Binky wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 10:25 am
Rainbow, if you're being offered an injection at six month intervals, maybe it's more potent than mine (little and often). Maybe that's why I and others in my situation don't have side effects? It's something to ask your doctor.
Stokey Sue wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2023 10:42 am
I poked up denosumab - apparently Prolia is formulated to be given at 6 month intervals but a product called Xgeva is formulated to be given more frequently, especially in cancer patients
Thanks Binky (wants to change it to Pinky!!) and Sue.
I found this info. "Xgeva is given as a 120mg injection once every four weeks, with additional 120mg doses given on days 8 and 15 of the first month of therapy. Oral calcium and vitamin D should be given as necessary to treat or prevent low calcium levels (hypocalcemia).
Prolia is given as a single 60mg injection once every six months. All patients should receive 1000mg of calcium orally daily and at least 400IU vitamin D orally daily."
Not sure what to make of that!!
My denusomab injection is 120mg each time. I also have Ad-cal tablets which are calcium and vit D combined.
Not only do I need the calcium, but have been strongly advised to avoid sunlight, which is vital for vit D production in the body. I must take medication to replace this natural effect.
The only way I can get vit D is to take the tablets. If you live in a sunny climate and don't have an underlying serious health condition, I am unsure as to why artificial vit D supplements are being suggested.
Binky wrote: ↑Sat May 13, 2023 8:49 am
My denusomab injection is 120mg each time. I also have Ad-cal tablets which are calcium and vit D combined.
Not only do I need the calcium, but have been strongly advised to avoid sunlight, which is vital for vit D production in the body. I must take medication to replace this natural effect.
The only way I can get vit D is to take the tablets. If you live in a sunny climate and don't have an underlying serious health condition, I am unsure as to why artificial vit D supplements are being suggested.
I take a Calcium + Vit. D tablet each day - more for the calcium. But a lot of people in Aust. were found to have Vit D deficiency - following guidance to avoid the sun! Skin cancers are so common over here!
I think very OTT
Two things - first the guidance is aimed at reducing the advertising OF unhealthy foods, this is an ad for a theatre play
Second, which is more a matter of personal opinion, I don’t think the cake is the most noticeable thing about the poster, it’s just the scaffolding on which the wedding party is arranged
Third bonus grumble - is anyone seriously trying to ban wedding cake on health grounds?
Well, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) has reported on UPF
I think you could sum up the report as "crisis, what crisis?" - and they aren't overly impressed with NOVA, agreeing with Prof Kuhnle and me that some of the definitions are not sufficiently robust to be used for experimental design.
They don't just dismiss UPF - there are things to look at, and genuine concerns about poor health outcomes - here's the report, you can jump to comclusions if you don't want to wade through it all, it's written in plain English
The background and methodology sections seem spot on but then it all falls apart IMO. Is it too much to ask that the information stated as required in those opening sections be researched and provided by bodies such as those mentioned? Could it be that each has a vested interest in not disclosing some of the suggested areas?
How much time is wasted producing such reports, in order to prove to those who knew it already, that another report is needed . No wonder we never get anywhere.
I don't quite see you point - there's a heck of a lot of work behind this. Who do you think has more information to supply them with?
The are looking at how to obtain the information, the point is that it doesn't exist, the data that exists for the UK cannot be classified using NOVA, and NOVA is in any case imperfect, though the best of a bad bunch. So They recommend what should be done to get that information/
The function of SACN is to establish whether the existing science is sufficiently reliable to base policy decisions on in it; they are clear that there isn't enough good quality information on which to base policy, so they can hardly ask people to provide it. They are specific about the kind of research required, but the lead times are going to be longer than the lifetime of a single political government. The international organisations mentioned are doing research already.
I think achieving this level of clarity to guide policy and funding is far from a waste of time - doing research without a clear brief is extravagantly wasteful, as is changing policy on the food supply without strong evidence, change always has costs.
I agree with what you say in that researching the information is good work and needs to be done.
It frustrates me that so many hoops have to be jumped through and so much time consumed on so many of the important issues of our time before we can even hope to move forward.
Yes, unfortunately diet research, like most population studies, takes years - think about it, and it’s obvious that ideally what you’d like to do is take two huge groups of children, feed one lot UPF (when you have an effective definition) and keep the other away from it, monitor them frequently and continue at least 0 to 18 years…
You can’t do that of course - the best we have are cohort studies where, for example, all children born in a week are followed up through NHS records but there’s not much dietary data and if there is - you would have to categorise it retrospectively.
I think there’s a real concern from bodies such as SACN that we could waste time money and health on inadequate studies if we don’t get the baseline right - and the definitions are fundamental. Until then it’s who shouts loudest, each shouter claiming they have good data - some of the studies claiming to show a clear effect assess consumption from supermarket sales over a relatively short period.
Pepper Pig wrote: ↑Sat Sep 02, 2023 10:18 am
Hmmm. Like all brass players trombonists are renowned for being heavy drinkers . . . .
maybe there's a link between them - the shape of many/most brass instruments, straightened to the shape of a post horn and on to the shape of a yard of ale...
This very silly article in the Guardian is being pulled apart all over the internet for being utter rubbish - by dietitians and senior doctors not just me! Really don’t bother unless you are bored or need to be more angry https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/s ... ds-to-know
I just saw WW's post on the soup thread, when she added nutritional yeast to her soup.
Is it a useful, healthy addition to soups, casseroles etc?
I've often wondered about it and whether I should start getting it.
Nutritional yeast, aka nooch, aka (usually) Engevita, is just a tasty and digestible form of yeast grown on molasses and made into flakes
It’s a useful source of B12 and minerals for vegans and vegetarians, but despite the name - which I think is partly to distinguish it from active yeasts for baking or brewing, most other people seem to use it for flavour rather than as a supplement.
If you are eating animal protein, and possibly Marmite (also yeast) I doubt there’s any significant advantage to using it, except for flavour, to most of us.
. No wonder we never get anywhere.
