Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by jaypr, Dec 14, 2012.
More vitamin d findings and suggestions
I have no idea if this is the wonder vitamin or not. I had hoped things would change for me when I hit the magic number but even after passing it, none of the things I'd hoped would change have changed.
I'm not a believer but like I've said before, maybe it will help will long term stuff. But then again maybe prayer will or eating broccoli will or taking up ballet will.
I've posted this on here before but I had wonderful results when I started taking vitamin D. I recommend it to anyone I know now. I honestly thought there was something seriously wrong with me b/c of the fatigue, aches, nausea etc etc that I was having that would not go away. My doctor did a ton of lab work and the only thing that was off was my vitamin D levels. I can't remember the exact number but they were pretty low. Literally within a week of starting to take vitamin D I was feeling a ton better and after a few weeks all the symptoms I had been having daily were gone.
Maybe my body does not like supplements.
Perhaps not. But vitamin D is not a "supplement." It's an essential body chemical, a steroid molecule, in fact.
--John of Ohio
Maybe my body doesn't need higher doses of it. I don't know. I wish I did.
I found that taking vitamin D 5000IU once a day(At least when I remeber to take it). I have more energy and seem to get sick less. Unfortanatly l have been a little lax in taking it so got the flu pretty bad a few weeks ago. Now that I'm not taking all the meds I use too before my gent shots I forget to take it.
I did find that as far as meneire's symptoms it does little to help, well I guess it does help with the fatigue. I suspect allergies and berometric pressures being my main triggers.
Intrepid, I think you need more ballet!
As long as it's gluten free ;D
Vitamin D has helped to keep me illness free at school. That is a HUGE thing considering I am interacting with and sharing items with hundreds of students every day.
Once again, those skeptical of the profound health benefits of vitamin D (when consumed in adequate amounts, generally 50ng/ml/day), should scrutinize the data in the lefthand column, and elsewhere at this site:
--John of Ohio
I just clicked on the link John posted and went straight to the lefthand column as suggested. Since I work with many people who have pancreatic cancer, I clicked on "Pancreatic" and this is what I found:
Shedding Light on Serum Vitamin D Concentrations and the Risk of Rarer Cancers
Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry Volume 13 Issue 1 pp.65-69 (5)
Authors: Kathy J. Helzlsouer, Lisa Gallicchio
Cancer is a broad term for many disparate diseases with different etiologies, commonly classified by affected organ site. This review summarizes the published evidence from prospective cohort studies examining the associations between vitamin D, measured as serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) concentrations, and the risk of rarer cancer sites including
gastric and esophageal cancer.
Overall, evidence from prospective cohort studies provides little support for a protective association between adequate or higher serum 25OHD concentrations and risk of these rarer cancer sites. Additionally, controversy persists concerning a potential increased risk of pancreatic cancer associated with serum 25OHD levels > 100 nmol/L due to conflicting results reported by two large prospective pooling projects.
Affiliation: The Prevention and Research Center, 227 St. Paul Place, Baltimore, Maryland 21202.
Impact of Circulating Vitamin D Binding Protein Levels on the Association between 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Pancreatic Cancer Risk: A Nested Case–Control Study
High concentrations of circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D 25(OH)D have been associated with elevated pancreatic cancer risk.
And from Curr Diabetes Rev. 2012 Jan;8(1):18-31:
Hyperglycaemia and vitamin D: a systematic overview.
Thomas GN, Scragg R, Jiang CQ, Chan W, Marz W, Pilz S, Kim HC, Tomlinson B, Bosch J, Lam TH, Cheung BM, Cheng KK.
Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK. [email protected]
Vitamin D plays a role in a range of functions that may impact on glycaemic control. In this study we systematically report on clinical studies evaluating the impact of vitamin D on aspects of hyperglycaemia in non-pregnant adults. A total of 1,294 articles, of which 417 were reviews, were identified.
No well-designed randomised, controlled trials were identified that specifically investigated the effects of vitamin D supplementation on glucose and insulin concentrations.
The majority of the studies that are available were poorly designed, having limited numbers, short study duration, or were conducted in volunteers with normal baseline, as measured by 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), concentrations or used inadequate doses of the supplements to normalise vitamin D concentrations, or used inappropriate analyses.
Most studies did not observe improvements in glycaemia, with few exceptions.
The results were more equivocal for aspects of insulin resistance.
Most found no benefit on measures of insulin resistance, although some did.
However, more studies described improved insulin release, although data from the studies to date are really inadequate to provide any reliable conclusions.
Well-conducted randomised, controlled trials with adequate vitamin D doses are required to effectively assess whether this vitamin can reduce the incidence of diabetes.
And finally out of Australia (a coincidence?) which offers an over of a hypothesis between vitamin D and immune system dysregulation which is eerily reminescent (sp?) of what Stephen Spring has been saying:
CD8+ T-Cell Deficiency, Epstein-Barr Virus Infection, Vitamin D Deficiency,
and Steps to Autoimmunity: A Unifying Hypothesis
Autoimmune Diseases, Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 189096, 16 pages, Review Article
Michael P. Pender 1,2
1 School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
2 Department of Neurology, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, QLD 4029, Australia
Received 18 August 2011; Revised 3 October 2011; Accepted 16 October 2011
Academic Editor: Corrado Betterle
Copyright © 2012 Michael P. Pender. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
CD8+ T-cell deficiency is a feature of many chronic autoimmune diseases, including
systemic lupus erythematosus,
primary biliary cirrhosis,
primary sclerosing cholangitis,
idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy,
type 1 diabetes mellitus,
membranous nephropathy, and
It also occurs in healthy blood relatives of patients with autoimmune diseases, suggesting it is genetically determined. Here it is proposed that this CD8+ T-cell deficiency underlies the development of chronic autoimmune diseases by impairing CD8+ T-cell control of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) infection, with the result that EBV-infected autoreactive B cells accumulate in the target organ where they produce pathogenic autoantibodies and provide costimulatory survival signals to autoreactive T cells which would otherwise die in the target organ by activation-induced apoptosis.
Autoimmunity is postulated to evolve in the following steps:
(1) CD8+ T-cell deficiency,
(2) primary EBV infection,
(3) decreased CD8+ T-cell control of EBV,
(4) increased EBV load and increased anti-EBV antibodies,
(5) EBV infection in the target organ,
(6) clonal expansion of EBV-infected autoreactive B cells in the target organ,
(7) infiltration of autoreactive T cells into the target organ, and
(8) development of ectopic lymphoid follicles in the target organ.
It is also proposed that deprivation of sunlight and vitamin D at higher latitudes facilitates the development of autoimmune diseases by aggravating the CD8+ T-cell deficiency and thereby further impairing control of EBV. The hypothesis makes predictions which can be tested, including the prevention and successful treatment of chronic autoimmune diseases by controlling EBV infection.
So my point is that yes, maybe, there is benefit from Vitamin D for some conditions and in some people/populations, but it is not a cure-all. As with all the vitamin studies, there are circumstances where they can improve one condition while causing, or worsening, another. Undoubtedly we spend way too much time inside, but the science is still very new and the lit reviews are almost never conclusive that the benefit is as great as individual studies (many are poorly designed) often suggest. There is probably a lot of genetic variation, too. Hence the reason some people have great response to supplementing with it and others none. Read the articles fully, not just the title as the titles are often misleading and don't convey the the whole picture that is often drawn by the researchers themselves within the paper.
*risk is the key word and rarer is another key word.
Anyone want to give me the cliff notes, lol?
What makes a person deficient in vit d ? Mine is nifty (59) but i live where the sun rarely shines and i avoid it anyway due to melanoma history. I consume less than a half galon of milkma week,don't take supplements, dont eat a lot of oily fish, am older ... Why am i not deficient?
June, if you have 59ng/ml of serum vitamin D, and you seldom go into the high-sky (summer) sun, you should severely question that number. Most likely, it's a lab testing error. It is virtually impossible to get serum levels at this concentration without sigificant supplementation, or massive exposure to high-sky sunshine for many weeks or months.
Milk, effectively, has very little vitamin D, just enough to prevent rickets; not enough to prevent other conditions.
--John of Ohio
You’ve cherry-picked a few selected postings to support your view that vitamin D is not all that it’s cracked up to be, and that one should be cautious about its use. You are welcome to that perspective, but let me do some cherry-picking of my own from that same column, for those whose lives could be profoundly improved by vitamin D supplementation, particularly women vulnerable to breast cancer, and men to prostate cancer.
Here’s the first article:
Postmenopausal Breast cancer 63 percent more likely if low vitamin D – July 2012
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of breast cancer: results of a large population-based case-control study in Mexican women.
Then, there’s this posting:
85 percent less risk of death from Breast Cancer when vitamin D levels higher than 30 ng – May 2012
Vitamin D status at breast cancer diagnosis: correlation with tumor characteristics, disease outcome and genetic determinants of vitamin D insufficiency
For men, prostate cancer is a major concern.
Low risk Prostate Cancer decreased with 4,000 IU of vitamin D – July 2012
Vitamin D3 Supplementation at 4000 International Units Per Day for One Year
Results in a Decrease of Positive Cores at Repeat Biopsy in Subjects with Low-Risk Prostate Cancer under Active Surveillance
In this study, prostate cancer symptoms were reduced by 55%.
So, if you worked with breast or prostate cancers (instead of pancreatic cancer), what would your perspectives be on vitamin D supplementation? Would you recommend that women vulnerable to breast cancer (virtually all women are) not take supplemental vitamin D? Same with men?
But since you do work with pancreatic cancer, just how do you dismiss this finding:
Even small increases in vitamin D decreased risk of pancreatic cancer – Nov 2011
Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and Risk of Pancreatic Cancer.
“CONCLUSIONS: Among participants in five large prospective cohorts, higher plasma levels of 25(OH)D were associated with a lower risk for pancreatic cancer.
Impact: Low circulating 25(OH)D may predispose individuals to the development of pancreatic cancer.”
As before, everyone is welcome to their personal views on the efficacies of vitamin D supplementation. But the implication that real medical studies haven’t yet proven such is not correct. Don’t just cherry-pick the few articles that support a “no-effect” understanding; read them all. The evidence is overwhelming.
–John of Ohio
I am mvery fair skinned. Do you think maybe more sun penetrates my skin ? Or maybe i am very efficient at making it? I am often outside but rarely in the direct noon sun. I would be burnt to a crisp.
No, vitamin D is made by UVB rays striking the skin, not by unpigmented skin. You could have transparent skin, but without long-term exposure to sunrays from the mid-day (high sky) sun, simply no UVB rays are striking your skin to make vitamin D. Light-colored skin is not the real factor. It's sunlight exposure; and you have little of that, thereby questioning the accuracy of the 59ng/ml blood test.
Remember, your skin can make no vitamin D when the sun is at an angle less than 45 degrees, as virtually all UVB rays are absorbed by the atmosphere at the lower angles. You can stand naked in the sun at 9am and 5pm anywhere on the planet and make not a single molecule of vitamin D. Only the high, mid-day sun makes vitamin D.
Very likely, your vitamin D serum blood test is in error---I would hope not by the misplacement of a decimal place, by a factor of ten (although a 5.9ng/ml serum level could be expected with no mid-day sun exposure and no supplementation). If you are actually at that level, you are in the greatest jeopardy for a host of vitamin D deficency conditions.
--John of ohio
Why don't you have migraines or Tourette's? You may not be genetically predisposed to suffer the consequences of low levels of Vitamin D or maybe your body processes things differently.