Who is taking calcium?

Are you pregnant again after having preeclampsia once already in a previous pregnancy? Post your thoughts/concerns here - there are others who share your feelings. This is also the home of our Bedrest Buddies Support group.
ktoves
Registered User
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 638632 3:15 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby ktoves » Mon May 15, 639234 8:03 am

I take a few tums a day for a little extra calcium. My ob said aspirin hasn't been proven to show that it helps and that calcium is still being studied. He recommended taking a calcium supplement or a few tums a day. Has anyone noticed a difference with a pregnancy on a calcium supplement versus not taking any (Preeclampsia or not)?
2X Preeclampsia & PP Preeclampsia survivor
Due July 22nd 2011 with baby #3
Diagnosed w/ heart valve disease & sponge kidney disease 2009

User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 637032 6:26 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby caryn » Tue Apr 11, 639234 1:17 am

The amount they supplemented in the big trials didn't hurt -- but supplements *can* hurt, and did in the trials of vitamins C and E. The OP was reporting harm -- difficulty catching her breath, which could be bad considering that preeclampsia symptom onset seems to be triggered by hypoxia -- at 2000 mg daily. And there seems to be no benefit, so there's no reason to supplement them to the point where they cause harm.
Science! The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies?
A chance to participate in research? For us on Facebook or Twitter?

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy

carlisle980
Registered User
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby carlisle980 » Thu Mar 30, 639234 10:59 am

I'm taking 1000 mg/day. I take 500 with breakfast and 500 before bed. Also taking magnesium 250 mg/day and LDA. Maybe it won't help, but it certainly can't hurt.
~Carley (30, Idiopathic Chronic Hypertension)
Mama to Caitrin Emily (born 9/21/07 at 35.5 - premature labor, birthweight 5 lbs 15 oz, take-home baby)
& Collin Burton (born 11/13/09 at 36.1 - premature labor, birthweight 6 lbs 7 oz, take-home baby)
expecting #3 in Sept. 2011 (expecting not to carry past late August 2011)

christina89
Registered User
Posts: 346
Joined: Sun May 10, 638933 11:30 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby christina89 » Wed Dec 28, 639233 4:40 am

Hi, Ladies. Im not pregnant yet however we are TTC so my Dr. has already put me on the normal Pre Natal 1200 mg of Calcium, LDA, 1mg of Folic Acid and 1000 IU of Vitamin D. :) I'm really hoping this helps me get a little farther. 2000 mg of calcium was even to much for me and I don't Drink milk or really eat any dariy. I hope you all have much sucess.

skl
Registered User
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 638311 12:08 am

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby skl » Sun Oct 30, 639233 6:00 pm

Also: no like btwn MTHFR and PE? Fascinating. Because of course I was told there was -- after my first PE pregnancy, I did all sorts of testing and came up MTHFR, which is why I was on Calcium and Baby Tylenol (and also the extra folic acid, I now recall) for my second pregnancy.

If only all our docs had the time / inclination to be as read up as you are, Caryn!

Thanks
Sarah

skl
Registered User
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 638311 12:08 am

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby skl » Sun Oct 30, 639233 5:54 pm

Caryn, I am with you 100 % -- I keep telling people that much as I love and trust and totally respect my OB and peri, much of what we're "doing" to "control" my pregnancy this time around is totally syllogistic -- my favorite comment so far, from my beloved OB, was that, despite the fact my BP was holding steady, I should stay on bedrest "because it's working." Or it's not, and my BP is just holding steady. Which, of course, three weeks later, is no longer so true ... In one week, I had my OB say "house arrest," the resident at L & D insist on "strict bedrest with bathroom priveleges," and my peri say, "take it easy."

And still, no symptoms other than the slowly-creeping BPs, that are STILL not topping 140 / 90 regularly enough to concern anyone too much -- even as they're all saying, "We know where this is going." Do we? I don't. I could have 3 more days here, or 6 more weeks. It'd be nice if someone would say THAT.

Cracks me up. So I just do what I need to, day to day -- sometimes I sit my * in bed all day, and sometimes I decide I can walk upstairs and boil water to sterilize baby bottle ;)

Best
Sarah

User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 637032 6:26 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby caryn » Sun Oct 30, 639233 4:43 pm

(I should add -- yes, I know that the review I cite above says that calcium may have benefits in women with severe very early cases! But as I understand it this was an artifact of the metaanalyses and did not show up in the WHO trial. The docs in their thread go into much more detail about how this sort of thing happens...)
Science! The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies?
A chance to participate in research? For us on Facebook or Twitter?

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy

User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 637032 6:26 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby caryn » Sun Oct 30, 639233 3:19 pm

It wouldn't surprise me if some MFMs were scripping calcium for reasons like that it reduces risk of bone demineralization and they expect to have you be involuntarily immobile -- at least for 72 hours around delivery or so. Or because you're low on D and calcium at the same time improves uptake. Or whatever.

It also wouldn't surprise me if some experts had preferences for some of the data over other data. Philosophers <g> would say that the multicenter trials trump the small trials that showed more benefit.
Science! The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies?
A chance to participate in research? For us on Facebook or Twitter?

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy

sam10
Forum Moderator
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 638920 11:33 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby sam10 » Sun Oct 30, 639233 1:40 pm

At my last consultation with my MFM (and I trust him very much) in early Dec, he said he would put me on Calcium. I am trying to find my notes with more details of what he said about why I should take it. Will be back with more info, as soon as I find it.
MC 3/2009 and 3/2011
H (1/1/2010-1/7/2010) - forever loved and missed; severe PE with Hellp; partial placental abruption, classical c-section at 25.6 weeks
M (Nov. 2012, born at 35.4 weeks) - severe PE

User avatar
caryn
Forum Moderator
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 637032 6:26 pm

Re: Who is taking calcium?

Postby caryn » Sun Oct 30, 639233 12:23 pm

<pedant> Science is always an ever-shifting landscape, because every scientific theory we've ever had has turned out to be wrong. But they get better with time; geocentrism was more wrong than heliocentrism which was more wrong than the idea that the orbits of the planets were elliptical. So we narrow the error bars, but stuff keeps changing. :) </pedant>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19437225 is one of the most recent reviews on this; it says Lifestyle choices, dietary nutritional measures (antioxidant as vitamin C, vitamin E, lycopene, selenium, zinc, magnesium and the mitochondrial antioxidants nicotine, coenzyme Q(10) and melatonin; and other dietary nutritional measures as low dietary salt, omega 3 fatty acids, folic acid, garlic, nutritional advice, protein and energy supplementation, isocaloric balanced protein and protein and energy restriction for obese women) and others drugs; have not shown benefits or there is insufficient evidence to recommend clinical use.

Usually if they're having you supplement B vitamins, the idea is that you might have an undiagnosed clotting disorder that's associated with high serum levels of homocysteine, which can be lowered with folic acid supplementation. MTHFR is one of these. But there's actually no association between MTHFR and preeclampsia (they used to think there was, but the effect washed out in the bigger trials.)

What worries me here are two things:

1) We all want to FIX this, so we turn ourselves into guinea pigs. (I am entirely guilty of this.) It amounts to uncontrolled experimentation on one's self and one's offspring, which would be wildly unethical if it were being done by an authority outside rigorous IRB approval and informed consent. Really, when I put it that way, it sounds crazy -- why would we run experiments just in case to see what happens? Especially when this has proven to be a really, really hard problem and research has moved away from the idea of a single-molecule therapy?

2) There's a tendency to think of vitamins and minerals, exercise, diet etc. as "natural" and therefore cases where whatever we're doing can't hurt, and might help. In the early 2000s, docs were scripping extra antioxidants (especially vitamin C and E) to women with a history of preeclampsia on the grounds that a couple of preliminary studies had suggested that they might help. The big careful multicenter trial determined that they didn't help and actually *harmed* -- the rate of women who developed preeclampsia stayed the same, but they got sicker quicker, with higher pressures and earlier deliveries.

So I sound awfully firm whenever this sort of thing comes up. And that's, I think, required ethically here.
Science! The articles you don't want to miss:
The Preeclampsia Puzzle (New Yorker) and Silent Struggle: A New Theory of Pregnancy (New York Times)
Looking for recent articles and studies?
A chance to participate in research? For us on Facebook or Twitter?

Caryn, @carynjrogers, who is not a doctor and who talks about science stuff *way* too much
DS Oscar born by emergent C-section at 34 weeks for fetal indicators, due to severe PE
DD Bridget born by C-section after water broke at 39 weeks after a healthy pregnancy


Return to “Pregnant Again?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests