|
[ Osteoporosis Prevention Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I have been diagnosed with osteoporosis. I am allergic to dairy products and have not found a calcium supplement that I can tolerate. I'm desperate! I have always been active and also lifted light wts. When I started having seizures the Dr. said to stop weight lifting because it always triggered a seizure. Now I am trying to start again by using light weights 6 lb. for arms. What can I do for the spine? I can't do any knee bending and am at a loss what to do to not loose any more bone. Thanks.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
Weight bearing exercises are excellent for osteoporosis. Walking and swimming are right at the top of the list.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Osteogal on December 17, 2002 at 14:50:47:
Actually, walking and swimming are at the BOTTOM of the list for exercises that build bone density. Swimmers have some of the lightest bone density of all athletes. (But still better than non-athletes.)
The reason for this is that walking and swimming put the LEAST stress on the bones of most activities. It is stress on the bones that initiates the increase in bone density. Yes, swimmers and walkers will have a better bone density profile than couch potatoes, but that is all. There are many more effective forms of exercise for building bone density, all other things being equal.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 16:31:52:
I will agree that swimming is not as effective, nor is it classified as a 'weight bearing' exercise, but walking is very recommended for anyone who has osteoporosis. As is low impact aerobics, stair climbing, etc.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
When you say you were doing 'light' weightlifting, how light is that? 6 pounds is less than a gallon of milk. What kind of exercises where you doing with these weights? I'm curious why your doctor thinks that weight lifting triggers seizures in you. If that's the amount of weight you've been using, I'm surprised it would have ANY effect on you whatsever, good or bad.
If you really need to stop lifting weights, that's a shame because it means you've lost one of the most effective tools for combating osteoporosis.
In Reply to: Beg to differ... posted by Osteogal on December 17, 2002 at 16:34:20:
Walking is recommended so often for two reasons:
1. "Do no harm".
Doctors are afraid to recommend anything more rigorous. They are also incabable of prescribing a more exacting workout regimen; they do not have the training for it. Thus, the "walking" recommendation has become a knee-jerk reaction for the medical industry.
2. Most people are woefully out of shape. For those people, walking is the most they can manage, sadly.
In Reply to: Walking is recommended for a lot of people posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 16:41:13:
information you can find on osteoporosis and you will find that walking is highly recommended, along with the other things I mentioned, and not for the reasons you indicated.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 16:36:55:
of 6 lbs. isn't necessary to help combat osteoporosis. Simple hand weights of 5 lbs. are sufficient. Those of us with osteoporosis aren't aiming to be body builders.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
Due to primary hyperparathyroidism my bones went from very tough to borderline osteoporosis in short order. I had a parathyroid gland removed because it became an adenoma and was over-producing parathyroid hormone, which signaled osteoclasts to resorb my bone faster than it could be created. Conventional medicine says that you may stop bone thinning, but you cannot cure it, especially if you are post menopausal and not taking hormone replacements and drugs like fosamax.
Nonsense. In the six months since I had my surgery, my bone density has returned to normal for a young, healthy adult.
The amazing thing is that I could do no weight bearing exercises during this time due to severe knee problems. Furthermore, I continued to drink 4 or more cups of coffee a day--a habit many claim contributes to bone loss.
Given my age, sex, genetic inheritance and habits, I should never have had this success. How did it happen?
I attribute it to information I found at this site after my surgery. (If I had found this site before surgery, I may have been able to avoid that surgery, too.) After endlessly reading posts and archives, I came to the conclusion that I was probably very magnesium deficient, and that I needed the best possible calcium supplementation, with all the necessary vitamins and minerals to help it get to my bones. I also gave up all milk products (a great loss to me) except a cup of plain, high fat yoghurt a day. I had increased my milk consumption as I entered menopause, thinking to give myself more calcium. Apparently milk does more harm than good in the calcium department.
So, I gave up milk. I began taking magnesium "asporotate", a mixture of easily absorbable magnesium compounds. I took enough to lead to very soft stools, but not diarrhea--400 mg. twice a day. I also began taking hydroxyapatite--the form calcium takes in bone. This had important micro nutrients in it to help calcium to be used in bone formation. I took 1200 mg. calcium in this form per day--in three devided doses. I took the magnesium and the calcium at different times, usually, but am not sure if is necessary. I also took them after eating, to minimize any digestive problems. Just to be complete, I should mention that I began taking 3 grams of fish oil in capsules at bedtime. I didn't do it for osteoporosis, but who can tell?
Last but not least, to give my body a leg-up on healing, I began practicing skilled relaxation twice a day for thirty minutes. I would be remiss if I did not mention that I borrowed a rebounder (mini-trampoline) and began using it (very gently because of the knees) daily to get some exercise and move the lymph in the body.
The upshot of all this is that somewhere in all this experimentation, I hit on a combination that actually worked to reverse osteoporosis and allow bone to increase in density again. I am back to normal!
Since I am a normal human being, perhaps what helped me will help you and others with this perplexing problem. I hope so. Good luck.
P.S. To Walt and all the wonderful, wacky, questing people on this site who have asked hard questions and posted helpful information. THANKS A MILLION! And Merry Christmas!
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
Osteogal is not too bright.
In Reply to: More than the weight... posted by Osteogal on December 17, 2002 at 16:49:56:
"Those of us with osteoporosis aren't aiming to be body builders."
No, 6 lb. weights aren't going to make you a bodybuilder. Nor will the 60 lb. weights. You are the wrong sex to be a bodybuilder, to say nothing of your current health condition.
The way I've seen most women wave 6 lb. weights around isn't going to result in much progress, either. My 5'5", 118 lb., 44 year-old girlfriend is working with anywhere from 15 to 75 pounds weights, depending on the exercise. She still shops the petite section, I assure you.
I know some NO-WEIGHT exercises that could kill a 20 year-old Marine infantryman, but somehow I doubt you are doing anything like that. It all depends on what exercises you do and how hard you work them. That's why I asked about what exercises you are doing, which you did not answer. The truth is that most women - and many doctors - are afraid of working hard with weights, due to old misconceptions about what it will do to them.
In Reply to: Ah, the old myths and fears come to the surface posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 21:00:51:
" You are the wrong sex to be a body builder."
Excuse me...just a bit of a chauvenistic remark, n'est pas?
"The way I've seen most women wave 6 lb. weights around isn't going to result in much progress, either."
Again, quite a chauvenistic comment. You must be going to the wrong gyms.
Fact remains that HEAVY weight lifting is not required, nor is it recommended, for dealing with osteoporosis. Do your research!
In Reply to: Sue, listen to lincoln.Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Bo on December 17, 2002 at 20:13:41:
Unless you're coping with osteoporosis Bo(zo), zip it. Weight bearing exercises are extremely important in improving bone mass and that does not include heavy weight lifting.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 16:36:55:
Hi Lincoln. I am a walker but my osteopenia only got worse. (shown in 2 successive DEXA scans, 2 years apart). This is not strolling but brisk walking up and down hills. Pretty sure I had other detrimental factors in the mix as well. Anyway I still do walk, because I like the cardio effect. & yes I probably fit your definition of "woefully out of shape", but whatever... on to my questions!
You recommend "high intensity" lifting as on the hardgainer site, right? Can an 'out-of-shape' person such as myself delve right into something like this? Or are they better off to start with the usual 3x a week 8-12 reps until failure, increasing as you go? I also enjoyed low impact aerobics and floor work with free weights - as in "The Firm" series videotapes (when I was more diligent about this). I love moving to music while working out. But apparently this is not the most efficient way to do things for muscle and bone?
So how does a person ease into HIGH intensity and still protect their joints? And isn't there such a thing as stressing a weak bone too much, too soon? (as Osteogal is saying) This would not be some irrational fear of "getting big" but possible stress fractures on the bone - until you know it has gotten stronger.
Short, intense weight sessions sounds great to me - if I could be sure it is safe. Then I'd just do the cardio and walking for fun and energy. Oh and I'm not afraid of getting "big" and it's not possible anyway. (A woman at my gym could out-bench-press a lot of the guys - but you'd never know this by looking at her!)
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by tuff bonz(testamonial) on December 17, 2002 at 19:52:24:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Jan S. on December 17, 2002 at 22:18:15:
I have some issues with so called "High Intensity Training" or HIT as it is called. The proponents of HIT believe that working until failure is a requirement for making progress. I disagree. Too many athletes have made great progress by stopping short of failure during their weight training.
But HIT does get results. Why? Because it forces the trainee to work hard. Most people don't work hard and as a result they don't get results. Failure is not a requirement. Hard work is.
Another issue I have with HIT is their very definition of 'intensity'. Really, I believe they are using 'intensity' to mean 'effort'. Why? Because HET doesn't sound good. 'Intensity' is actually a measure of of maximum momentary output - the most weight you can lift once. HIT workouts never just lift a weight once.
So, back to you. In a nutshell, this is what you should do. 1) Match your effort level to your rest. In other words, if you do light workouts, take less time off between workouts. If you have hard workouts, rest more. HIT often requires 4-7 days off between workouts - do you want to work that hard? I doubt it. Hell, I don't either! I prefer moderate workouts 3-4 times a week. For someone really out of shape, I might start with 5x a week. Once you start feeling more in shape, bump up the effort level and increase the rest days between workouts.
2) Make and chart progress. Pick a core set of exercises and try to improve on them over time. Starting light is okay. It does not matter how slowly you improve, just as long as you strive to put more and more weight on the bar over time. Be consistent and you will be SHOCKED at how much strength you can develop. Even if you could only add 1/2 pound to the bar once a week, look how far that would get you in a year or two.
3) Don't workout any longer than 45 minutes at a time. Quality, not quantity. A 10 minute quality workout is better than a sloppy 90 minute workout, when it comes to weight training.
4) Be consistent.
5) Pick 1st-rate lifts over 2nd-rate lifts. If you want to get in shape, squats and lunges are in, leg curls and leg extensions are out.
Hope that helps.
In Reply to: High Intensity Training posted by Lincoln on December 18, 2002 at 13:31:09:
Have you thought about haunting a bodybuilder/gym BB? It seems that anyone who doesn't exercise is "lazy" and "out of shape"
is subject to your wrath. Wouldn't you be happier with your own kind where you could compare the relative merits of arm curls and toe curls?
In Reply to: Re: High Intensity Training posted by Low Intensity Post on December 18, 2002 at 16:53:14:
"It seems that anyone who doesn't exercise is "lazy" and "out of shape"
is subject to your wrath. "
And your point is...?
Of course you don't have one. You're just an anonymous troll. Who doesn't exercise. Maybe attitudes like yours are why 60% of the U.S. is fat. Maybe you'd be happier in a knitting bulletin board, instead of a wellness forum.
In Reply to: Re: High Intensity Training posted by Lincoln on December 18, 2002 at 18:01:31:
As opposed to a well-known narcissistic exercise troll like yourself.
Nearly everyone has some narcissistic traits. It's possible to be arrogant, selfish, conceited, or out of touch without being a narcissist. The practical test, so far as I know, is that with normal people, no matter how difficult, you can get some improvements, at least temporarily, by saying, essentially, "Please have a heart." This doesn't work with narcissists; in fact, it usually makes things worse. [See discussion of the relationship between normal personality traits and personality disorders.]
It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of narcissists' lack of empathy. It colors everything about them. I have observed very closely some narcissists I've loved, and their inability to pay attention when someone else is talking is so striking that it has often seemed to me that they have neurological problems that affect their cognitive functioning. These are educated people with high IQs, who've had ordinary middle-class backgrounds and schooling, and their thinking is not only illogical but weird: with narcissists, you have to know them pretty well to understand their behavior. For instance, they always fill in their gaps (which make up just about the entirety of their visible life) with bits of behavior, ideas, tastes, opinions, etc., borrowed from someone else whom they regard as an authority. Their authoritative sources, as far as I know, are always people they've actually known, not something from a book, for instance, and narcissists' opinions may actually come from someone you know, too, but who is not to you obviously an authority on the matter at hand, so narcissists can seem totally arbitrary, virtually random in their motivations and reasoning. They are evidently transfixed by a static fantasy image of themselves, like Narcissus gazing at his reflection, and this produces an odd kind of stillness and passivity. Because their inner life is so restricted and essentially dead, it doesn't contain images of how to live a full life -- these things are not important to them, they expect others to look after day-to-day chores, they resent wasting their specialness on common things, they don't put their heart into their work (though they'll tell you how many hours they put into it), they borrow their opinions and preferences and tastes from whomever strikes them as authoritative at the moment.
From my personal experience, and from what I've seen in the clinical literature, narcissists don't talk about their inner life -- memories, dreams, reflections -- much at all. They rarely recount dreams. They seem not to make typical memory associations -- i.e., in the way one thing leads to another, "That reminds me of something that happened when I was...of something I read...of something somebody said...." They don't tell how they learned something about themselves or the world. They don't share their thoughts or feelings or dreams. They don't say, "I have an idea and need some help," or "There's something I've always wanted to do...did you ever want to do that?" They do not discuss how they've overcome difficulties they've encountered or continuing problems that they're trying to solve (beyond trying to get someone else to do what they want). They often say that they don't remember things from the past, such as childhood events, their schooldays or old friends, and it seems to me that they really don't most of the time. Anyhow, for all these reasons, I've tried to refrain from speculating about (i.e., novelizing) what goes on in their heads. Writer John Cheever (who recorded having been diagnosed as a narcissist when he went to marriage counseling at his wife's insistence) describes some of his persistent fantasy images -- and, with Cheever, they're very striking, as you'll know if you've read any of his fiction; his characters and plots tend to be narcissistic (i.e., self-obsessed tunnel vision spiraling into nihilism), but his stories often contain memorably glorious set pieces or tableaux, such as the the hunt for the golden Easter egg in one of the Wapshot novels. Cheever also gives unself-conscious expression to the ways in which his obsessive preoccupation with himself (and his penis -- sort of a magic wand in his mind) obstructed his ability to relate to his wife and children, obstructed even his ability to perceive them: to see what they looked like, to pay attention to what they said and did, though with Cheever everything is also soaked with the sorrows of gin. Alice Adams's novel, Almost Perfect, also gives things from a narcissistic point of view in a way that I found convincing and credible, based on my personal experience of narcissistic individuals. A striking thing about narcissists that you'll notice if you know them for a long time is that their ideas of themselves and the world don't change with experience; the ones I've known have been stalled at a vision that came to them by the age of sixteen.
There are different theories of how narcissists are made. Some psychologists trace NPD to early infantile neglect or abuse, and some blame over-indulgence and indiscriminate praise by parents who don't set limits on what's acceptable from their children. Others say that NPD shows up in adolescence. Some say narcissists tend to peak around middle age and then mellow out. Others say that narcissists stay pretty much the same except they tend to depression as they get older and their grandiose fantasies are not supported, plus they're not as good-looking as they used to be. The narcissists I've known have apparently always been "that way" and they get worse as they get older, with dramatic regression of their personas after the deaths of their parents and other personal authority figures who have previously exerted some control over the narcissists' bad behavior. And, yes, chronic depression gets to be obvious at least by their forties but may have always been present. Depressed narcissists blame the world, of course, and not themselves for their personal disappointments.
Essentially, narcissists are unable or unwilling to trust either the world or other people to meet their needs. Perhaps they were born to parents unable to connect emotionally and, thus, as infants learned not to let another person be essential to them in any way. Perhaps NPD starts later, when intrusive or abusive parents make it dangerous for the child to accept other people's opinions and valuations. Maybe it comes from a childhood environment of being treated like royalty or little gods. Whatever the case, narcissists have made the terrible choice not to love. In their imaginations, they are complete unto themselves, perfect and not in need of anything anyone else can give them. (NB: Narcissists do not count their real lives -- i.e., what they do every day and the people they do it with -- as worth anything.) Their lives are impoverished and sterile; the price they pay for their golden fantasies is high: they'll never share a dream for two.
Now, it is possible to have a relatively smooth relationship with a narcissist, and it's possible to maintain it for a long time. The first requirement for this, though, is distance: this simply cannot be done with a narcissist you live with. Given distance, or only transient and intermittent contact, you can get along with narcissists by treating them as infants: you give them whatever they want or need whenever they ask and do not expect any reciprocation at all, do not expect them to show the slightest interest in you or your life (or even in why you're bothering with them at all), do not expect them to be able to do anything that you need or want, do not expect them to apologize or make amends or show any consideration for your feelings, do not expect them to take ordinary responsibility in any way. But note: they are not infants; infants develop and mature and require this kind of care for only a brief period, after which they are on the road to autonomy and looking after themselves, whereas narcissists never outgrow their demands for dedicated attention to their infantile needs 168 hours a week. Adult narcissists can be as demanding of your time and energy as little babies but without the gratification of their growing or learning anything from what they suck from you. Babies love you back, but adult narcissists are like vampires: they will take all you can give while giving nothing back, then curse you for running dry and discard you as a waste of their precious time.
It is also essential that you keep emotional distance from narcissists. They're pretty good at maintaining a conventional persona in superficial associations with people who mean absolutely nothing to them, and they'll flatter the hell out of you if you have something they can use or if, for some reason, they perceive you as an authority figure. That is, as long as they think you don't count or they're afraid of you, they'll treat you well enough that you may mistake it for love. But, as soon as you try to get close to them, they'll say that you are too demanding -- and, if you ever say "I love you," they'll presume that you belong to them as a possession or an appendage, and treat you very very badly right away. The abrupt change from decent treatment to outright abuse is very shocking and bewildering, and it's so contrary to normal experience that I was plenty old before I realized that it was actually my expression of affection that triggered the narcissists' nasty reactions. Once they know you are emotionally attached to them, they expect to be able to use you like an appliance and shove you around like a piece of furniture. If you object, then they'll say that obviously you don't really love them or else you'd let them do whatever they want with you. If you should be so uppity as to express a mind and heart of your own, then they will cut you off -- just like that, sometimes trashing you and all your friends on the way out the door. The narcissist will treat you just like a broken toy or tool or an unruly body part: "If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off" [Matt. 18:8]. This means you.
So, yes, it's possible to get along with narcissists, but it's probably not worth bothering with. If family members are narcissists, you have my deep sympathy. If people you work with are narcissists, you will be wise to keep an eye on them, if just for your own protection, because they don't think very well, no matter what their IQs, they feel that the rules (of anything) don't apply to them, and they will always cut corners and cheat wherever they think they can get away with it, not to mention alienating co-workers, clients, and customers by their arrogance, lies, malice, and off-the-wall griping. Narcissists are threatened and enraged by trivial disagreements, mistakes, and misunderstandings, plus they have evil mouths and will say ANYTHING, so if you continue to live or work with narcissists, expect to have to clean up after them, expect to lose friends over them, expect big trouble sooner or later.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
since calcium moves in the bones by acid in
the body and will be moved out of the body
when the ph is too acid, I would look at ph
as a way to possibly conserve it and keep
bones dense.
In Reply to: Re: High Intensity Training posted by Low Intensity Post on December 18, 2002 at 20:20:20:
Wow, that was a fascinating essay, and for a short span of time I thought you were describing me. But...naw...couldn't be. Thank god I don't read novels. I don't think I would like to indulge in several hundred pages of someone else's narcissism.
Next time could you write about Obsessive/Compulsives you have known?
Thanks.
In Reply to: Re: High Intensity Training posted by Low Intensity Post on December 18, 2002 at 20:20:20:
nm
In Reply to: High Intensity Training posted by Lincoln on December 18, 2002 at 13:31:09:
Thanks, Lincoln.
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: High Intensity Training posted by Lincoln on December 18, 2002 at 13:31:09:
Hi. Sorry for the late reply. Yes this helps a lot.
I take it you think that the possibility of damage to weak bones is a non-issue, or else you would have addressed it. Only thing I'm fairly sure of is that *massive* lifting would not be a good place to start for someone with weak bones. (I don't know WHERE I got the idea that you favor ONLY the once a week workout where you do massive lifts. So thanks for taking the time to explain.)
I'm trying to get a sense of a formula here. As the number of reps goes down, the output of work and the # of pounds of weight goes up, so that at SOME point, you're going to get a # of pounds of weight that's going to be too much for someone with weak bones. OTOH going in the other direction and increasing the reps and *decreasing* the # of pounds of weight, you get a workout that's safe for the bones but you don't want it to be TOO light or else it's not effective for the muscles.
I keep thinking of this standard formula of 8-12 reps and whatever weight makes you work hard to do that, seems to me that might be (for anyone) a "moderate" workout. For an out of shape person concerned about their bones, then they might start out at 12-15 or 15-20 reps at a lower weight and do it 5x a week? I don't know. I'm going to try this out and see how it feels.
Over the long term, do the bones keep up with the muscles, I wonder? Obviously I don't have to worry about that YET. But in theory, I could get strong enough that it would be a question. I think bone remodeling takes a very long time. (?) But maybe not. Must look into this.
...Failure is not a requirement. Hard work is.
Interesting that you say this. Going for the failure is far-and-away the most painful part of the weight lifting, to me. All that effort just to end in "failure" I think sends a mixed message to my primitive semi-conscious mind, and I get this dread towards it. Far better (psychologically speaking) to end with success - without kidding ourselves of course.
OK, enough words. Thanks for your comments.. Regards, Jan. S.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Lincoln on December 17, 2002 at 16:31:52:
Lift weights. It is simply the best bone density building execise. Period.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by osteo specialist on December 19, 2002 at 20:00:22:
In your dreams. Period.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
The largest segment, by far, of the population subject to osteoporosis, is elderly ladies. Before telling them to lift weights, you had better produce some hard evidence from good scientific studies. Many cannot. Most will not.
In this thread I presented a protocol for healing osteoporosis which put 6.6% density back on my spine and 9% back on my hip bones in 6 months. That took me from borderline osteoporosis back to normal. I challenge you to find any equivalent evidence for weightlifting.
Post menopausal women, following this protocol and using rebounding, with its gravity advantage, as a primary exercise, will produce way better results than lifting weights. I invite you to try and prove me wrong with hard evidence.
In Reply to: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by Sue on December 17, 2002 at 14:43:06:
Sue, what's your diet like?
As far as I know, a diet too high in protein (as in meat and nuts) can cause blood to be acidic, which will leach out the calcium (and other minerals) from bones--it's our body's way of achieving balance. By adjusting the diet, however, we can help the body's natural way of achieving balance instead of going against it. In other words, reducing the acid-causing foods in the diet is a crucial step in overcoming bone-thining problems. Meanwhile, adding more leafy greens (collards, kale, chinese cabbage, turnip greens) to your diet also helps.
Another step is to do weight-bearing exercise, meaning being physically active while carrying your own body weight--such as walking, jogging, etc.
Osteoporosis is very rare among cultures where people (especially post-menapausal women) eat less meat, where nobody lift weights, where people walk more.
In Reply to: Re: weight lifting for osteoporosis? posted by osteo specialist on December 19, 2002 at 20:00:22:
Thanks, oateo.
I certainly agree that a progressive resistance, total body workout is the best for this condition. The problem is getting people to actually DO it.
Walt
In Reply to: Where is the hard evidence? posted by tuff bonz on December 20, 2002 at 08:52:18:
Hi, Tuff.
It is called progressive resistance and can start with a silk scarf. Reference: William Evans, PhD "Biomarkers--The 10 keys to Prolonging Vitality". Ask your library to find you a copy.
Let us know what you learn.
Walt
In Reply to: Re: Where is the hard evidence? (Archive in osteoporosis.) posted by Walt Stoll on December 21, 2002 at 08:52:22:
Thanks, I ordered the book after checking it out at amazon.com. From all indications it seems like a great book. I will let you know what I learn.
|
[ Osteoporosis Prevention Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |