Strontium citrate (Algaecal) and fractures

I had hypercalcemia once. I was very sick. My doctor told me to go off calcium and Vitamin D for 3 weeks and then have my levels checked again.

I started taking Mykind Organic plant calcium with Vegan D3, K2, Magnesium and noticed it also has 4 mg organic(from organic algae) Strontium per serving.
Is this safe/effective? Bone density went up 5% in one year.

@nenn78 the therapeutic dose of strontium is 680mg daily. That 4mg is probably window dressing! (I am sure you know that an effective dose of strontium will make your DEXA look better than it is.)

I don’t know about it. I am taking 12 mg/day. Is it true bone mass gain?

As I mentioned this is plant based not metal strontium. And I had a 5% increase in bone density in one year taking 16 mg /day

Strontium is an element and is classified as a metal. Strontium Citrate is synthesized from Strontium (whether harvested from plant, animal or the earth) and Calcium Citrate. The supplement mentioned by @windyshores contains 6mg of strontium.

Yes, actually there are several studies done that show a reduced chance of fracture from using Strontium via citrate and strontium via ranelate, indeed any strontium. If you are only interested in Algaecal with strontium then you might contact Algaecal but their strontium is the same as all other strontium in the bone building and fracture prevention category.
It is important to understand that strontium is the bone building component in any strontium product; so if we are talking about bone health then any strontium research may be evaluated for fracture etc. information ie strontium via ranelate or strontium via citrate. If you are considering side effects then other additives even those considered inactive need to be evaluated. Ex the ranelate and aspartame in strontium via ranelate.
But you are asking about bone building and fracture prevention so you may evaluate using any strontium research.
The current research shows a reduction of 41% to 49% in fractures. (link to research and posting below) The compilation of research done on all strontium has surmised that the reduction of fractures is possibly due to a formation of something called sacrifical bonds which make strontium bone more impervious to fracture. ( See links below)
https://www.inspire.com/groups/bone-health-and-osteoporosis/discussion/2020-a-review-of-latest-insights-into-the-mechanism-of-action-by-strontium-/
https://www.inspire.com/groups/bone-health-and-osteoporosis/discussion/strontium-does-it-prevent-fractures-research-articles-personal-stories/

Yes, the dexa reading for a bone with strontium is considered to be over read by about 10% due to the way strontium affects the radiation used in the dexa analysis. But we no longer have to depend on DEXA; REMS and TBS both are not affected by the strontium radiation overread of DEXA. Interestingly, a TBS study of bone quality found strontium bones to be in the top 3 of treatments for bone quality. But even if you depend on DEXA it is only the first reading on strontium treatment that is pertinent for what is called the 10% strontium skew, after that you are just cking to make sure that your bone density continues to increase.
So this "oh no the dexa misreads strontium what will we do" scenario is no longer relevant. We now have REMS and TBS, and both those bone tests all say that strontium bone is dense and good quality bone. Plus, we have a research study with bone biopsies of strontium bone and viola good bone density and good bone quality. Amazing what mother nature has wrought with calcium and strontium in our water and ground.
https://www.inspire.com/groups/bone-health-and-osteoporosis/discussion/tbs-dexa-and-strontium/reply/7712668597918129698/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1359/jbmr.071012

@kathleen1214 all great info. I tried strontium myself maybe 15 years ago, briefly, and then stopped with the European ban. The problem is that people who have not done REMS or TBS but only DEXA, and uncorrected DEXA, and feel their bones have improved due to an increase int eh DEXA. The other issue is that 680mg is not at all natural! But many of us who have done meds are running out of options and I think strontium needs to be researched more and supported in some situations. The real issue is that it is not a "medication" in the US so noone is making money off it! Hence little research.

We would all love for strontium to be researched more, but with the advent of strontium via ranelate there is lots of research. Probably more research than for most other osteoporosis drugs.Plus there are several studies including one old one by the USA army on just strontium and on strontium via citrate.
No one is saying that 680mg of strontium daily is not a therapeutic dose level. You have to have a therapeutic dose to supply the amount of strontium needed to bridge holes in our bones which then allows calcium to adhere and for bone to grow. Dentists, brain surgeons, bone doctors are all using strontium infused products when they need to grow bone. Dang, the original sensodyne toothpaste still found outside the USA uses strontium in its toothpaste.
TBS and REMs are proving that people who have only DEXA do have improved bones with strontium. The dexa argument of 10% skew is lacking in the face of more than a 10% growth in bone density and in the back up results of rems and tbs which say that the bone density and bone quality are good for strontium users. Dang, according to TBS, strontium users are in the top three of bone quality results. And if that isn't enough we have the biopsies of strontium users bones.
The strontium via ranelate cessation was in Europe briefly for strontium ranelate; the company says it never was based on a ban, but the population study which caused all the concern was a study that has been unable to be reproduced by anyone, and Denmark tried for a year. I wouldn't base my drug or supplement decisions on a population study that can not be reproduced. But I would also never take strontium via ranelate; it has aspartame in it and that is just too concerning an additive to me and tied to too many problems in many research studies not just one flawed population study.
That shows one of the problems with trying to make money off of natural products. In order to patent natural products you must tack on a man made product or a man made delivery. Then you skew insurance where it only pays for the patented pharma med and not the compounded med. If you have to have the insured product I woud at least try to go with the natural product using a patented delivery device and research it extensively to try and maintain safety.