Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How do you even get doctors to take complaints of osteoarthritis seriously? I began to develop it in one foot at 30, and couldn't get anyone to even discuss it until about 5 years later, when I could no longer walk. When a friend drove me to a podiatrist, the podiatrist x-rayed it and was shocked and a bit upset that I hadn't sought a remedy for it earlier. She said the progression of it could have been arrested with proper support. I told her to get the word out to primary care docs to refer their patients to podiatrists, and to take patients' foot pain seriously. WTH? Maybe it was because I was younger than the usual arthritis patient?
Anyway, orthotics have helped. There's some pain, but I ignore it. It's interesting, though, that everyone here said their docs prescribed NSAID's. No docs or podiatrists have ever asked me if I'm in pain, and certainly haven't offered pain-killers.
Suspect cartilage regeneration would be a good field for stem cell research.
Also suspect that not much work is being done, because osteoarthritis is considered a disease of older people, and nobody cares about them.
Contrast all the treatments I see advertised for rheumatoid arthritis, which can affect you at any age. Granted they are not perfect treatments by any means, but at least they are being advanced and approved.
Just last week I really quizzed my podiatrist about surgery options, and he said they are able to regenerate cartilage in some cases. He said with osteoarthritis, after they clean out the joint of the excess calcification, they allow it to bleed, and the blood can form new cartilage. He said it acts like stem cells. So I asked him why they don't do that all the time, if it's that easy, and he said the results are inconsistent. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.
How do you even get doctors to take complaints of osteoarthritis seriously? I began to develop it in one foot at 30, and couldn't get anyone to even discuss it until about 5 years later, when I could no longer walk. When a friend drove me to a podiatrist, the podiatrist x-rayed it and was shocked and a bit upset that I hadn't sought a remedy for it earlier. She said the progression of it could have been arrested with proper support. I told her to get the word out to primary care docs to refer their patients to podiatrists, and to take patients' foot pain seriously. WTH? Maybe it was because I was younger than the usual arthritis patient?
Anyway, orthotics have helped. There's some pain, but I ignore it. It's interesting, though, that everyone here said their docs prescribed NSAID's. No docs or podiatrists have ever asked me if I'm in pain, and certainly haven't offered pain-killers.
I'm still shocked my doctor never recommended Fish Oil when I was letting her know how hard it was for me to walk.
My father was plagued all his adult life with osteoarthritis. He died almost 20 years ago and now I have been diagnosed with osteoarthritis in my shoulder. It seemed to come on rather suddenly, and doesn't show up (yet) on X-ray, but my Dr. is sure that is what I have. The shoulder has been painful for about 2 months. A very strong NSAID was prescribed; it knocks back the pain while I'm taking it, but as soon as I go off the NSAID, the pain returns.
After extensive on-line research, I've concluded that no advances have been made in osteoarthritis treatment since my father's day. NSAIDs, rest, surgery (in some cases) and "acceptance" of disability are the only real options. Of course some people swear by nostrums such as glucosamine, but there's no evidence they work any better than wearing copper bracelets. I know about copper bracelets because in his day, Dad must've tried everything. In the end, it was NSAIDs with their side effects (sick stomach, ringing ears, hearing loss) and, eventually, stronger pain drugs (opioids) with even worse side effects.
With all the $$ going to the Arthritis Foundation, etc., why aren't there better treatment options?
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) deteriorate bones. Secondly they can cause internal bleeding that can be deadly. In fact it is estimated that NSAIDs kill over 16,000 people a year mainly due to internal bleeding.
On the other hand there are steroidal drugs, and steroids can make the person feel better by reducing the inflammation and suppressing the immune system, but they make the underlying conditions worse by suppressing the adrenals, nutrient loss and bone loss.
Osteoarthritis is best treated in large part by the restoration of collagen. Silica is the most important supplement for the restoration of collagen and elastin. Silica is essential for the formation of cartilage, and its strength. Declining levels of silica lead to softening of cartilage, and increased risk of damage or deterioration to spinal discs and joint cartilage. In addition, silica has mild natural anti-inflammatory properties, which further helps prevent cartilage degradation.
The second most important nutrient is vitamin C. It is best to get vitamin C from natural sources though since natural sources are generally stronger and more stable than the commonly sold synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid). An exception is camu camu, which is not very stable.
[quote=dog8food;39489055
The second most important nutrient is vitamin C. It is best to get vitamin C from natural sources though since natural sources are generally stronger and more stable than the commonly sold synthetic vitamin C (ascorbic acid). [/QUOTE]
Vitamin C and ascorbic acid are chemically identical. It does not matter whether you get it from food or whether it is synthesized in a laboratory.
You are very poorly mistaken.
Natural vitamin C sources have several advantages over synthetic sources. For example, natural sources of vitamin C also contain synergistic bioflavonoids that must be added to synthetic C. Natural sources of vitamin C also contain compounds that help prevent deterioration of the vitamin C, which again is not true of synthetic vitamin C. Other advantages of natural vitamin C sources are the fact that they are also sources of other vitamins. They also provide amino acids, minerals, and other nutrients that synthetic vitamin C does not offer.
Furthermore a synthetic vitamin C source on its own is highly unstable, especially when exposed to sunlight or moisture. It certainly does matter whether you get vitamin c from a food source vs. synthetically.
Natural vitamin C sources have several advantages over synthetic sources. For example, natural sources of vitamin C also contain synergistic bioflavonoids that must be added to synthetic C. Natural sources of vitamin C also contain compounds that help prevent deterioration of the vitamin C, which again is not true of synthetic vitamin C. Other advantages of natural vitamin C sources are the fact that they are also sources of other vitamins. They also provide amino acids, minerals, and other nutrients that synthetic vitamin C does not offer.
Furthermore a synthetic vitamin C source on its own is highly unstable, especially when exposed to sunlight or moisture. It certainly does matter whether you get vitamin c from a food source vs. synthetically.
Vitamin C is the same whether you get it from a pill or a food. Your body cannot tell the difference. As far as the source affecting the "stability", that would have more to do with the storage conditions, as you mention, but that is true whether the source is a food or a vitamin pill.
If you read my other posts here, you will discover that I tell folks that most of us do not need to take vitamins at all if you eat a balanced diet. That is true of vitamin C as well. But if you choose to take vitamin C as a pill, your body will use the vitamin C from the pill in exactly the same way it uses vitamin C from an orange. Any pills should be stored properly, whether prescription drug or a vitamin.
Nice to know about vitamins, but I'm really looking for osteoarthritis-specific info. Thanks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
WTH? Maybe it was because I was younger than the usual arthritis patient?
