Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation:randomised controlled trial

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
friend Marilyn Mann wrote:

BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)
from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in
women to lose weight


This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.

3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.

Thorsten

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:


BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)
from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in
women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.


The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.


But not successfully so.


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.


That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.


The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.


2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.


In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states
are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... opt=Abstract

"CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated
with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality."


3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.


In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in
the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing.

Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic?

Thorsten

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:



BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)

from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in

women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.

But not successfully so.


If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from
you ...


There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons.


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.


Actually, it would for the carb deficient.


Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.

In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be
enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the
study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers. In order to
explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that
just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers
by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then why has
the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500 g to
20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)?


2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.

In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states
are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... opt=Abstract

"CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated
with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality."


Mortality from IHD is not the same endpoint as heart attack.

Serum potassium concentration is related to serum magnesium
concentration so that both are involved in stabilizing myocardial cell
membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury
**after** plaque rupture from a heart attack.


The following study used heart attacks as endpoint:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
= (http://tinyurl.com/3aa6ac)

"Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg ratio
against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis
of a protective role of Ca."


3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.

In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in
the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing.

Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic?


http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in heart
attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might theoretically
cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a
statistic?

Thorsten

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:


BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)

from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in


women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.

But not successfully so.

If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from
you ...

There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons.


Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart.


You wouldn't know what is my heart.


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.

Actually, it would for the carb deficient.

Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.


For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect.


Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and
please explain, why all those alleged low carbers in the study should
have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2
g of additional carbs pushed them over.


In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be
enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the
study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers.


It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled.


Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals?


In order to
explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that
just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers
by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then why has
the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500 g to
20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)?


Others have noticed an association and have accordingly expressed
concerns:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/


Where on this side can I find evidence for such an association? I'm not
interested in in theoretical concerns.


2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.

In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states
are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... opt=Abstract

"CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated
with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality."

Mortality from IHD is not the same endpoint as heart attack.

Serum potassium concentration is related to serum magnesium
concentration so that both are involved in stabilizing myocardial cell
membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury
**after** plaque rupture from a heart attack.

The following study used heart attacks as endpoint:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
= (http://tinyurl.com/3aa6ac)

"Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg ratio
against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis
of a protective role of Ca."


Here is the full abstract:

"Several epidemiologic studies have shown an association between
calcium and magnesium and coronary heart disease mortality and
morbidity. In this small-area study, we examined the relationship
between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk and content of Ca, Mg,
and chromium in local groundwater in Finnish rural areas using
Bayesian modeling and geospatial data aggregated into 10 km times
symbol 10 km grid cells. Data on 14,495 men 35-74 years of age with
their first AMI in the years 1983, 1988, or 1993 were pooled.
Geochemical data consisted of 4,300 measurements of each element in
local groundwater. The median concentrations of Mg, Ca, and Cr and the
Ca:Mg ratio in well water were 2.61 mg/L, 12.23 mg/L, 0.27 microg/L,
and 5.39, respectively. Each 1 mg/L increment in Mg level decreased
the AMI risk by 4.9%, whereas a one unit increment in the Ca:Mg ratio
increased the risk by 3.1%. Ca and Cr did not show any statistically
significant effect on the incidence and spatial variation of AMI.
Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg
ratio against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier
hypothesis of a protective role of Ca."

Comment:

A normal level of serum magnesium is more than 15 mg/L so that well-
water median concentration of 2.61 mg/L is clinically meaningless
especially with the understanding that that the primary source of
magnesium is not from drinking well-water.


Obviously the body tries to retain magnesium as much as possibly, so the
serum concentration being higher than the well-water concentration does
not exclude a clinical significance of the latter. Apart from that it
could be the case that the well-water concentrations of magnesium and
calcium are a marker for the geology of region and that this geology
might not only influence said concentrations, but also the content of
magnesium and calcium in crops that grow in the region.


3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.

In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in
the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing.

Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic?

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in heart
attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might theoretically
cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a
statistic?


It would be the choice of low-carbers to become such a statistic
because it remains unethical to conduct studies where investigators
knowingly randomized study participants to diets that are believed to
be likely harmful.

I didn't ask for a randomized study. I asked for a simple statistic
showing the alleged rise in heart attacks in the US in recent years,
whatever the reason for this increase might be. I take it there is no
such statistic or else you would not have failed to provide it twice in
a row now.

Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise

Atkins was 73 when he died.

under suspicious
circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy
and history of sudden cardiac death requiring cardiopulmonary
resuscitation while low-carbing serve as grounds to believe low-
carbing to be likely harmful.

If if his death was caused by heart disease, which seems unlikely, it
would hardly be any reason to believe low-carbing to be harmful because
of this. At the age of 73 heart attacks are quite common, they can
happen on every diet.

Moreover, there have been other
anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier
discussions on this topic.


As a cardioglogist, you should be aware of the low value of anecdotal
examples.

Thorsten

J666 wrote:
On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, Thorsten Schier
Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals?

Chung is in many ways "unique" in his views compared to other doctors
and scientists. His views are based on scripture rather than medical
journals and on "discerning" rather than science and those who use
science and logic to disagree are "convicted" by the Holy Spirit who
uses Chung's web site to list those convicted and then with
persistence become corporeal demons of Satan.

It's common in the faith healing profession, homeopathy, and various other "I wish this would work, I wish this would work!" practices.

J666 wrote:
On Jan 18, 4:40 pm, Thorsten Schier
Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care
professionals?

Chung is in many ways "unique" in his views compared to other doctors
and scientists. His views are based on scripture rather than medical
journals and on "discerning" rather than science and those who use
science and logic to disagree are "convicted" by the Holy Spirit who
uses Chung's web site to list those convicted and then with
persistence become corporeal demons of Satan.

It's common in the faith healing profession, homeopathy, and various
other "I wish this would work, I wish this would work!" practices.


Did you press this button here atalt Christian Life?


Are getting ready to receive the Holy Spirit?


Welcome, gather at the Fire.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:


BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)

from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in



women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.

But not successfully so.

If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from
you ...

There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons.

Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart.

You wouldn't know what is my heart.


Were it not for your tell.


Then you stick with what I wrote and not with what suppose it "betrays".


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.

Actually, it would for the carb deficient.

Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.

For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect.

Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and
please explain


It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies.


1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence.

2. Low carbers are not carb deficient.


,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should
have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2
g of additional carbs pushed them over.


It remains possible that 2 grams of carbs is sufficient to rescue
those teetering at deficiency because of their unwise choice to count
carbs.


And why would all those low carbers happen to be "teetering at
deficiency" instead of being well below or above the alleged threshold?
Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even
if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it),
most would miss it.


In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be
enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the
study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers.

It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled.

Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals?


The perspective of a scientist is not a bizarre view fo those who are
medical scientists.


However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist.


In order to
explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that
just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers
by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then why has
the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500 g to
20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)?


Others have noticed an association and have accordingly expressed
concerns:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

Where on this side can I find evidence for such an association? I'm not
interested in in theoretical concerns.


Yours is the side of delusion. While deluded, you will find neither
evidence nor knowledge, which is the eminent domain of the
discerning.


So you cannot provide any evidence. I cannot say that I am surprised.


2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.

In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic states
are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... opt=Abstract

"CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely associated
with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality."

Mortality from IHD is not the same endpoint as heart attack.

Serum potassium concentration is related to serum magnesium
concentration so that both are involved in stabilizing myocardial cell
membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury
**after** plaque rupture from a heart attack.

The following study used heart attacks as endpoint:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
= (http://tinyurl.com/3aa6ac)

"Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg ratio
against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier hypothesis
of a protective role of Ca."


Here is the full abstract:

"Several epidemiologic studies have shown an association between
calcium and magnesium and coronary heart disease mortality and
morbidity. In this small-area study, we examined the relationship
between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk and content of Ca, Mg,
and chromium in local groundwater in Finnish rural areas using
Bayesian modeling and geospatial data aggregated into 10 km times
symbol 10 km grid cells. Data on 14,495 men 35-74 years of age with
their first AMI in the years 1983, 1988, or 1993 were pooled.
Geochemical data consisted of 4,300 measurements of each element in
local groundwater. The median concentrations of Mg, Ca, and Cr and the
Ca:Mg ratio in well water were 2.61 mg/L, 12.23 mg/L, 0.27 microg/L,
and 5.39, respectively. Each 1 mg/L increment in Mg level decreased
the AMI risk by 4.9%, whereas a one unit increment in the Ca:Mg ratio
increased the risk by 3.1%. Ca and Cr did not show any statistically
significant effect on the incidence and spatial variation of AMI.
Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg
ratio against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier
hypothesis of a protective role of Ca."

Comment:

A normal level of serum magnesium is more than 15 mg/L so that well-
water median concentration of 2.61 mg/L is clinically meaningless
especially with the understanding that that the primary source of
magnesium is not from drinking well-water.

Obviously the body tries to retain magnesium as much as possibly, so the
serum concentration being higher than the well-water concentration does
not exclude a clinical significance of the latter. Apart from that it
could be the case that the well-water concentrations of magnesium and
calcium are a marker for the geology of region and that this geology
might not only influence said concentrations, but also the content of
magnesium and calcium in crops that grow in the region.


Not while fertilizer use is widespread and pervasive.


Fertilizer cannot make up for the different geology of soils.


3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.

In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in
the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing.

Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic?

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in heart
attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might theoretically
cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a
statistic?

It would be the choice of low-carbers to become such a statistic
because it remains unethical to conduct studies where investigators
knowingly randomized study participants to diets that are believed to
be likely harmful.

I didn't ask for a randomized study. I asked for a simple statistic
showing the alleged rise in heart attacks in the US in recent years,
whatever the reason for this increase might be. I take it there is no
such statistic or else you would not have failed to provide it twice in
a row now.


Three times in a row now.

So, we can safely assume that no such statistic exists.

So, the "current high prevalence of low-carb dieting" has not been
associated with a rise in heart attack numbers.


Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise

Atkins was 73 when he died.


http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought


So you have found one person who lived longer than Atkins. Big Deal. A
lot of persons die from attack much younger than Atkins was at his death.


under suspicious
circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy
and history of sudden cardiac death requiring cardiopulmonary
resuscitation while low-carbing serve as grounds to believe low-
carbing to be likely harmful.

If if his death was caused by heart disease, which seems unlikely, it
would hardly be any reason to believe low-carbing to be harmful because
of this. At the age of 73 heart attacks are quite common, they can
happen on every diet.


It is not good for the champion of a diet to die as Atkins has died.
My condolences to his surviving friends and family.


He slipped on ice and hit his head. Could have happend on any diet.


Moreover, there have been other
anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier
discussions on this topic.

As a cardioglogist, you should be aware of the low value of anecdotal
examples.


Not when they are in sync with our collective clinical experience.


Why do you speak in pural when you talk about vour clinical experience?

Thorsten

Thorsten Schier wrote:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:


BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior
lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research
officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate
professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health
Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New
Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five
years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other
chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31
women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of
myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10
events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to
4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women
in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group
(relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added
from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the
relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and
that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and
1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years,
calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported
events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was
1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal
women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates.
This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the
likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective
effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid
peroxidation)

from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting
especially in



women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of
which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.

But not successfully so.

If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from
you ...

There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons.

Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart.

You wouldn't know what is my heart.


Were it not for your tell.


Then you stick with what I wrote and not with what suppose it "betrays".


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the
size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar
to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's
say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of
carbs
don't make a difference.

Actually, it would for the carb deficient.

Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about
4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.

For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect.

Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and
please explain


It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies.


1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence.

2. Low carbers are not carb deficient.


,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should
have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2
g of additional carbs pushed them over.


It remains possible that 2 grams of carbs is sufficient to rescue
those teetering at deficiency because of their unwise choice to count
carbs.


And why would all those low carbers happen to be "teetering at
deficiency" instead of being well below or above the alleged threshold?
Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even
if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it),
most would miss it.


In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo
would be
enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the
study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers.

It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled.

Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care
professionals?


The perspective of a scientist is not a bizarre view fo those who are
medical scientists.


However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist.


In order to
explain the difference in heart attacks by this it would follow that
just 2 g of sugar and/or starch reduced the risk among the low carbers
by at least 80 %. If just 2 g are making such a difference, then
why has
the surely much bigger effect on heart disease by going from 4-500
g to
20-50 g gone unnoticed until now (except by you, of course)?


Others have noticed an association and have accordingly expressed
concerns:

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

Where on this side can I find evidence for such an association? I'm not
interested in in theoretical concerns.


Yours is the side of delusion. While deluded, you will find neither
evidence nor knowledge, which is the eminent domain of the
discerning.


So you cannot provide any evidence. I cannot say that I am surprised.


2. It is absolutly plausible that a calcium supplement should
raise the
risk of heart disease, because calcium is an antagonist for
magnesium,
and magnesium has been linked to a lowered risk of heart
disease. Many
people get too much calcium and not enough magnesium to begin
with. A
calcium supplement worsens this, of course.

In our collective clinical experience, chronic hypomagnesemic
states
are not associated with an increased incidence of heart attacks.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en... opt=Abstract


"CONCLUSION: Serum magnesium concentrations were inversely
associated
with mortality from IHD and all-cause mortality."

Mortality from IHD is not the same endpoint as heart attack.

Serum potassium concentration is related to serum magnesium
concentration so that both are involved in stabilizing myocardial
cell
membrane potentials in the setting of destabilizing ischemic injury
**after** plaque rupture from a heart attack.

The following study used heart attacks as endpoint:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

= (http://tinyurl.com/3aa6ac)

"Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg
ratio
against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier
hypothesis
of a protective role of Ca."


Here is the full abstract:

"Several epidemiologic studies have shown an association between
calcium and magnesium and coronary heart disease mortality and
morbidity. In this small-area study, we examined the relationship
between acute myocardial infarction (AMI) risk and content of Ca, Mg,
and chromium in local groundwater in Finnish rural areas using
Bayesian modeling and geospatial data aggregated into 10 km times
symbol 10 km grid cells. Data on 14,495 men 35-74 years of age with
their first AMI in the years 1983, 1988, or 1993 were pooled.
Geochemical data consisted of 4,300 measurements of each element in
local groundwater. The median concentrations of Mg, Ca, and Cr and the
Ca:Mg ratio in well water were 2.61 mg/L, 12.23 mg/L, 0.27 microg/L,
and 5.39, respectively. Each 1 mg/L increment in Mg level decreased
the AMI risk by 4.9%, whereas a one unit increment in the Ca:Mg ratio
increased the risk by 3.1%. Ca and Cr did not show any statistically
significant effect on the incidence and spatial variation of AMI.
Results of this study with specific Bayesian statistical analysis
support earlier findings of a protective role of Mg and low Ca:Mg
ratio against coronary heart disease but do not support the earlier
hypothesis of a protective role of Ca."

Comment:

A normal level of serum magnesium is more than 15 mg/L so that well-
water median concentration of 2.61 mg/L is clinically meaningless
especially with the understanding that that the primary source of
magnesium is not from drinking well-water.

Obviously the body tries to retain magnesium as much as possibly, so the
serum concentration being higher than the well-water concentration does
not exclude a clinical significance of the latter. Apart from that it
could be the case that the well-water concentrations of magnesium and
calcium are a marker for the geology of region and that this geology
might not only influence said concentrations, but also the content of
magnesium and calcium in crops that grow in the region.


Not while fertilizer use is widespread and pervasive.


Fertilizer cannot make up for the different geology of soils.


3. If ketogenic diets were _that_ dangerous, the raise of heart
disease
should have skyrocketed alongside the "current high prevalence of
low-carb dieting". This does not seem to be the case.

In our collective clinical experience, we are seeing an increase in
the number of heart attacks that we would attribute to low-carbing.

Surely you are able to back this claim with a statistic?

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/

I asked for a statistic that backs up your claim of an increase in
heart
attacks, not for speculations on how the Atkins Diet might
theoretically
cause heart attacks. So, please, where on this site do I find such a
statistic?

It would be the choice of low-carbers to become such a statistic
because it remains unethical to conduct studies where investigators
knowingly randomized study participants to diets that are believed to
be likely harmful.

I didn't ask for a randomized study. I asked for a simple statistic
showing the alleged rise in heart attacks in the US in recent years,
whatever the reason for this increase might be. I take it there is no
such statistic or else you would not have failed to provide it twice in
a row now.


Three times in a row now.

So, we can safely assume that no such statistic exists.

So, the "current high prevalence of low-carb dieting" has not been
associated with a rise in heart attack numbers.


Dr. Atkins' own untimely demise

Atkins was 73 when he died.


http://TruthRUS.org/DreadNought


So you have found one person who lived longer than Atkins. Big Deal. A
lot of persons die from attack much younger than Atkins was at his death.


under suspicious
circumstances with his background of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy
and history of sudden cardiac death requiring cardiopulmonary
resuscitation while low-carbing serve as grounds to believe low-
carbing to be likely harmful.

If if his death was caused by heart disease, which seems unlikely, it
would hardly be any reason to believe low-carbing to be harmful because
of this. At the age of 73 heart attacks are quite common, they can
happen on every diet.


It is not good for the champion of a diet to die as Atkins has died.
My condolences to his surviving friends and family.


He slipped on ice and hit his head. Could have happend on any diet.


Moreover, there have been other
anecdotal examples as you should be well aware by recalling earlier
discussions on this topic.

As a cardioglogist, you should be aware of the low value of anecdotal
examples.


Not when they are in sync with our collective clinical experience.


Why do you speak in pural when you talk about vour clinical experience?

Thorsten

Because andy has none. Oh, excuse me, he has 88 days.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

friend Marilyn Mann wrote:


BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE (published 15 January 2008)

Research
Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium
supplementation: randomised controlled trial

Mark J Bolland, research fellow1, P Alan Barber, senior lecturer1,
Robert N Doughty, associate professor1, Barbara Mason, research
officer1, Anne Horne, research fellow1, Ruth Ames, research officer1,
Gregory D Gamble, research fellow1, Andrew Grey, associate professor1,
Ian R Reid, professor1

1 Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences,
University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand

Correspondence to: I R Reid

Abstract

Objective To determine the effect of calcium supplementation on
myocardial infarction, stroke, and sudden death in healthy
postmenopausal women.
Design Randomised, placebo controlled trial.

Setting Academic medical centre in an urban setting in New Zealand.

Participants 1471 postmenopausal women (mean age 74): 732 were
randomised to calcium supplementation and 739 to placebo.

Main outcome measures Adverse cardiovascular events over five years:
death, sudden death, myocardial infarction, angina, other chest pain,
stroke, transient ischaemic attack, and a composite end point of
myocardial infarction, stroke, or sudden death.

Results Myocardial infarction was more commonly reported in the
calcium group than in the placebo group (45 events in 31 women v 19
events in 14 women, P=0.01). The composite end point of myocardial
infarction, stroke, or sudden death was also more common in the
calcium group (101 events in 69 women v 54 events in 42 women,
P=0.008). After adjudication myocardial infarction remained more
common in the calcium group (24 events in 21 women v 10 events in 10
women, relative risk 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 4.47). For
the composite end point 61 events were verified in 51 women in the
calcium group and 36 events in 35 women in the placebo group (relative
risk 1.47, 0.97 to 2.23). When unreported events were added from the
national database of hospital admissions in New Zealand the relative
risk of myocardial infarction was 1.49 (0.86 to 2.57) and that of the
composite end point was 1.21 (0.84 to 1.74). The respective rate
ratios were 1.67 (95% confidence intervals 0.98 to 2.87) and 1.43
(1.01 to 2.04); event rates: placebo 16.3/1000 person years, calcium
23.3/1000 person years. For stroke (including unreported events) the
relative risk was 1.37 (0.83 to 2.28) and the rate ratio was 1.45
(0.88 to 2.49).

Conclusion Calcium supplementation in healthy postmenopausal women is
associated with upward trends in cardiovascular event rates. This
potentially detrimental effect should be balanced against the likely
benefits of calcium on bone.

Trial registration Australian Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN
012605000242628.


An alternate more plausible explanation is that the carbohydrates
(sugar/starch) in the placebo tablets had a CV protective effect for
the women in the placebo group because of background harmful
carbohydrate deficiency (hyperketonemia increases lipid peroxidation)

from the current high prevalence of low-carb dieting especially in




women to lose weight

This is extremly unlikly for a variety of reasons, some of which have
been mentioned by Hollywood.

The reasons given by satan via his sockpuppet have already been
countered.

But not successfully so.

If that were true, there would be no need for "other reasons" from
you ...

There is no need, I just feel free to provide further reasons.

Your "feeling" is telling, betraying what is in your heart.

You wouldn't know what is my heart.

Were it not for your tell.

Then you stick with what I wrote and not with what suppose it "betrays".


It remains my choice to stick with the truth:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/LoveTheTruth


What an odd statement for you to make.


Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.

Actually, it would for the carb deficient.

Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.

For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect.

Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and
please explain

It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies.

1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence.


Evidence will not give you understanding.


So you have none. No surprise there.


2. Low carbers are not carb deficient.


Hyperketonemia is an indication of carbohydrate deficiency.


Ketosis is an adaptation of the body to a low supply of carbs.


,why all those alleged low carbers in the study should
have had their carb intake precisly below this threshold so that just 2
g of additional carbs pushed them over.

It remains possible that 2 grams of carbs is sufficient to rescue
those teetering at deficiency because of their unwise choice to count
carbs.

And why would all those low carbers happen to be "teetering at
deficiency" instead of being well below or above the alleged threshold?


Gluconeogenesis remains a possible but suboptimal option until all
muscle has been catabolyzed.


So? What has that to do with my question? Let's say the alleged
threshold, for which you are unable to provide any shred of evidence,
lies at 30 g. Then, if a person ingests 25 g of carbs, 2 more won't push
them over the threshold, if they are ingesting 35 g, this is above the
threshold and 2 g more won't do much difference.

So again, please explain why all those low carbers should mysteriously
fall into this narrow margin, where 2 g more might theoretically do any
difference.


Please take in mind, that no one can count carbs that good, so that even
if people were aiming for this threshold (assuming they know about it),
most would miss it.


Counting carbs is not good. Ordering a low-carb sandwich and getting
only the meat sans bread is not good.


So? Again, what has this to do with what I wrote? Even if they were
counting carbs, be that good or not, and they were aiming for this
alleged threshold, most would miss it.


In your answer to Hollywood you claimed that taking the placebo would be
enough to explain the difference in heart attack numbers between the
study group and the control group with 20 % low carbers.

It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is controlled.

Have you discussed this bizzare view with other health care professionals?

The perspective of a scientist is not a bizarre view fo those who are
medical scientists.

However, your perspective is not the perspective of a scientist.


Identifying uncontrolled variable(s) is the perspective of a scientist
especially when hypothesizing:

"It remains a plausible explanation until this variable is
controlled."


But this is not an uncontrolled variable, it is just you grasping at
straw. You don't even know that they did use sugar or starch as placebo
instead of, say, cellulose.

But even if they did, that doesn't matter, as has been explained to you.

You implied that just 2 g of sugar should cut the heart attack risk in
low carbers by at least 80 %, yet you have failed to provide any
evidence at all that going on a low carb diet in the first place is
anything else than beneficial and you even failed to provide any
evidence that there has been any rise in heart attacks at all in recent
years, a rise, which should have been dramatic with the rising number of
low carb dieters, if this diet were even nearly as harmful as you allege.

Bottom line:

You remain pathologically untruthful.


Talking to your mirror again?

This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts


Again playing the convicts card? Running out of arguments?


Thorsten

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD schrieb:
convicted neighbbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:

convicted neighbor Thorsten Schier wrote:

[...]
Other reasons include:

1. The amount of sugar or starch in the placebo is so small that a
physiological effect is unlikly, even in low-carbers.

That would be a guess that would depend on knowing the size/weight of
the placebo tablet(s) that were administered. Since the information
about the size/weight of the placebo tablet(s) was not given, your
likelihood estimate here is automatically without basis.

The size and weight of the placebo tablets will have been similar to the
calcium tablet. Clacium tablets are not _that_ big usually. Let's say
two grams per day and that is already quite a lot. Two grams of carbs
don't make a difference.

Actually, it would for the carb deficient.

Hardly. People on a standard american diet consume usually about 4-500 g
of carbs per day, if memory serves. Strict low carbers will usually
consume still at least 20 g, standard low carbers quite a bit more,
let's say 50 g.

For deficiencies, pathology observes a threshold effect.

Please provide evidence that such a threshold exists for carbs and
please explain

It exists for all disease arising from deficiencies.

1. This does not make a lot of sense to me. Please provide evidence.

Evidence will not give you understanding.

So you have none.


Your lacking in something is not evidence of the non-existence of that
something.

Your refusing to give evidence is strong evidence that you have none. No
evidence at all for any of your claims in this thread.


Indeed, your lack of understanding

My what? Your the one who refuses to understand.


Thorsten