Recent check up & labs review

So I had my first checkup with the GI a couple weeks ago with the last one being in July, and my Dexa results came back showing lower than normal density. On top of this I apparently lost 7.5 pounds between July and now. My question is, could this be inflammation still persisting in my gut? I've been in remission for 11 months now with no symptoms and have maintained fine with pentasa (2 500-mg pills/3 or 4 times a day, posting from phone so not sure what my bio says)

If you have no symptoms, I am not sure the weight loss would be related to IBD. Usually people lose weight when they are flaring. As for the dexa, were you on steroids at one point? Lower than normal doesn't necessarily mean "in danger zone". I think you should request further details on the result. If you were on steroids in the past, were you carrying extra weight? Maybe you're losing the steroid weight and that accounts for the 7.5 pounds. Are you under weight? If not, it's probably OK. I fluctuate a few pounds all the time. Usually 3-5...

If you're in a true remission then, no, UC shouldn't impact your weight loss. You can always get a CRP blood test or a fecal calprotectin stool test to see if you have any lingering inflammation, since you were last checked.

How's your appetite? What do you eat in a typical day, is it roughly equivalent to the recommended caloric intake for your age, sex, and activity levels? I know during awful flares we can develop an aversion to food and eating, and that can extend into remissions. As it's pretty simple to equate eating with the painful, urgent, and frequent bms from our UC. Eating is no longer pleasurable and has a negative association. We might have to force ourselves to eat, and enjoy eating due to PTSD-uc-flare. Or we might eat, just not as much as needed.

How's your thyroid's hormone levels? Certain tyroid disorders can cause weightloss despite us eating like freaking horses. An example is Graves disease, my father in law has that and he is skinny as a bean pole yet is unstoppable at an all-you-can-eat buffet lol.

have you done any reading on dexa scans ? the little i've done seems to indicate the less than stellar accuracy, reliability, and effectiveness for determining actual bone loss -

probably worth doing a little research - not saying it's not a possibility, but why get your boxers in a bunch needlessly -

with UC, we have enough to keep us crazy already !

just my thoughts -

Osteopenia was defined in June 1992 by the World Health Organization. A group of experts decided that condition would mean a bone density that was one standard deviation below that of an average 30-year-old white woman. The group also defined osteoporosis as bone density 2.5 standard deviations or more below that 30-year-old;[9] previously it had been used only in cases where elderly patients had fractured or broken a bone.[18] An osteoporosis epidemiologist at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the criterion in 1992 said "It was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem", and noted that "It didn't have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk."[9]
The definition has been controversial. Steven R. Cummings, of the University of California, San Francisco, said in 2003 that "There is no basis, no biological, social, economic or treatment basis, no basis whatsoever" for using one standard deviation. Cummings added that "As a consequence, though, more than half of the population is told arbitrarily that they have a condition they need to worry about."[9]