Search the Community

Hi all, lately my fasting (early morning) blood glucose is drifting toward higher values, not prediabetic but between 90 and 100 mg/dL. Now, I wouldn't like to cut drastically on carbs, since I don't like the idea to renounce healthy and micronutrient-rich foods like fresh fruit and whole grain cereals. I also confess I like to add dark honey to my hot cacao beverage. Exercise alone is not cutting it. There may be other factors at work like poor sleep and so on, the result is the above drifting though. So, after discarding the idea of taking metformin, mainly due to the fact that it has some proven detrimental effects upon athletic performance (and muscle hypertrophy), pending the results of the TAME study, I'm thinking about berberine, a supplement which has been extensively studied, seems not to exhibit the detrimental effects of metformin on respiratory fitness and muscle hypertrophy, with the drawback that its long time effects have not been studied. My question: in this forum I found berberine mentioned only in the context of cold exposure. Is anyone using it to lower blood glucose concentration, in which amount, which brands?

All, After bashing on the Huffington Post for their poor coverage of yesterday's fish oil protects against Alzheimer's disease study, I want to be fair. Today they've got a pretty thorough and well-researched article on vitamin D. They advocate three things I can agree with: The best way to get vitamin D is via modest sun exposure and supplements if necessary depending on your latitude/climate/lifestyle The serum vitamin D level to target is 30-50 ng/ml (75-125 nmol/L) You don't want to be too high or too low. The best way to determine how much to supplement is to get a blood test, and then titrate your supplement level to get into the 30-50 ngl/ml range by starting with these dosages: 100 IU (2.5 mcg) per day increases vitamin D blood levels 1 ng/ml (2.5 nmol/L). 500 IU (12.5 mcg) per day increases vitamin D blood levels 5 ng/ml (12.5 nmol/L). 1000 IU (25 mcg) per day increases vitamin D blood levels 10 ng/ml (25 nmol/L). 2000 IU (50 mcg) per day increases vitamin D blood levels 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/L). Thoughts on the article, and the wisdom of the approach to vitamin D it advocates? --Dean

[Admin Note: This is a new thread to consolidate the important discussion of Vitamin B12 levels, deficiency and supplementation started by Cloud in this thread originally by Zeta on his Extreme blood values. The topic of B12 deficiency, particularly for CR Practitioners who don't generally consume a lot of meat, deserves its own thread. -Dean] Hello, can I ask a question? What happens if the body can't absorb the iron from diet? I am asking about the relationship between serum iron and ferritin. In March I had serum iron at 134 mcg/dL, ferritin at 71.30 mcg/dL (and B12 very low 79 mcg/dL) , now at the latest analysis serum iron is 209 mcg/dL and ferritin is 96.60 mcg/dL and because I am supplementing B12 is 156. I am wondering what mean this so high serum iron. Could it come from food containing iron that I can not absorb? In the last months the only foods, containing much iron I introduced as new, was pistachios and dark chocolate. I also, as some of you, drink about 1 L/day of green tea, that should limit a lot iron absorption. I still have to show this data to my doctor. Thanks!

Strontium is one of the few supplements I still take, for bone health. But the new alert from Al Pater (thanks Al!) has got me wondering if this is wise. The news story (included below), talks about Canada putting warning labels on supplements and pharmaceuticals containing strontium. It cites [1], a European study that found increased risk of cardiovascular events in at-risk individuals taking strontium. On the other hand, the introduction of [1] points out that strontium really does appear pretty effective at building/maintaining bone health. Plus, from [1], it doesn't sound like someone WITHOUT CVD risk factors should be worried, but we're all a lot more paranoid about supplements in general these days, so I'm still a bit concerned. I take a 680/mg strontium capsule (as strontium citrate) per day. Study [1] talks about strontium ranelate, but I'm not sure if that makes any difference, since the Canadian authorities are talking about warnings for all strontium supplements, including strontium citrate. I'm hoping someone with deep expertise in supplements and nutrition (I'm looking at you Michael :-) ) will be able to shed some light on the wisdom or folly of strontium supplements for CR practitioners. Thanks! --Dean ---------------- http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/strontium-1.3284679 Strontium health products may carry heart risks: Health Canada Affected products products contain either strontium citrate, strontium gluconate or strontium lactate. CBC News Posted: Oct 22, 2015 5:23 PM ET| Last Updated: Oct 22, 2015 5:23 PM ET Health Canada has asked companies to strengthen their labels on natural health products containing strontium to warn of an increased risk of heart-related side-effects. The department said Thursday the label changes are for strontium-containing products with a daily dose between 4 mg and 682 mg, which are used to help support bone mineral density. Health Canada says findings in Europe led to restrictions for use of oral prescription drugs containing strontium at 680 mg/day, due to the increased risk of cardiovascular events seen in patients who have risk factors for heart or circulatory-related side-effects. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) The products contain either strontium citrate, strontium gluconate or strontium lactate. Under the new directions, use of the products will be limited to people who have no history of, or risk factors for, heart disease, circulatory problems or blood clots. "While uncertainties remain, Health Canada is using a precautionary approach and considers that strontium, regardless of the form it comes in or dose taken, may have a potential risk of cardiovascular side-effects in people who are already at risk," it said. Health Canada recommends: Do not use a strontium-containing product if you have, or are at high risk for heart disease, circulatory problems, or blood clots. Risk factors include: a history of heart disease, heart attack, stroke, peripheral arterial disease, high blood pressure, high blood fat levels, diabetes, taking prescription hormone drugs, or if you are temporarily or permanently immobilized. If you have any cardiovascular risk factors, read the label of products you are taking to know if they contain strontium. Consult a healthcare practitioner for use beyond six months. Talk to a healthcare practitioner if you have questions or if you are unsure whether these products are appropriate for you. ---------------------- [1] Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014 September; 13(9): 1209–1213. Published online 2014 July 14. doi: 10.1517/14740338.2014.939169 PMCID: PMC4196504 Cardiac concerns associated with strontium ranelate Abstract Introduction Strontium ranelate is proven to reduce vertebral and non-vertebral fracture risk in osteoporosis. Concerns about cardiac safety have led to a new contraindication to strontium ranelate in patients with uncontrolled hypertension and/or current or past history of ischaemic heart disease, peripheral arterial disease and/or cerebrovascular disease. Areas covered A literature search was performed; data were also collected from the European Medicines Agency website. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) data indicate a higher incidence of non-adjudicated myocardial infarction (MI) with strontium ranelate versus placebo (1.7 vs 1.1%; odds ratio [OR]: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.07 – 2.38; p = 0.020) (Mantel-Haenzel estimate of the OR). There was no increase in cardiovascular mortality. MI risk was mitigated by excluding patients with cardiovascular contraindications (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.48 – 2.04; p = 0.988). Three observational studies performed in the context of real-life medical practice in the UK and Denmark did not report a signal. Expert opinion The increased risk for cardiac events with strontium ranelate has been detected in RCTs but not in real life. Excluding patients with cardiovascular contraindications appears to be an effective measure for controlling the risk of MI. Strontium ranelate remains a useful therapeutic alternative in patients with severe osteoporosis without cardiovascular contraindications who are unable to take another osteoporosis treatment. Keywords: cardiac safety, myocardial infarction, osteoporosis, strontium ranelate Go to: 1.  Introduction Strontium ranelate, an osteoporosis medication registered in Europe in 2004, has been studied in a range of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [1-6]. It was originally indicated for the treatment of women with postmenopausal osteoporosis to reduce the risk for vertebral and hip fracture. The efficacy of strontium ranelate for preventing fracture in osteoporosis is well established, having been demonstrated in two pivotal RCTs – Spinal Osteoporosis Therapeutic Intervention (SOTI) trial and TReatment Of Peripheral OSteoporosis (TROPOS) [2,3]. SOTI showed that, over 3 years, treatment with strontium ranelate 2 g/day reduced the risk of vertebral fracture in postmenopausal osteoporotic women and increased lumbar spine bone mineral density [2]. Strontium ranelate was demonstrated to have an effect on non-vertebral fracture (including hip) in postmenopausal osteoporotic women in TROPOS [3]. Strontium ranelate also increases bone mineral density in osteoporotic men [4], and there is evidence that its antifracture efficacy is maintained up to 10 years [5,6].