#Bone Mineral Density

[pixeldiagnostics]

Strong Bones, Stronger Future: Discover the Power of Bone Mineral Density!

World-class center with friendly staff and a highly skilled and qualified team of super specialty doctors team. We are a trusted name among the doctors. Hassle-free parking with very supportive reception staff. The large waiting area with the latest machines.

[drforambhuta]

Applications of DXA Bone Scans

1. Osteoporosis Detection: DXA bone scans are primarily employed for identifying osteoporosis and assessing the risk of developing this condition. Osteoporosis is typically diagnosed when an individual's bone mineral density (BMD) significantly deviates from the average BMD of a healthy young adult.

2. Evaluating Fracture Susceptibility: By measuring bone density, DXA scans empower healthcare professionals to predict an individual's susceptibility to fractures. Those with lower BMD are at a heightened risk of fractures, even from minor accidents.

3. Treatment Progress Monitoring: For individuals already diagnosed with osteoporosis, DXA scans offer valuable insights into the effectiveness of treatments, which may include medications, lifestyle adjustments, and dietary changes.

4. Body Composition Assessment: DXA scans occasionally find utility in evaluating body composition, including aspects like fat distribution and lean tissue. This is particularly valuable for athletes, individuals managing specific medical conditions, and researchers studying body composition.

You can undergo regular health checkups including DXA bone scans at some of the most reputed hospitals in Mumbai, like full body checkups at Saifee Hospital Mumbai.

[revive-physio]

Bone mineral density: Everything you need to know

Introduction-

Bone mineral density (BMD) is a measure of the density of minerals, mainly calcium, in your bones. It is used to assess the strength of your bones and your risk of developing osteoporosis, a condition in which your bones become weak and brittle.

There are several factors that can affect your BMD, including your age, sex, ethnicity, and hormone levels. Women are more likely to have low BMD due to the natural bone loss that occurs during and after menopause. Other factors that may contribute to low BMD include a lack of physical activity, a diet low in calcium and vitamin D, and the use of certain medications.

It is important to maintain good bone health throughout your life to reduce your risk of developing osteoporosis and experiencing fractures. By understanding your BMD and taking steps to maintain or improve it, you can help keep your bones strong and healthy.

Factors affecting bone mineral density

There are many factors that affect bone mineral density (BMD). These include age, gender, race, lifestyle choices, and overall health. Age is the most significant factor, with BMD typically peaking around age 30 and then declining as we get older. Women also tend to have lower BMD than men, and African Americans tend to have lower BMD than Caucasians.

●     Age: BMD decreases with age, particularly in women after menopause. This is due to the decreased levels of estrogen, a hormone that helps to maintain bone density.

●     Gender: Women have a higher risk of osteoporosis (a condition characterized by low BMD and an increased risk of fracture) than men, due in part to the decrease in estrogen levels that occurs during menopause.

●     Genetics: Some people are genetically predisposed to have lower BMD and an increased risk of osteoporosis.

●     Hormones: Low levels of hormones such as estrogen, testosterone, and thyroid hormone can lead to decreased BMD.

●     Nutrition: Adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D is essential for maintaining healthy bones. A diet that is low in these nutrients can lead to decreased BMD.

●     Physical activity: Regular weight-bearing exercise, such as walking, running, or weightlifting, can help to increase BMD. Lack of physical activity can lead to decreased BMD.

●     Smoking and alcohol: Smoking and excessive alcohol consumption can negatively affect bone health, leading to decreased BMD.

●     Medications: Certain medications, such as glucocorticoids and anticonvulsants, can lead to decreased BMD.

There are several steps you can take to help maintain strong bones and reduce your risk of osteoporosis:

Get enough calcium and vitamin D: These nutrients are essential for bone health. Good dietary sources of calcium include dairy products, leafy green vegetables, and fortified foods such as orange juice. Vitamin D can be obtained through exposure to sunlight, as well as through foods such as fatty fish and fortified milk.

Exercise regularly: Weight-bearing exercise, such as walking, running, and weightlifting, can help to increase bone density and strength. Exercise also helps to improve balance and coordination, which can reduce the risk of falls and fractures.

Don't smoke and limit alcohol intake: Smoking and excessive alcohol consumption can negatively affect bone health.

Take medication as prescribed: If you have been prescribed medication for osteoporosis, be sure to take it as directed by your healthcare provider.

Get enough sleep: Lack of sleep is linked to poor bone health. Aim for 7-9 hours per night.

Maintain a healthy weight: Being overweight or underweight can negatively affect bone health.

Consult with a doctor: If you are concerned about your bone health, talk to your physiotherapist about your risk factors for osteoporosis and whether you should have a bone density test.

Consider other supplements: Studies suggest that vitamin K, magnesium, boron, and other minerals may also play a role in bone health

Conclusion- Bone mineral density (BMD) is a technical term that refers to the amount of minerals, typically calcium, in your bones. A higher BMD means your bones are denser and stronger, while a lower BMD means your bones are less dense and more likely to break. You can get your BMD checked by visiting at Revive Physio Clinic.

[sd766]

Importance of Bone Mineral Density Testing

For a healthy body and a healthy mind, we need healthy bones at the core! Osteoporosis is a bone defect caused by the deterioration of the bone tissues. Osteoporosis causes the bones to lose their mineral density (become fragile) to an extent where even a minor fall or bump may result in a fracture.

[healthycentre]

undefined

Bone Mineral Density Test at MedPlus Diagnostics

Link - Click Here

[glavilio]

*in the 2020s* he would do numbers on twitter *in the 2010s* he would get shares on his blog *in the 1990s* he would be a wiz on the multi-user dungeon *in the 1950s* he would get ratings on the television *in the 1930s* he would command the masses on the radio *in the 1880s* he would do dots and dashes on the telegram *in the 1790s* he would do arm signals on the semaphore *in the 1600s* his prints would be distributed widely *in the 1400s* he would sound the trumpet in battle *in the 700s* his words would be passed down by oral tradition *in the 300s* he would do smoke signals in the sky *in the neolithic* his artifacts would enter the archeological record *in the pliocene* his bones would be preserved in the sediment *in the mezozoic* he would do permineralization in mineral rich groundwater *in the paleoarchean* he would facilitate recombination of his genome *in the hadean* his molecules would self replicate in the early ocean *in the matter dominated era* his stellar nursery would collapse into a star and an orbiting cloud of dust *in the cosmological dark ages* quantum fluctuations in his density would form the first cosmological structures *10^-32 seconds after the big bang* his elementary particles would dominate in baryogenesis *in the plank epoch* he would do cosmic inflation in the energy dense early universe *10^-43 seconds after the big bang* he would be

[asto-labs]

Skeletal Wellness Tests for Optimal Bone Health

Skeletal wellness tests are medical evaluations and diagnostic procedures aimed at assessing the health and integrity of the skeletal system, which includes bones, joints, and associated structures. These tests can help identify conditions such as osteoporosis, arthritis, fractures, and other bone-related disorders. Here are some common skeletal wellness tests:

1. **Bone Density Test (Dual-Energy X-ray Absorptiometry - DXA or DEXA):**

   - Measures bone mineral density (BMD) and helps diagnose osteoporosis.

   - Determines the risk of fractures and assesses response to treatment.

2. **X-rays:**

   - Traditional imaging technique used to visualize bones and detect fractures, tumors, infections, or abnormalities.

   - Commonly used for joint evaluations.

3. **MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging):**

   - Provides detailed images of bones, joints, and soft tissues.

   - Useful for detecting injuries, tumors, and degenerative conditions in joints and surrounding structures.

4. **CT Scan (Computed Tomography):**

   - Offers cross-sectional images of bones and joints, providing detailed views.

   - Useful for assessing fractures, joint disorders, and identifying tumors.

5. **Blood Tests:**

   - Blood tests can be conducted to measure specific markers related to bone health, such as calcium, phosphorus, alkaline phosphatase, and vitamin D levels.

   - These tests help assess metabolic bone disorders.

6. **Arthroscopy:**

   - Involves the insertion of a small camera into a joint through a small incision to visualize and diagnose joint problems.

   - Often used for knee and shoulder evaluations.

7. **Bone Scan:**

   - Involves injecting a small amount of radioactive material into the bloodstream, which accumulates in areas with increased bone activity.

   - Helps detect bone abnormalities, fractures, infections, and tumors.

8. **Ultrasound:**

   - Used for assessing joints, tendons, and soft tissues.

   - Provides real-time imaging and is commonly used for musculoskeletal assessments.

9. **Physical Examination:**

   - A healthcare provider may conduct a physical examination to assess joint function, range of motion, and overall musculoskeletal health.

It's important to note that the specific tests recommended will depend on the individual's symptoms, medical history, and the suspected or known conditions. Healthcare professionals, such as rheumatologists, orthopedic specialists, or primary care physicians, may order these tests based on their clinical evaluation of the patient.

[daignostics123]

Find Bone Mineral Density Test centers near you in Hyderabad and with affordable prices. Get accurate results and take control of your health. Compare Bone Mineral Density Test costs in Hyderabad and book an appointment today.

[premiersenior99]

geriatric doctors in hyderabad - Premier senior

Premier Senior is a unique and pioneering geriatric care center that is dedicated to offering personalized and holistic care to the elderly. Our team of highly experienced specialists, with over 36 years of experience, implements effective daycare, rehabilitation programs, and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) to improve the health, functionality, and independence of older individuals. We understand the challenges that come with caring for the elderly, and our mission is to provide proactive and systematic care to ensure the wellbeing of our elderly. We believe in a multidisciplinary approach to geriatric care that involves medical, nursing, psychological, and social interventions to address the complex needs of our elders.At Premier Senior, we are dedicated to staying up-to-date with the latest advancements in geriatric care and providing support to families and caregivers. We offer a range of services, including residential care, day care, rehabilitation, memory care, and respite care. We believe that the elderly deserve the best possible care and support, and we are committed to providing it at Premier Senior.

Address:Utkoor - Mogdumpur Rd, opposite Pillar Number 78, Satyanarayan Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Karwan, Hyderabad, Telangana 500028

Phn.no: 77027 31100

Website:http://www.premiersenior.in/?utm_source=seo&utm_medium=organic

geriatric doctor near me || geriatric doctors in hyderabad

Bone mineral density test near me || best dietician in hyderabad

[evidence-based-activism]

IOC Study on Transgender Athletes Severely Flawed

So, to a certain extent, the question of "should transwomen be able to compete female sports?" is an ideological question (i.e., "should identity supersede reality?").

That being said, there's a recent report [1], funded by the IOC, that is being used to "prove" that transwomen do not have a biological advantage over non-trans women. This report is severely flawed and does not actually lend support to the idea that transwomen have no biological advantage in sports over female people.

(I will mimic the language used in the report (e.g., using "ciswomen").)

Significant differences noted by the report that do NOT support transwomen's inclusion in women's sports:

Transwomen were substantially taller than ciswomen

Transwomen had more lean/fat-free mass than ciswomen

Transwomen had better lung function than ciswomen, as measured by forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in one second, and peak expiratory flow. (See the next section for a discussion on the ratio.)

Transwomen had greater hand grip strength (a proxy for overall strength measurement)

Transwomen had higher absolute peak power (lower extremity) compared to ciswomen. (See next section for a discussion on the relative measure.)

Transwomen had the same "absolute strength" as cismen

The data showing no significant difference between transwomen and ciswomen has substantial flaws:

The sample size was too small to reliably determine differences in bone mineral density

For lung function only the FEV1:FVC ratio was lower for transwomen, but the values are generally within the normal range for both groups. The impact of this difference is therefore questionable, as the transwomen have greater absolute values on each measurement and the ratio is not showing any abnormalities. In addition, the effect size (size of the difference) is much smaller than the effect size of the absolute differences described above. The conclusion here is simply that the participants do not have any obstructive respiratory diseases, and the transwomen have greater absolute lung function. (Although there are better tests for this.) There is also one outlier in the transwomen group that is likely driving this relationship in the ratio; unfortunately they do not perform the expected control analyses to demonstrate the retention of results without the outlier. [2]

The researchers decided to examine power in the lower extremities relative to lean/fat-free mass, which yielded a lower result for transwomen compared to ciswomen. However, this methodology make absolutely no sense. We have already established that transwomen have significantly greater lean/fat-free mass, and this paper is interested in determining equitably in sport performance. In general, sports aren't divided out by mass (and certainly not by lean mass), therefore we are interested in absolute differences, not in differences adjusted by some other factor. (Particularly not when that factor is established to be significantly different between transwomen and ciswomen!)

The same criticism applies to their analysis of cardiac function. But even more importantly, "the most crucial variable influencing VO2_max was not assessed in the present study" which is a significant oversight given the stated goals of this paper.

There are numerous other limitation and issues with this report:

This study is of "cross-sectional design, making it challenging to establish causation or examine if the performance of athletes changes as a result of undergoing GAHT"

"The athlete training intensity was self-reported. Therefore, the results may suffer from selection and recall bias." [emphasis mine] -> In other words, these results may be "comparing apples and oranges" with varying rates of fitness impacting the results.

"The athletes participating in the present study represented a variety of different sports, and this would have undoubtedly impacted the results of the study as different sports stress different training and sports modalities." [emphasis mine] -> This is a significant limitation, as comparing the strength of a ciswoman weight lifter to a transwomen distance runner (or vice versa) is meaningless. It's true that measures of fitness tend to correlate, but comparing across sport disciplines for highly competitive sports (where they are focusing on improving specific characteristics) distorts the results. (They explicitly note this: "Exercise type, intensity and duration all have an impact on physiological responses and overall laboratory performance metrics.")

"Social media recruitment leaves this study open to sample bias"

"The gender-affirming treatment of the transgender athletes was not controlled"

"The participants were not screened by a clinician before participation, and any medical conditions were self-reported"

The transwomen in this study all suppressed testosterone to ciswomen's levels and increased oestradiol above ciswomen's levels. This is a limitation because this degree of success in hormone suppression is uncommon, meaning that even these these poorly-supportive results are likely inapplicable to the majority of transwomen. [3]

There is a significant conflict of interest: this study was funded by the IOC after they had already changed the rules to remove the "hormone suppression" requirement [4]

All in all, this study is a classic case of researchers misrepresenting their data in the study's abstract. The data they actually collected shows that transwomen on hormone suppression maintain significant advantages over ciswomen. Further, the flaws in the study limit the applicability of their results.

---

In addition, there are other studies that contradict this result:

This review [3] discusses numerous sources describing "the inherent male physiological advantages that lead to superior athletic performance and then addresses how estrogen therapy fails to create a female-like physiology in the male"

This review [5] found "the performance gap between males and females becomes significant at puberty and often amounts to 10–50% depending on sport" and that "longitudinal studies examining the effects of testosterone suppression on muscle mass and strength in transgender women consistently show very modest changes, where the loss of lean body mass, muscle area and strength typically amounts to approximately 5% after 12 months of treatment. Thus, the muscular advantage enjoyed by transgender women is only minimally reduced when testosterone is suppressed."

This study [6] found that transwomen "generally maintained their strength level" during "gender-affirming therapy".

This study [7] found that all physical advantages were present after one year and that some are retained even after years on hormone suppression. They also specifically hypothesized that "gender dysphoria could stimulate the opposite behaviour [differences in exercise habits] in transwomen, decreasing push-up performance and explaining why transwomen performed fewer push-ups than [cismen] prior to starting oestrogen." This motivation difference likely won't apply to elite athletes, which further supports the idea that transwomen athletes should not be competing with female athletes.

As this position statement [8] indicates we know that there are substantial differences in athletic performance for male and female people.* However, there is little high-quality, definitive evidence concerning the effects of hormone suppression/replacement on people's athletic performance. The current state of evidence suggests that hormone suppression/replacement fails to bridge the physiological gap between male and female people, but we need further higher-quality evidence to definitively prove this.

(That being said, the burden of proof here is on the people attempting to initiate a change; that is equitably between transwomen and female people should be (have been) established prior to eliminating biological sex-separation.)

*Before anyone jumps on this: this is not a moral difference. There is absolutely no reason why running faster or lifting heavier things would make someone "better". The biological difference in performance exists, but it does not in anyway suggest superiority of men over women. Beyond that, it is unsurprising that men outperform women on traditional sports given that sports were designed by and for men. In sports that cater to women's physiological advantages (e.g., endurance, flexibility), women outperform men. [9]

---

So, given all this, what would we actually need to make determine transwomen's relative advantage over female people?

The "perfect" study would involve (at least) these elements:

Random selection from the desired population(s) of transwomen (e.g., top-ranked athletes in a specific sport, non-athletic, etc.) with matched (for population) non-trans female and non-trans male controls

Observation (not self-report) of activity level prior to, during, and following a standardized treatment (hormone suppression/replacement) initiation

Continual measurement of various physical and athletic performance, preferably with a range of laboratory (e.g., spirometry, body measurements) and naturalistic (e.g., actual sports competitions) tasks along with monitoring the treatment and clinical/health issues in all participants (again, not via self-report)

Large enough sample sizes to allow for sufficiently powered tests of all groups/differences of interest

A double-blinded assessment approach (or "placebo" controlled) such that both the researcher assessing the participants and the participants do not know what is being evaluated until the study is complete. For example, you may tell one half the transwomen participants that you are tracking the long term health effects of the intervention (hormone therapy), while you tell the other half that you are assessing differences in athletic performance as a result of the intervention. This will allow for the evaluation of demand characteristics like the ones impacting [7].

There are likely even more factors I have not currently thought of. Of course, completing the "perfect" study would likely be almost impossible. It would certainly be impossible to do for every population of interest (e.g., Olympic weight-lifters, adolescent track and field athletes, sedentary office workers) at the same time.

That being said, a study that fails to include all of these factors (particularly the blinded approach, matching of control participants, and sample size) is not going to meet the standard of evidence needed to make decisions of this magnitude (i.e., choosing to change the priority from biological categorization to ideological categorization). In reality, we would likely need many studies that individually evaluate each group of interest (e.g., transwomen olympic-level weight-lifters vs female olympic-level weight-lifters), each applying as many of the ideal study characteristics as possible.

In conclusion, the IOC has failed to perform their stated duty to regulate and ensure fair competition in sports. There is no current evidence suggesting that transwomen have lost their male-advantage in sports, much less any evidence suggesting they are at a disadvantage.

References below the cut:

Hamilton, B., Brown, A., Montagner-Moraes, S., Comeras-Chueca, C., Bush, P. G., Guppy, F. M., & Pitsiladis, Y. P. (2024). Strength, power and aerobic capacity of transgender athletes: a cross-sectional study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 58(11), 586-597.

Al-Ashkar, F., Mehra, R., & Mazzone, P. J. (2003). Interpreting pulmonary function tests: recognize the pattern, and the diagnosis will follow. Cleveland Clinic journal of medicine, 70(10), 866-881.

Heather, A. K. (2022). Transwoman elite athletes: their extra percentage relative to female physiology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(15), 9103.

“International Olympic Committee Issues New Guidelines on Transgender Athletes.” NBC News, 3 Jan. 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/international-olympic-committee-issues-new-guidelines-transgender-athl-rcna5775.

Hilton, E. N., & Lundberg, T. R. (2021). Transgender women in the female category of sport: perspectives on testosterone suppression and performance advantage. Sports Medicine, 51, 199-214.

Wiik, A., Lundberg, T. R., Rullman, E., Andersson, D. P., Holmberg, M., Mandić, M., ... & Gustafsson, T. (2020). Muscle strength, size, and composition following 12 months of gender-affirming treatment in transgender individuals. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 105(3), e805-e813.

Roberts, T. A., Smalley, J., & Ahrendt, D. (2021). Effect of gender affirming hormones on athletic performance in transwomen and transmen: implications for sporting organisations and legislators. British journal of sports medicine, 55(11), 577-583.

Pitsiladis, Yannis MMedSci, PhD, FACSM; Harper, Joanna MS; Betancurt, Jonathan Ospina; Martinez-Patino, Maria-Jose; Parisi, Attilio MD; Wang, Guan; Pigozzi, Fabio MD, PhD. Beyond Fairness: The Biology of Inclusion for Transgender and Intersex Athletes. Current Sports Medicine Reports 15(6):p 386-388, 11/12 2016. | DOI: 10.1249/JSR.0000000000000314

Ro, Christine. The sports where women outperform men. (2024). From https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240731-the-sports-where-women-outperform-men

[redavexat]

In case you missed any of the text, all of it is written here:

Medical transition works

80% of individuals reported significant improvement in dysphoria

78% of individuals reported significant improvements in psychological symptoms

72% of individuals reported significant improvement in sexual function

positive results across the board, even in 15- year follow ups

Source for all above: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19473181/

"Wellbeing was similar to or better than same-age young adults from the general population" source for the above:

Quality of life increases dramatically with 'gender affirming treatment

source for the above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6224813/

Long term follow-ups: https://www.jsm.jsexmed.org/article/S1743-6095(15)32422-X/fulltext

The above link shows as unsafe when you open it, it'll give you a message before sending you to the page. I'm not familiar enough with how websites work to confirm whether proceeding past that point is safe, click past the pop-up message at your own risk. I did, and the article IS there.

social transition works

"Shown to correlate with improved psychological functioning"

Source for above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X1630146X

levels of depression and anxiety which closesly match levels reported by cisgender children

Source for above: https://www.jaacap.org/article/S0890-8567%2816%2931941-4/fulltext

puberty blockers are safe and reversible

Hormone blockers are the only treatment used on adolescents that are completely reversible.

Source for above: https://assets2.hrc.org/files/documents/SupportingCaringforTransChildren.pdf

"Current evidence Does not support an adverse impact of gender- affirming hormone therapy on cognitive performance"

"Our results suggest that there are no detrimental effects of GNRHA on EF"

source for above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306453020301402?via%3Dihub

"Relieves stress for trans adolescents"

"is reversible"

Source for above: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558

"Poorer psychological well-being before treatment"

Source for above: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054139X20300276

"Behavioural and emotional problems and depressive symptoms decreased"

source for above: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1743609515336171

Hormone blockers are not new: "Since the mid 1990s..." and "The Royal college of psychiatrists, in 1998..."

source for above: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/26895269.2020.1747768

Many more studies: This screen of the video is far too small and compressed for me to read most of these links. If anyone knows of a higher quality version, thatd be great.

Puberty blockers aren't harmful to bone density: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/842073

Puberty blockers don't cause osteoporosis or sterility: https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/84/12/4583/2864749 Transphobia is real [personal side note, this comment isn't in the video: Does this really need a source to begin with?]: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu-lgbt-survey-results-at-a-glance_en.pdf

46% felt discriminated against or harrassed within the past year for being trans

29% felt discriminated against when it came to looking for employment

70% hid being trans during schooling before becoming 18 years old

55% had an incident of violence within the past year in part or whole because of them being trans

The ~40-50% Suicide rate is fake It's the attempt rate: https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/NTDS_Report.pdf

The suicide rate is undocument and doesn't exist.

Discrimination is harmful

The attempt rate rises for people who: Lost a job due to bias (55%) were harrassed/ Bullied in school (51%) Had low household income were the victim of physical assault (61%) were the victim of sexual assault (64%)

Same source as above for attempt rate

Other factors include: gender-based victimisation discrimination bullying violence being rejected by the family, friends, and community harrassmentby intimate partner, family members, police and public discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system

source for above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5178031/

[Another illegible "Many more studies" screen]

Social/ familial support helps:

[Top link doesn't work]

[next is too illegible]

It can decrease the likelihood of a suicide attempt 57% -> 4%

Chosen name/ pronoun use does the same:

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(18)30085-5/abstract 71% drop in severe depression 34% drop suicidal ideation 65% drop in suicide attempts

Gender and sex aren't the same These institutions and organisations would like to disagree with you: American Psychological association American medical association American psychoanalytic association Human rights campaign american academy of pediatrics american college of osteopathic pediatricians royal college of psychiatrists United Nations United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) American academy of child and adolescent psychiatry American academy of dermatology American academy of family physicians American academy of Nursing American academy of physician assistants American college health association American college of nurse-midwives American college of obstetricians and gynecologists American college of Physicians American counselling association American heart association American medical association American medical student association American nurses association American osteopathic association American psychiatric assocation American Psychological association American public health association American society of plastic surgeons Endocrine society GLMA National association of nurse practitioners in women's health national assocation of social workers National commission on correctional health care pediatric endocrine society society for adolescent health and medicine world medical association world professional association for transgender health world health organisation (WHO) Stanford medical American pediatrician association National institutes of health Canadian institute of health research scientific american

[beautyandlifestyleblog86]

Apricot-Almond Smoothie For Healthy Bones

Ingredients:

* 1 cup fresh or frozen apricots

* 1/2 cup almond milk

* 1 tablespoon almond butter

* 1 tablespoon chia seeds

* 1/4 teaspoon cinnamon

* A pinch of nutmeg

* A splash of honey (optional)

Instructions:

▫️Add all ingredients to a blender.

▫️Blend until smooth and creamy.

▫️Pour into a glass and enjoy immediately.

Why this smoothie is good for bone health:

* Apricots: Rich in vitamin K, which helps regulate calcium absorption and bone density.

* Almonds: A good source of calcium and magnesium, essential minerals for strong bones.

* Chia seeds: Packed with omega-3 fatty acids, which support bone health and reduce inflammation.

* Cinnamon and nutmeg: These spices have antioxidant properties that can help protect bones from damage.

This delicious and nutritious smoothie is a great way to incorporate apricots into your diet for stronger bones.

[elljayvee]

Today I'm more than usually annoyed with a pop science article, so I'm going to talk about reading these sorts of articles, why you should always be skeptical of claims in them, and some of the ways you can tell the article's author didn't understand what they were reading and told you the wrong thing.

I clicked on an article in Eating Well about low bone density and dementia, because my mother has both. There's not a lot we can do for her now, but I am a curious person. I know Eating Well isn't great at science interpretation and communication, so I'm anticipating that I'm going to need to read the original study already, going in. (How do I know Eating Well isn't a great source usually? Well, I have read it before, and it has some really clear biases if you read a few articles that aren't science communication, and so you get to know a source over time like that. Regardless of how, I'm already suspicious they're not going to do a great job.)

The article is talking about research that shows low bone density may be predictive of dementia risk. It is written by a journalist and reviewed by a dietician. Now, I don't know what review the dietician did, but she did a bad job, and also, so did the journalist, because THE FIRST red flag that goes up is pretty quick: the math is very, very clearly wrong.

This says there are 3651 participants, and that over 11 years, 688 of them developed dementia. This is 18.8% and the article calls it 19%. That's fair! Not a red flag so far, just rounding. Then it says that of the 1211 people with lowest bone density at the start, 90 people (7.4%) developed dementia, and of the 1211 with highest bone density, only 57 (4.7%) did.

This IS a red flag. It's a GIANT red flag. This red flag can be seen from SPACE by anyone who knows how percentages work.

Here's how: You have 3651 people. 1211 of them are in the low bone density group, 1211 of them are in the high bone density group, leaving 1249 people. You have 688 total dementia cases, but your high and low groups account for only 147 of them, leaving 541 cases for that middle group. That's a LOT of cases. That middle tertile, just eyeballing it, has to have about 40% of its people with dementia -- that makes low bone density look like it predicts LOWER dementia risk relative to the middle group.

I can write out the equations for you two ways:

3651 - 1211 - 1211 = 1249 688 - 90 - 57 = 541 541/1249 = 0.433 0.433(100) = 43.3%

Because I am someone who does a fair amount of stats for a living, though, what I noticed was pretty much this equation:

0.074(1211) + x(1249) + 0.047(1211) = 0.19(3651) and I knew immediately that x had to be MUCH bigger than it should, which indeed the math bears out: x(1249) = 0.19(3651) - 0.074(1211) - 0.047(1211) x(1249) = 694 - 90 - 57 x = 547/1249 = 0.438 0.438(100) = 43.8%

That 694 is because the authors rounded 18.8 to 19 earlier, not because I can't math. So, due to rounding, you get slightly different answers -- but BOTH of them point to something SERIOUSLY WRONG with the reporting. What is actually going on in that middle tertile? Where do these numbers come from? Well, lucky us, they mention the name of an author, a journal, and a date. Always be wary of pop sci articles that don't give you a way to track down the original, but giving you that way to track things down doesn't mean they aren't still doing a crummy job with their reporting, as we see here.

The original paper is Association of Bone Mineral Density and Dementia: The Rotterdam Study, published March 2023 in Neurology. This is a pretty technical article with a fair amount of math and things in parens etc. etc. and tables and lots of measurements. The table captions are often not the greatest, which makes it a bit harder to read and interpret. For example, in Table 1, items are listed as number(number) and this can be any of:

count (percent) -- this one's usually labeled in the table itself

mean (standard deviation)

median (interquartile range) -- these last two are NOT labeled in the table, so we don't know which set of numbers is which.

Great. Thanks guys. Assuming what's called a "normal distribution" mean (SD) and median (IQR) numbers will be similar, but they're not the same and I'm irritated they're conflated but OK. Soldiering on!

The original study looked at several different measures of bone density, and found only ONE of them to show predictive ability for dementia: the density of the femoral neck. This means that for their article, Eating Well should have looked at the results for femoral neck bone density, which we find in Table 2:

You have the actual numbers for 5 years, 10 years, and study end, as well as the hazard risk (HR) for each bone density tertile, with the highest tertile set as the standard. Numbers in the HR column have 1 as a reference point -- lower than 1 is lower risk than the highest tertile, and higher than 1 is higher risk.

The first thing I noticed is that neither 57 nor 90 occur in the femoral neck section at ALL. Those numbers from the Eating Well article are just not there. I also notice that the other numbers don't align even one little bit -- the number of total cases of dementia is different, for example. I do notice that the column with the 10 year followup has numbers in it close to 57 and 90 (49, 67, 86, totaled to 202) and that the overall numbers for the total study are much higher -- 201, 236, 229. Interesting.

At this point, I just straight-up search the paper for "90", and I find it in Table 2....in the total bone density section, which the paper's authors have said is NOT the section that showed possible predictive results. I search for "57", and also find that in total bone density, and also....wow the EW author straight up failed to read. This is actually worse than I thought.

Read across, these are the 5 year followup numbers (first 2 columns - count and HR), 10 year (middle 2 columns), and total followup numbers (last 2 columns).

We see our friends 57 and 90 in the 10 year columns. 90 is, as described in the EW article, in the lowest bone density tertile, but 57 is NOT in the highest bone density tertile. It's in the middle tertile. The actual number for the highest tertile is 68. Additionally, the total cases for 10 years is nowhere near that 688 number -- it's 215. We only get total case numbers close to 688 when we look at the study end numbers: it's 686, in this particular group. If we look at the study end case numbers for highest, middle, and lowest tertiles, we see WHY this particular measure can't be used to predict anything: they are 227 (highest), 227 (middle), and 232 (lowest) -- not significantly different from each other.

We can also see here that this group of people -- people who had total bone density measurements -- is not 3651, but 3633, which is listed across the bottom row. The overall STUDY had 3651, but not all of them had total bone density recorded.

Now we know that the author of the EW article did all of the following:

read the wrong part of Table 2

mixed up middle and high tertile results

reported 10 year results mixed with total followup results (this resulted in the weird math that alerted me something was very very wrong in the first place).

and the person who was supposed to review the article didn't have even the basic math skills to catch the problem -- which she absolutely should have, as a registered dietician. For giggles, I looked up program requirements for a BS in Dietetics. Programs require things like statistics and precalc -- not math heavy, but the math that alerted me to this problem is VERY basic statistical knowledge, like the kind they teach in 6th grade level statistics, which I know because it was literally in my 6th grader's curriculum this past school year. So a registered dietician DEFINITELY had enough math to catch this problem, and should have, and Eating Well should be ashamed of itself.

SO. What can we learn from this?

Well, science communication is a skill set. Some people have worked very hard to develop that skill set and are excellent at it -- but lots of people do not have it, and even those who do can make mistakes. Many, many pop sci articles are not written by trained science communicators, or people with any education in how to read scientific articles, or people with good reading comprehension, even. It's very common for pop sci articles to have these sorts of errors in them. Therefore:

Always read pop sci articles with a skeptical eye. Ask yourself:

Do these numbers line up? Usually the math in pop sci articles is not very complex -- you can often do some basic arithmetic to make sure it even makes sense, as was the case here.

Does one part of the article seem to contradict another part of the article?

Do I feel confused about what exactly I'm being told? What's not clear about it?

Am I being told about HOW something works or WHY it works or both? Are those two things being conflated somehow?

Is there a link or way to find the original research? If not, my advice is to throw the whole article away. If yes, you can go check it out -- often just looking at the abstract or results section will be enough, and abstracts usually aren't paywalled even if the rest of the article is. You would be surprised how many times the abstract says "we found X" and the pop sci article says "the researchers found Y".

Could I explain this article to someone and have it make sense? If not, why not?

Is the article confusing correlation (these things happen together) with causation (one of these things causes the other)?

Pop sci articles, like other journalistic articles, are extremely subject to bias issues from the publication they're in. A lot of people tend to read pop sci articles as neutral, factual reporting, but they aren't! I mentioned EW's biases earlier -- the one I think is most relevant to how their article is written is a pervasive belief that if you just eat the right things in the right amounts you will be thin and healthy and stave off all kinds of problems. They close their article by mentioning that, although the study's authors are clear that this connection is unlikely to be causative, and that risk factors for low bone density and dementia have substantial overlap, readers should act like it might be causitive with diet and exercise choices that promote bone health. They were so excited to get to their point about fixing your diet that they didn't pay attention to the actual science they were reporting on. (Sidenote: actual scientific journal articles are supposed to be neutral, factual reporting. They also aren't actually that, but there are some measures in place around this to try to prevent the worst effects of bias.)

It's worth brushing up some basic math skills. You don't need to know a lot! Very basic information will help you better understand a lot of articles -- both ones that are accurate and well-written, and ones that are shoddy and should not have been published. I really like Larry Gonick's The Cartoon Guide to Statistics but if your grasp of percentages is shaky, it will be too advanced. A good option might be something like The I Hate Mathematics! Book, which is pretty old but really accessible, but there's probably some newer great ones out there that I just don't know about.

[rachellaurengray]

Hey everyone!

I’m excited to share this comprehensive list of essential minerals and their roles in our bodies. As many of you know, understanding the function of each mineral can be incredibly empowering for maintaining our health and well-being. From supporting bone strength to aiding in energy production and immune function, each mineral plays a unique and crucial role.

This list not only highlights the importance of these minerals but also serves as a handy reference for anyone interested in optimizing their diet and health. Whether you’re a health enthusiast, someone looking to boost their nutrition, or just curious about how your body functions, this information is invaluable.

Feel free to save this post for easy access and share it with friends who might find it helpful. Let’s make informed choices about our health together!

Here’s a rundown of some key minerals and their roles:

Boron - Supports bone health and hormone regulation.

Phosphorus - Vital for bone and teeth formation, energy production.

Manganese - Involved in metabolism, bone formation, and antioxidant function.

Iron - Essential for oxygen transport and energy production.

Calcium - Critical for bone and teeth health, muscle function, and nerve signaling.

Selenium - Acts as an antioxidant, supports immune function and thyroid health.

Sulfur - Important for amino acid synthesis and detoxification.

Sodium - Regulates fluid balance, nerve function, and muscle contraction.

Magnesium - Supports muscle and nerve function, blood glucose control, and bone health.

Potassium - Helps maintain fluid balance, nerve function, and muscle contractions.

Zinc - Crucial for immune function, protein synthesis, and wound healing.

Copper - Involved in iron metabolism, connective tissue formation, and antioxidant defense.

Iodine - Essential for thyroid hormone production and metabolism regulation.

Fluoride - Strengthens tooth enamel and supports bone health.

Chromium - Enhances insulin action and glucose metabolism.

Cobalt - Part of vitamin B12, essential for red blood cell formation.

Molybdenum - Helps with enzyme function and detoxification.

Nickel - Involved in the metabolism of fats, carbohydrates, and proteins.

Silicon - Supports bone health and connective tissue integrity.

Vanadium - Plays a role in bone health and insulin regulation.

Strontium - Supports bone health and may aid in bone density.

Lithium - May influence mood regulation and neurological health.

Calcium - Important for cardiovascular health and muscle function.

Magnesium - Helps in enzyme reactions and DNA synthesis.

Iron - Supports cognitive function and immune health.

Potassium - Essential for heart function and muscle contractions.

Zinc - Important for DNA synthesis and cell division.

Selenium - Enhances antioxidant defenses and thyroid function.

Manganese - Assists in wound healing and bone development.

Phosphorus - Aids in energy production and bone health.

Copper - Crucial for brain development and cardiovascular health.

Sodium - Regulates blood pressure and volume.

Iodine - Essential for thyroid hormone production and metabolic regulation.

Fluoride - Helps prevent dental cavities and strengthens bones.

Chromium - Supports metabolism of carbohydrates and fats.

Molybdenum - Important for enzyme activity and metabolic processes.

Nickel - Assists in the metabolism of fatty acids and hormones.

Silicon - Enhances skin health and bone strength.

Vanadium - Potentially involved in glucose metabolism and bone health.

Strontium - May contribute to bone density and overall skeletal health.

Cobalt - Key component of vitamin B12, important for nerve function.

Lithium - May have effects on mood and mental health.

Calcium - Supports cardiovascular function and muscle contraction.

Magnesium - Contributes to heart health and muscle relaxation.

Iron - Essential for energy production and oxygen transport.

Potassium - Important for maintaining electrolyte balance and cellular function.

Zinc - Aids in immune function and skin health.

Selenium - Helps protect cells from damage and supports thyroid function.

Manganese - Facilitates enzyme reactions and antioxidant defense.

Phosphorus - Integral to energy storage and bone mineralization.

Hope you find this list as enlightening as I do! Feel free to save and share.

[transmutationisms]

can u elaborate on irregular hrt and osteoporosis… #irregularhrtgang

having low levels of both estrogen and testosterone at the same time is a major risk factor for a number of issues, osteoporosis/osteopenia among them. when you take exogenous hormones (HRT), your endogenous hormone production generally decreases to compensate: you only need so much sex hormone, so for example if you're taking T you'll generally produce much less E. stop or reduce your T doseage, and generally your E levels will rise again, keeping your overall endocrinological function going. however, that doesn't happen overnight; the same way that when you start HRT it takes a few weeks or months for your hormone levels to stabilise, if you are irregular with your doses then your endocrine system can end up in a kind of game of 'catch-up', where it's often not fully compensating for the lower levels of exogenous T because you're sporadically chucking a full or higher doseage in. missing a dose once in a while or being a few days late is generally not a big deal, but if you're spending years on end with significant irregularity in your hormone regimen, it definitely can become a problem. as far as avoiding osteoporosis goes, you're fine if you're either E-dominant or T-dominant---but you do want to have in-range values of one. perpetually or frequently low levels of both are where you'll run into issues.

this is obviously a bit more complicated for people whose HRT involves a blocker for their endogenous hormones (more common with feminising HRT but sometimes also a part of masculinising HRT) because in that case the endocrine system's ability to compensate for lower or stopped exogenous hormones will also depend on whether you're still taking the blocker, how long it works for, &c. however the general point still stands: you want to make sure that you have sufficient levels of T or E (you can look up the general medical targets; the numbers vary somewhat by age). an adjustment period as you switch dominant hormones or change your dose once in a while is not a big deal; chronic irregularity can be, especially if you are young because a great deal of bone accretion normally occurs in your teens and 20s, and loss of bone mineral density is generally not fully reversible.

[daignostics123]

Find Bone Mineral Density Test centers near you in Hyderabad and with affordable prices. Get accurate results and take control of your health. Compare Bone Mineral Density Test costs in Hyderabad and book an appointment today.