit).
[QUOTE=PikaB]There was a health news article on the web yesterday discussing Strontium Ranelate. The article was generally very favorable, with treatment trials indicating the risk reduction in vertebral fractures is around the same range (37%) as is achieved by bisphosphonates. However, the risk reduction in non-vertebral fractures was only 14%, and the director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center says that doesn't compare favorably with the 40 percent to 50 percent reduction in risk seen with the most commonly prescribed drugs for osteoporosis, Fosamax and Actonel. The article also mentions other strontium supplements, but states that their effectiveness is unknown.[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of the shortsightedness of doctors, intent on lowering LDL (bad cholesterol,) without ever trying to raise HDL (good cholesterol.) Overall, just the fact that Strontium builds new bone (osteoblasts) makes it a winner, while Fosamax only reabsorbs old bone (osteoclasts.) Honestly, where in the doctor's conclusion is this simple fact being stated?

In fact, most of the osteoporosis drugs being marketed: bisphosphonates, raloxifene, calcitonin simply are antiresorptive agents. In other words, they don't have the ability to create, or even maintain, new bone. So... while the illusion of bone density is increased, the actual reabsorbed older bone is formed weaker and more brittle.

Of course, the potential for osteocronsis on bisphosphonates makes its usage scary. Another concern with Fosamax is how it stays in the bone for years after being taken -- not so with strontium.

I also have no doubt that Strontium Ranelate is no different in effectiveness than strontium citrate. In fact, it's probably a lot more gentle on the stomach. Of course, for strontium to be completely effective, it must be taken 2-3 hours in the absence of any food.

My mom actually discontinued Fosamax due to unbearable stomach discomfort. She actually had no appetite for two days upon taking her weekly 70mg. of Fosamax... no matter what was tried to alleviate the problem. Yet, she's been on 2 grams of strontium citrate daily for six months, and so far, there's being a positive change in her appetite, as well as her mobility. I look forward to her next DEXA scan, and plan on posting the results at that time.
[QUOTE=Larry Penny]Anyone can claim a substance could interact with Osteoblasts and Osteoclasts. Bottom line is: Sr (Strontium) does not and should not exist in bones. If it does enter the bones, it causes bone cancer and leukemia, especially for kids [/QUOTE]

Your doctor is confusing radioactive strontium (Sr-89/90) with stable strontium. High doses of radioactive strontium indeed can cause leukemia and cancer. Radioactive strontium will probably never be available to the general public. However, some doctors do use radioactive strontium to more effectively treat bone cancer.

Strontium is a naturally occurring element found in the Periodic Table of Elements, right underneath calcium; they are both in the same family. You can also find trace amounts in the human body, even before any supplementation. Strontium's also abundantly available in the earth on which we stand, in the food we eat, and the water we drink.

And unlike Ezorb, a synthetic form of strontium (ranelate) or Protelos has been patented -- by Servier, a French pharmaceutical manufacturer -- and submitted for FDA approval. This has enabled the generation of major reputable scientific studies... including the ongoing FDA study. A Google search on "strontium ranelate" will bring up a list of a few of these studies.

So far, strontium has been proven, using a scientific method, to build new bone in adults -- unlike bisphosphonate -- and decrease fractures. *Yet, in children, strontium can have the opposite effect in actually decreasing bonemass.* Therefore, pending FDA approval, I'm sure you will see plentitudes of doctors prescribing strontium for osteoporosis. Unless of course, they demonstrate a firm allegiance to American drug manufacturers.

[QUOTE=Larry Penny]I feel blessed to have a Medical Doctor with an open mind that did his research and recommended EZorb to me and I hope passing this
along to you that you can in several months from now can do the same for others. [/QUOTE]

I am happy that you have experienced a healthy recovery. Yet, anyone actually experiencing true osteoporosis is going to need treatment with something a lot stronger than calcium/magnesium/vitamin D supplementation. Although, I could much better see calcium supplementation used for the onset of osteopenia, a fairly recent classification. Incidentally, I haven't really seen too many reputable scientific studies that demonstrably prove the bioavailability of many forms of calcium. There's no extra money in receiving FDA approval, hence not as many studies. However, lots of claims have been made, but again, not as much documented proof to be trusted... claims about everything from simple calcium citrate and aspartate to calcium hydroxyapatite (MCHC) and calcium bis-glycinate.

However, I do believe we could reliably state that calcium citrate and aspartate is more absorbable and gentle on the stomach than calcium carbonate. But those claims by Ezorb about organic sythesized calcium (aspartate) being more absorbable than inorganic forms are highly questionable. There's not even a single ounce of proof that inorganic strontium ranelate is any more absorbable than organic strontium citrate.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 AM.

© 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!