← Return to Osteopenia: AlgaeCal Plus, strontium citrate & other treatments

Comment receiving replies

Hello @grace1215. I'd like to invite @bill54321, @mhalpin53, @beatlebassbabe, @rubywitch67, @butch24350, and @asegura to this discussion as they have all talked about having osteopenia as well and may be able to share their experiences with management.

Here is a study that talks about the efficacy of AlgaeCal (AC) from the NIH, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053489/. Of note, the study did conclude that calcium supplements in combination with increased activity did have positive results for many. It also mentions that adding any supplements should involve your provider as well. @healer74's experience with AlgaeCal is similar to what a study from the NIH confirmed through research results in 2010 when they determined mild to no side-effects, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20528255.

@grace1215, how bad is your osteoarthritis of the hip? I have experience with end-stage arthritis in knees and ankles and know that when arthritis reaches that point, it can cause pain and mobility issues.

Jump to this post

Replies to "Hello @grace1215. I'd like to invite @bill54321, @mhalpin53, @beatlebassbabe, @rubywitch67, @butch24350, and @asegura to this discussion..."

@JustinMcClanahan I always find the NCBI reports to be very technical and complex, which when it comes to medical information, I am not. Am I correct in my interpretation that the other two were not straight calcium and vitamin D? They seem to really only name AlgaeCal which makes me suspect the study was funded by the manufacturer of it. I could be off base, so please feel free to say so.

Please note that having a paper in the ncbi database, which is maintained by the NIH, in no way means that the paper is from the NIH. The database merely lists published information. Both of the papers you cite are from companies that do studies for hire, not the NIH. Although it is still possible that there may be accurate data contained in them, the studies' provenance makes the results less believable than if they were done by people with no financial interest in the conclusions.

Also, please note that the second paper you cite was looking for toxic effects, including lethal doses, in rats. Concluding that this means "they determined mild to no side-effects" is far overstating the results.