17 replies to this topic

[blood]

What do people make of this?

 

Elevated brain lesion volumes in older adults who use calcium supplements: a cross-sectional clinical observational study

First published online 1 May 2014

Abstract

Recent studies have implicated Ca supplements in vascular risk elevation, and therefore these supplements may also be associated with the occurrence of brain lesions (or hyperintensities) in older adults. These lesions represent damage to brain tissue that is caused by ischaemia. In the present cross-sectional clinical observational study, the association between Ca-containing dietary supplement use and lesion volumes was investigated in a sample of 227 older adults (60 years and above). Food and supplemental Ca intakes were assessed with the Block 1998 FFQ; participants with supplemental Ca intake above zero were categorised as supplement users. Lesion volumes were determined from cranial MRI (1·5 tesla) scans using a semi-automated technique; volumes were log-transformed because they were non-normal. ANCOVA models revealed that supplement users had greater lesion volumes than non-users, even after controlling for food Ca intake, age, sex, race, years of education, energy intake, depression and hypertension (Ca supplement use: b ¼ 0·34, SE 0·10, F1,217 ¼ 10·98, P¼0·0011). The influence of supplemental Ca use on lesion volume was of a magnitude similar to that of the influence of hypertension, a well-established risk factor for lesions. Among the supplement users, the amount of supplemental Ca was not associated with lesion volume (b ¼ 20·000035, SE 0·00 015, F1,139 ¼ 0·06, P¼ 0·81). The present study demonstrates that the use of Ca-containing dietary supplements, even low-dose supplements, by older adults may be associated with greater lesion volumes. Evaluation of randomised controlled trials is warranted to determine whether this relationship is a causal one.

Key words: Calcium supplements: Brain lesions: MRI hyperintensities: Older adults

 
 Elevated brain lesion volumes.pdf   193.97KB   12 downloads

[Dolph]

Very interesting. But the fact that they couldn't find a dose response means many questions are unanswered in my view. Maybe a sick user effect? People with osteoporosis or the risk thereof are more likely to use calcium supplements BUT are also more likely to show vascular lesions.

[Dorian Grey]

Better to chelate minerals rather than supplement them once you reach middle age...  Mag & (low dose) Zinc might be the exceptions to the rule.  

[Dorian Grey]

Thumbs down / disagree?  How so?  

 

Calcification of arteries, copper and iron in the brain of Alzheimer's patients, triple digit ferritin in geriatric populations...  Cadmium, lead, fluoride, arsenic, mercury.  What's to like about this?  

 

I say flush 'em all & add a bit of something beneficial like Mag & Zinc.  Overmineralization in aging and disease is a valid theory.  Look into this properly and you might agree, seeking more youthful mineralization levels as we age may be desirable.  

Edited by synesthesia, 23 December 2014 - 06:56 AM.

[Dolph]

Overmineralization in aging and disease is a valid theory.  Look into this properly and you might agree, seeking more youthful mineralization levels as we age may be desirable.  

 

Well, not really on the basis of this paper. 

 

". Among the users

of Ca-containing supplements, the amount of supplemental

Ca (mg) was not significantly associated with LogLesion

(b ¼ 20·000035, SE 0·00 015, F1,139 ¼ 0·06, P¼0·81) and nor

was the duration of supplement use (b ¼ 20·040, SE 0·043,

F1,134 ¼ 20·93, P¼0·35)."

 

That is pretty much implausible and should make you literally scream "Confounders! Confounders! Confounders!"

[albedo]

I take the point of the study but there is no causation yet: "Evaluation of randomised controlled trials is warranted to determine whether this relationship is a causal one." I keep monitoring and intervene with supplementation where I found some effect (e.g. iron, magnesium)

[Darryl]

Given about half of cognitive impairment is due to vascular microinfarcts, its perfectly reasonable that calcification plays a role:

 

Payne, M. E., Anderson, J. J., & Steffens, D. C. (2007). Calcium and vitamin D intakes are positively associated with brain lesions in depressed and non-depressed elders. FASEB J, 21(837.20).

Hamer, M., Kivimaki, M., Lahiri, A., Marmot, M. G., & Steptoe, A. (2010). Persistent cognitive depressive symptoms are associated with coronary artery calcification. Atherosclerosis, 210(1), 209-213.

Bos, D., Vernooij, M. W., Elias-Smale, S. E., Verhaaren, B. F., Vrooman, H. A., Hofman, A., ... & Ikram, M. A. (2012). Atherosclerotic calcification relates to cognitive function and to brain changes on magnetic resonance imaging.Alzheimer's & Dementia, 8(5), S104-S111

 

Evidence for vitamin D is equivocal (see above & below), but vitamin K also likely plays a role in preventing calcification, and whether by this or other means, adequate intake appears to play a preventative role.

 

Balion, C., Griffith, L. E., Strifler, L., Henderson, M., Patterson, C., Heckman, G., ... & Raina, P. (2012). Vitamin D, cognition, and dementia A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology, 79(13), 1397-1405.

Presse, N., Shatenstein, B., Kergoat, M. J., & Ferland, G. (2008). Low vitamin K intakes in community-dwelling elders at an early stage of Alzheimer's disease. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108(12), 2095-2099..

Carrié, I., Bélanger, E., Portoukalian, J., Rochford, J., & Ferland, G. (2011). Lifelong low-phylloquinone intake is associated with cognitive impairments in old rats. The Journal of nutrition, 141(8), 1495-1501.

[Dolph]

Yes, but given the really HUGE trials with multivitamin/multimineral supplementation in mostly elderly folks it's higly unlike that (at least low dose) calcium supplementation leads to increased risk of calcification and downstream events. We know for sure there is no increased risk of stroke with multivitamins/minerals and if there was one for dementia/microstrokes I'm pretty sure we would already have seen these effects by now.

[niner]

A lot of (most?) multivitamins have little or no calcium, although some have a modest dose.  It would, however, certainly be rare (unheard of, AFAIK) to find properly formulated vitamin K in a cheap multi.  Separate calcium supplements rather than multis seem to be what are being looked at here, and it would be very easy for a consumer to get a large calcium dose in the absence of the other factors that should be present.  It's plausible that improper calcium supplementation could result in calcification of cerebral arteries, leading to infarcts.  I still don't like the paper, and wouldn't go any farther than to say their probably-confounded correlation is "interesting, but not particularly meaningful"...

[Luminosity]

I didn't find a link to the whole study.  This abstract doesn't give the form of the calcium.  The most common form is of supplemental calcium is chalk, inorganic calcium carbonate, which does form calcifications in people's bodies, if they are foolish enough to consume it.  Finding the right calcium supplement can be tricky, especially for some people.  The funding source of the study isn't given and is crucial.  Big Pharma is deliberately funding poorly designed studies of supplements to try to harm the competition, in the vain hope that vitamin people will start taking drugs.  Very delusional.  

Edited by Luminosity, 24 December 2014 - 04:31 AM.

[Dolph]

A lot of (most?) multivitamins have little or no calcium, although some have a modest dose.  It would, however, certainly be rare (unheard of, AFAIK) to find properly formulated vitamin K in a cheap multi.  Separate calcium supplements rather than multis seem to be what are being looked at here, and it would be very easy for a consumer to get a large calcium dose in the absence of the other factors that should be present.  It's plausible that improper calcium supplementation could result in calcification of cerebral arteries, leading to infarcts.  I still don't like the paper, and wouldn't go any farther than to say their probably-confounded correlation is "interesting, but not particularly meaningful"...

 

NO! Read the paper! They didn't find a difference between users of said multis and users of dedicated calcium supplements!

[Darryl]

They didn't find a difference between users of said multis and users of dedicated calcium supplements!

 

Then I bet its something else in the multivitamin that is increasing vascular disorders and dementia - multis have negligible calcium, present in mineral salts or added a filler/binder rather than as a calcium supplement. Perhaps: 

 

Morris, M. C., Evans, D. A., Tangney, C. C., Bienias, J. L., Schneider, J. A., Wilson, R. S., & Scherr, P. A. (2006). Dietary copper and high saturated and trans fat intakes associated with cognitive decline. Archives of Neurology,63(8), 1085-1088.

 

Among persons whose diets were high in saturated and trans fats, higher copper intake was associated with a faster rate of cognitive decline. In multiple-adjusted mixed models, the difference in rates for persons in the highest (median, 2.75 mg/d) vs lowest (median, 0.88 mg/d) quintiles of total copper intake was −6.14 standardized units per year (P<.001) or the equivalent of 19 more years of age. There was also a marginally statistically significant association (P = .07) with the highest quintile of food intake of copper (median, 1.51 mg/d) and a strong dose-response association with higher copper dose in vitamin supplements. Copper intake was not associated with cognitive change among persons whose diets were not high in these fats.

Edited by Darryl, 24 December 2014 - 05:08 PM.

[Dolph]

R-E-A-D   T-H-E   P-A-P-E-R.

It's all bollocks in my view anyways. Crappy sample size, crappy methodology, crappy literally everything. Multis don't cause atherosclerosis, brain lesions or whatever, we have HUGE trials that prove that with MORE than n=~200.

 

Ah, and a merry christmas by the way.   

[niner]

OK, I R-E-A-D   T-H-E   P-A-P-E-R.  It's bollocks in my view as well.  Multis don't contain very much calcium typically, although historically they've contained transition metals that might best be avoided, as Darryl pointed out.  Since they don't see a difference between a milligram of calcium and a gram of calcium, it's on pretty shaky ground anyway.  I agree that the very large multi trials don't indict small quantities of calcium, but it's still at least plausible that higher dose calcium supplements might be a problem when combined with a diet lacking in adequate vitamin K, or perhaps with D levels at extremes.

 

Merry Christmas to all...

[Luminosity]

Who's abusing the reputation system?  Those comments on my post are way out of line.  Your check is in the mail.  Which drug company do you work for, so we can boycott them?

 

When is this site going to go back to common sense feedback where you had to put your name on your comment, and think about it first?  AKA posting?  Posts are down about 90% from when I first came here.  Maybe like me, people get sick of contributing only to be crapped on by people with problems or agendas.  This sucks!!!!

[Dolph]

I didn't find a link to the whole study.  This abstract doesn't give the form of the calcium.  The most common form is of supplemental calcium is chalk, inorganic calcium carbonate, which does form calcifications in people's bodies, if they are foolish enough to consume it.  Finding the right calcium supplement can be tricky, especially for some people.  The funding source of the study isn't given and is crucial.  Big Pharma is deliberately funding poorly designed studies of supplements to try to harm the competition, in the vain hope that vitamin people will start taking drugs.  Very delusional.  

 

Mmm, well... I guess it already starts with the first sentence? There IS the F****** link to the full text of the paper in the OP you blind m****.

The rest of your post is just the usual fullblown delusional BS, that deserves to be voted accordingly every single time.

[YOLF]

OK, I R-E-A-D   T-H-E   P-A-P-E-R.  It's bollocks in my view as well.  Multis don't contain very much calcium typically, although historically they've contained transition metals that might best be avoided, as Darryl pointed out.  Since they don't see a difference between a milligram of calcium and a gram of calcium, it's on pretty shaky ground anyway.  I agree that the very large multi trials don't indict small quantities of calcium, but it's still at least plausible that higher dose calcium supplements might be a problem when combined with a diet lacking in adequate vitamin K, or perhaps with D levels at extremes.

 

Merry Christmas to all...

Most off the shelf retail calcium is like 600mg/serving. Perhaps they were asking purely about separate calcium supplements and a mean dosage determined by retail availability could be used?

 

I think the study proves that more information is needed or that companies should strive to undertake more comprehensive studies. I feel that this is a great time to remind community members that donations can be earmarked for studying various things and that we strive to generate useful information and papers.

[Dolph]

Again, read the paper!