Has anyone improved bone density without meds?

Thank you for the information about McCormick. I wonder, can exercise and diet, and vitamin supplements/therapies that holistic and other practices use--can these efforts and substances do what Evenity, Prolia, Tymlos, Forteo do? The stimulating of growth may mean growth of latent cellular structure in our body that are malignant or destructive in some way to us. Perhaps even the non-pharmaceutical remedies can stimulate negative as well as positive results.

Interesting question. Is only growth in bones stimulated? Any affect on grade 0 cancers?

@lashu and @normahorn Forteo and Tymlos originally had a black box warning that use over two years posed a risk of bone sarcoma, which occurred in rats given huge doses.

That warning has been lifted and Forteo can now be taken more than two years. Not a single human has gotten bone sarcoma from these meds.

I have a grade 3 breast cancer and have had no problems with two years of Tymlos. It would seem that the mechanism by which these drugs work would only affect growth in bones (but ask a doc or pharmacist!).

I do not think that a natural approach works fast enough or well enough to reverse the loss of bone density that happens after menopause (this is from my docs). Those with osteopenia or mild osteoporosis can probably postpone meds and use more natural methods. For someone with DEXA scores below -3.5, my docs and McCormick said I absolutely needed meds.

My endocrinologist will not allow me to take for teo or Tim Los because I had radiation to the breast many years ago. She said it would be too great of a risk. Is that no longer the case? My doctor said that my spinal column which was largely irradiated would be too susceptible to bone cancer. Do you have any updated data that indicates otherwise?

P.s. please excuse spell check errors. That should have said Forteo or Tymlos.

There are bone related cancers other than sarcoma. Mine started in the marrow. How would one know if the watchful waiting period was shortened by a few years? I want it to last as long as possible

Agree wholeheartedly with windyshores. The natural approach is something you can do along with meds for best outcomes. If your density is low, you really are gambling with nature if you choose to continue without some type of medication. Peak bone mass is at around 30 years old. After that, we don't grow bone and in menopause, with the loss of estrogen, there is a heightened speed of loss, first in the spine, followed by the hip. The loss slows slightly after the menopausal transition but continues for the rest of our lives. Some of us are fast losers, some slower. Those of us with osteoporosis in our 50s and 60s are likely fast losers. If you allow nature to take its course you are not likely to arrest this progression. I'm as natural as they get. Been organic for 50 years, eating whole foods, was a dancer so lots of exercise, weight training too. Was shocked at 57 to find out I had osteoporosis. So of course, I rejected meds as it was not something in my life philosophy and I was scared of side effects (as we all are). I just thought that if I paid even closer attention to improving my diet and nutrition and increased my exercise, my actions would have a positive impact on my bones. They did not. I got so much worse and really regret not having gone on meds sooner as with my scores at 57 years old, meds would have brought me out of osteoporosis. Now, that is not possible. No one wants to take medication but there comes a point where it's important to weigh risks and benefits and embrace what is necessary to halt the progression of loss. Doctors have their limited tool kit of the few meds available and they will generally prescribe bisphosphonates as a first line of action which may not be the best first option. It's really up to us to educate ourselves on all that is available and figure out what medication best suits are needs. Unfortunately, doctors do not include bioidentical hormones in their pharmaceutical toolkit but that is beginning to shift with more and more doctors recognizing their benefits over their slight risks (yes, risks are slight). If you are within that safe window of 10 years outside of menopause, HRT is something to consider depending upon your level of loss. HRT generally does not restore bone but it may stabilize your bones. I ultimately went on Forteo to restore some of my loss and afterwards I chose HRT to lock in those gains. I was 10 years out of menopause. Not the optimal time to take HRT but still, slight risks compared to the other options. Been on them for 5 years and will likely remain on them for the rest of my life if all goes well. The more I read and understand the studies and literature on it, the less concern I have with that choice.

I think that is why my endocrinologist eliminated one of the pharms: I have a history of a soft tissue sarcoma, no chemo, just surgery, in 1983 and 2004. The fear of recurrence may be a factor: you have given me information that I shall consult with my doctor. My DEXA score is -3.8 for one of my discs/spine. He put me on caltrate, which is stronger than the D3 and zinc I've been taking for some years now. Being on the stronger calcium regimen, do I have to watch our for that problem of too much calcium?

I, to, refuse to take any injectable for Osteoporisis. The side effects are frighteneing. Good for you. There are other methons out there that are oral. Good Luck, timely.

Thanks for your post. I have sond soo much research on the internet that I don't want anyother book to read. I am considering BbBoneBoost and am still on the fence. I have a friend/neighbot who is a retired nurse and she reviewed this and approved. I am still sitting on the fence as at my age I don't need any more "aches and pains" other that what comes with the priveledge of maturity.

P.S. I, also, enjoy the discussion on this site. It has been enlightening and sad to see how many of us suffer from these issues just because we did not "Drink a pint of milk a day". The sign that used to be on the buses in London.