Vitamin D., the most powerful vitamin,

bigvince wrote:
On Sep 21, 5:02 am, "Juhana Harju" wrote:
Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
M.Balarama wrote:

All women are encouraged to consult with a physician about their
need for vitamin D supplementation as part of an overall plan to
prevent and/or treat osteoporosis. [...]

Until such trials are conducted, it is premature to advise anyone
to take vitamin D supplements for cancer prevention.

I think that your position is overly cautious. There is already
ample of evidence of the benefits of vitamin D supplementation.
When supplemented with moderate and safe doses ( or = 50 mcg)
there is no need to consult with a physician.

50mcg is a huge dose to take on a daily basis. Unless one suffers
from a chronic deficiency, one should stick to the daily
recommendation which I think for vit D is up to around 5mcg. It's
easy to overdose on all nutrients.

50 mcg (2000 IU) is not a huge dose. In the absense of UVB radiation
you do not even achieve the calcidiol [25(OH)D] levels human beings
have accustomed (~ 125 nmol/l) during the evolution by that dose. By
50 mcg an average person probably achieves a calcidiol level of 90
nmol/l which is the quite close to the optimal. The best level is
90-100 nmol/l according to a Harvard review published last year.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/1/18

If in doubt, I encourage you to assess you own calcidiol levels in
February-March (if you are located at the Northern hemisphere). I
have assessed mine and discovered that even 50 mgs of vitamin D is
not enough to keep my calcidiol levels in the optimal range. I need
around 70 mcg from September to May. I live at latitude 60° North.

Some sun exposure is the best safest and most nutural source of
vitamin d.Adding vitamin d at 50 mcg or less is safe and less than the
amount most people need to reach optimal levels. The Canandian Cancer
Society recently advised that 25 mcg be taken as a reasonable amount
to prevent cancers. The 5 mcg mentioned earlier is very low set at a
time when many where out in the sun more offen . To not raise that
amount while at the same time advising sun avoidance when this vitamin
has been shown to have benefit in so many areas from depression to
MS ; and most are lacking this vitamin is while the standart medical
advice has had an effect of less than zero.

I agree with your suggestion that moderate sun exposure is to be preferred.
However, summertime sun exposure is not sufficient to keep the circulating
vitamin D levels at optimal level in wintertime.

--
Juhana

My Nutrition Blog in Finnish:
http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

Bryan Heit wrote:
just Ed wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:18 am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
50mcg is a huge dose to take on a daily basis. Unless one suffers
from a chronic deficiency, one should stick to the daily
recommendation which I think for vit D is up to around 5mcg. It's
easy to overdose on all nutrients.

cites please.
your post seems to be about 100% nonsense.

starting with the most ridiculous:
1. show how "It's easy to overdose on all nutrients." utter crap.

Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can be
toxic. Same is true of vitamins. If you search pubmed or google
scholar for the term "vitamin toxicity" and "vitamin overdose" (or for
specifics, search for the exact vitamin of interest) you'll get a few
hits on the topic. Common effects of vitamin toxicity are
neurotoxicity, hypercalcemia, and kidney problems.

The official safe upper limit (UL) of vitamin D is 50 mcg (2000). I am not
recommending higher doses for other people without assessment of their
vitamin D levels and consulting with physician. In addition, vitamin D
scholars (Vieth and others) state that the current upper limit is far too
low. Please do some study, I have done mine. Supplementing with 50 mcg of
vitamin D in wintertime one _does not_ exceed the physiological levels
achieved easily by moderate sun exposure. That is the reason why 50 mcg is
safe.

2. for the rest of you post you have a good bit of nonsense to
support.
Blanket recommendations like yours are dangerous

You do not know what you are talking about. I have done some study about the
topic. The real risk is that at least half of the Western popualtions have
far too low levels of circulating vitamin D. That increases the risk of
cancers, MS, osteoporosis, fractures, periodontitis, heart failure,
hypertension and many other diseases.

--
Juhana

My Nutrition Blog in Finnish:
http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

Bryan Heit wrote:

Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can be
toxic. Same is true of vitamins. - -

Blanket recommendations like yours are dangerous - many people have
problems processing vitamins, which is why it is recommended you see a
doctor first before engaging in a supplementation program. - -
This is why you should see your doctor first -
otherwise you may accidentally poison yourself with a dose of vitamins
which most of us find safe.

I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html


--
Juhana

My Nutrition Blog in Finnish:
http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

On Sep 21, 2:00 pm, "Juhana Harju" wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can be
toxic. Same is true of vitamins. - -

Blanket recommendations like yours are dangerous - many people have
problems processing vitamins, which is why it is recommended you see a
doctor first before engaging in a supplementation program. - -
This is why you should see your doctor first -
otherwise you may accidentally poison yourself with a dose of vitamins
which most of us find safe.

I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

--
Juhana

My Nutrition Blog in Finnish:http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

The dose of vitamin d of 2000 units is safe and will have some effect
the better source is sunlight and some have suggested tanning beds.
See your doctor and het your d levels checked to insure adequate
circulating levels. That this is not standart practice in light of the
many benefits of this vitamin highlights the lag between knowledge and
practice.

Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
just Ed wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:18 am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:
50mcg is a huge dose to take on a daily basis. Unless one suffers
from a chronic deficiency, one should stick to the daily
recommendation which I think for vit D is up to around 5mcg. It's
easy to overdose on all nutrients.

cites please.
your post seems to be about 100% nonsense.

starting with the most ridiculous:
1. show how "It's easy to overdose on all nutrients." utter crap.

Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can be
toxic. Same is true of vitamins. If you search pubmed or google
scholar for the term "vitamin toxicity" and "vitamin overdose" (or for
specifics, search for the exact vitamin of interest) you'll get a few
hits on the topic. Common effects of vitamin toxicity are
neurotoxicity, hypercalcemia, and kidney problems.

The official safe upper limit (UL) of vitamin D is 50 mcg (2000). I am
not recommending higher doses for other people without assessment of
their vitamin D levels and consulting with physician. In addition,
vitamin D scholars (Vieth and others) state that the current upper limit
is far too low. Please do some study, I have done mine.

You haven't done much; looks to me like you're just reading the
abstracts. Either that, or you are only reading the articles which
agree with your preconceptions. Most of the studies looking at VitD
supplementation for cancer prevention, etc, are replete with statements
about the unknown long-term effects of such doses.

And you apparently missed this study, where it was found that long-term
supplementation with low-dose vitD (400IU/d) increased risk of kidney
stones, a potential sign of long-term kidney dysfunction:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...7b9c1bc56aac52


Supplementing
with 50 mcg of vitamin D in wintertime one _does not_ exceed the
physiological levels achieved easily by moderate sun exposure. That is
the reason why 50 mcg is safe.


You're assuming that the levels reached after sun-exposure are safe in
the long term, something which has not been proven. We store VitD in
fatty tissues - presumably as an evolutionarily-derived trait to store
it for winter use. As such the levels observed during the summer months
may not represent a safe level, but rather a level which is reached as
part of the storage process.


2. for the rest of you post you have a good bit of nonsense to
support.
Blanket recommendations like yours are dangerous

You do not know what you are talking about.

Considering that I am a medical researcher by profession with several
peer-reviewed scientific publications to my name, not to mention a few
dozen abstracts presented at scientific meetings, chances are my
knowledge of this area far exceeds yours. But do what you want - just
don't come whining to me if things go badly.


I have done some study about
the topic.

I write the stuff you've read...

Bryan

Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:


I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
just Ed wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:18 am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:

50mcg is a huge dose to take on a daily basis. Unless one suffers
from a chronic deficiency, one should stick to the daily
recommendation which I think for vit D is up to around 5mcg. It's
easy to overdose on all nutrients.

cites please.
your post seems to be about 100% nonsense.

starting with the most ridiculous:
1. show how "It's easy to overdose on all nutrients." utter crap.

Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can
be toxic. Same is true of vitamins. If you search pubmed or google
scholar for the term "vitamin toxicity" and "vitamin overdose" (or
for specifics, search for the exact vitamin of interest) you'll get
a few hits on the topic. Common effects of vitamin toxicity are
neurotoxicity, hypercalcemia, and kidney problems.

The official safe upper limit (UL) of vitamin D is 50 mcg (2000). I
am not recommending higher doses for other people without assessment
of their vitamin D levels and consulting with physician. In addition,
vitamin D scholars (Vieth and others) state that the current upper
limit is far too low. Please do some study, I have done mine.

You haven't done much; looks to me like you're just reading the
abstracts. Either that, or you are only reading the articles which
agree with your preconceptions. Most of the studies looking at VitD
supplementation for cancer prevention, etc, are replete with
statements about the unknown long-term effects of such doses.

And you apparently missed this study, where it was found that
long-term supplementation with low-dose vitD (400IU/d) increased risk
of kidney stones, a potential sign of long-term kidney dysfunction:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...7b9c1bc56aac52

I did not "miss" it. It was a study about calcium and vitamin D
supplementation. It is well known that particularly high doses of calcium
increase the risk of kidney stones. So vitamin D is not the villain to be
blaimed in this case.

Supplementing
with 50 mcg of vitamin D in wintertime one _does not_ exceed the
physiological levels achieved easily by moderate sun exposure. That
is the reason why 50 mcg is safe.
You're assuming that the levels reached after sun-exposure are safe in
the long term, something which has not been proven.

Yes, it is well known that sun exposure is associated with reduced risk of
many cancers, MS and lower prevalence of hypertension.

Considering that I am a medical researcher by profession with several
peer-reviewed scientific publications to my name

That makes me really concerned.

--
Juhana

My Nutrition Blog in Finnish:
http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
just Ed wrote:
On Sep 21, 3:18 am, Dawid Michalczyk wrote:

50mcg is a huge dose to take on a daily basis. Unless one suffers
from a chronic deficiency, one should stick to the daily
recommendation which I think for vit D is up to around 5mcg. It's
easy to overdose on all nutrients.

cites please.
your post seems to be about 100% nonsense.

starting with the most ridiculous:
1. show how "It's easy to overdose on all nutrients." utter crap.

Any compound, even water and oxygen, in too large of quantities can
be toxic. Same is true of vitamins. If you search pubmed or google
scholar for the term "vitamin toxicity" and "vitamin overdose" (or
for specifics, search for the exact vitamin of interest) you'll get
a few hits on the topic. Common effects of vitamin toxicity are
neurotoxicity, hypercalcemia, and kidney problems.

The official safe upper limit (UL) of vitamin D is 50 mcg (2000). I
am not recommending higher doses for other people without assessment
of their vitamin D levels and consulting with physician. In addition,
vitamin D scholars (Vieth and others) state that the current upper
limit is far too low. Please do some study, I have done mine.

You haven't done much; looks to me like you're just reading the
abstracts. Either that, or you are only reading the articles which
agree with your preconceptions. Most of the studies looking at VitD
supplementation for cancer prevention, etc, are replete with
statements about the unknown long-term effects of such doses.

And you apparently missed this study, where it was found that
long-term supplementation with low-dose vitD (400IU/d) increased risk
of kidney stones, a potential sign of long-term kidney dysfunction:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...7b9c1bc56aac52


I did not "miss" it. It was a study about calcium and vitamin D
supplementation. It is well known that particularly high doses of
calcium increase the risk of kidney stones. So vitamin D is not the
villain to be blaimed in this case.



But it is - both groups of women had about the same calcium intake, but
the vitD caused the vitD supplement group to develop kidney stones.


Supplementing
with 50 mcg of vitamin D in wintertime one _does not_ exceed the
physiological levels achieved easily by moderate sun exposure. That
is the reason why 50 mcg is safe.
You're assuming that the levels reached after sun-exposure are safe in
the long term, something which has not been proven.

Yes, it is well known that sun exposure is associated with reduced risk
of many cancers, MS and lower prevalence of hypertension.

Considering that I am a medical researcher by profession with several
peer-reviewed scientific publications to my name

That makes me really concerned.

Why? Because I won't just knee-jerk accept your assertions and
"research"? Or because it gives the the background to see BS when BS is
flyin?

Bryan

Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:


I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin
D Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

Here is an interesting experiment....print out Juhana's posts and have
Dr. Vieth comment on them...it would be interesting.

On Sep 21, 7:10 pm, Mark Probert wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:

I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin
D Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

Here is an interesting experiment....print out Juhana's posts and have
Dr. Vieth comment on them...it would be interesting.

I second that. Moreover, Vieth isn't the only researcher on
this topic that holds the views uttered by Juhana.