Vitamin D., the most powerful vitamin,

Recent studies have linked adequate intake of vitamin d the most
natural being sunlight to drastic reductions in cancer; MS; and many
other illnesses. Is it to the point where the evidence requires the
medical community to reassess their recommendations. And how much
damage has the inordinate fear of sun exposure done. excerpts from a
recent editorial in the

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650, March
2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2" .....................

........Randomized trials using the currently recommended intakes of
400 IU vitamin D/d have shown no appreciable reduction in fracture
risk (3). In contrast, trials using 700-800 IU vitamin D/d found less
fracture incidence, with and without supplemental calcium (3). The
reduction in fracture incidence occurs when mean serum 25(OH)D
concentrations exceed 72 nmol/L, and this change may result from both
improved bone health and reduction in falls due to greater muscle
strength (3). Although it is not yet proven through clinical trials,
higher intakes may also reduce the incidence of colon and other
cancers, and these relations indicate that the desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (3). One recent report associates greater
25(OH)D concentrations with lower risk of nursing home admission; the
most desirable category of concentration starts at 75 nmol/L (5).

Human diets do not provide sufficient vitamin D; if they did, the
abovementioned associations between health and serum 25(OH)D
concentrations would not be so routinely observed. The vitamin D
provided by foods and supplements is overwhelmed by the effect of skin
exposure to ultraviolet B light. Geography, season, skin color, and
sun-related behavior are the main predictors of vitamin D nutritional
status (6-10). Correction of low 25(OH)D concentrations can happen
only if some or all of the following are implemented: the
encouragement of safe, moderate exposure of skin to ultraviolet light;
appropriate increases in food fortification with vitamin D; and the
provision of higher doses of vitamin D in supplements for
adults. ................

........It is important for major journals such as the AJCN to publish
evidence of a widespread nutrient deficiency. Regrettably, we are now
stuck in a revolving cycle of publications that are documenting the
same vitamin D inadequacy (1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-17). This phenomenon has
been referred to as "circular epidemiology" (18), and, for vitamin D,
the phenomenon will continue for as long as the levels of vitamin D
fortification and supplementation and the practical advice offered to
the public remain essentially the same as they were in the era before
we knew that 25(OH)D even existed............

............A major reason is that there is little public pressure on
policy makers to support efforts to update recommendations about
nutrition. Public pressure is generally rooted in the media, but we do
not think that the public media present the vitamin D story in a
complete and accurate manner. Reports about vitamin D inadequacies are
presented straightforwardly, but, when it comes to discussing the
intake of vitamin D needed to correct the situation, outdated official
recommendations for vitamin D are propagated by the public media. This
probably occurs because of restrictive editorial policies driven by
concern about possible litigation if media were to advise a "toxic"
intake greater than the UL. The unfortunate result is that there is
minimal motivation for policy makers to implement the relatively
simple steps that could correct this nutrient deficiency.

Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong evidence
of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support public health-
the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to undertake new
initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making a difference
in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for international agencies
such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the European Commission's
Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General to reassess as a
matter of high priority their dietary recommendations for vitamin D,
because the formal nationwide advice from health agencies needs to be
change" http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649#R13

Is it about time the 'conventional doctors" get it?

Thanks Vince

What are some current issues and controversies about vitamin D?
Vitamin D and osteoporosis:
It is estimated that over 25 million adults in the United States have, or
are at risk of developing, osteoporosis [32]. Osteoporosis is a disease
characterized by fragile bones, and it significantly increases the risk of
bone fractures. Osteoporosis is most often associated with inadequate
calcium intake. However, a deficiency of vitamin D also contributes to
osteoporosis by reducing calcium absorption [33]. While rickets and
osteomalacia are extreme examples of vitamin D deficiency, osteopororsis is
an example of a long-term effect of vitamin D insufficiency [34]. Adequate
storage levels of vitamin D help keep bones strong and may help prevent
osteoporosis in older adults, in non-ambulatory individuals (those who have
difficulty walking and exercising), in post-menopausal women, and in
individuals on chronic steroid therapy [35].

Researchers know that normal bone is constantly being remodeled, a process
that describes the breakdown and rebuilding of bone. During menopause, the
balance between these two systems changes, resulting in more bone being
broken down or resorbed than rebuilt. Hormone therapy (HT) with sex hormones
such as estrogen and progesterone may delay the onset of osteoporosis.
However, some medical groups and professional societies such as the American
College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The North American Menopause
Society, and The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research recommend
that postmenopausal women consider using other agents to slow or stop
bone-resorption because of the potential adverse health effects of HT
[36-38].

Vitamin D deficiency, which is often seen in post-menopausal women and older
Americans [4], has been associated with greater incidence of hip fractures
[39-41]. In a review of women with osteoporosis hospitalized for hip
fractures, 50 percent were found to have signs of vitamin D deficiency [35].
Daily supplementation with 20 ?g (800 IU) of vitamin D may reduce the risk
of osteoporotic fractures in elderly populations with low blood levels of
vitamin D [42]. The Decalyos II study examined the effect of combined
calcium and vitamin D supplementation in a group of elderly women who were
able to walk indoors with a cane or walker. The women were studied for two
years, and results suggested that such supplementation could reduce the risk
of hip fractures in this population [43].

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.

Vitamin D and cancer:
Laboratory, animal, and epidemiologic evidence suggests that vitamin D may
be protective against some cancers. Epidemiologic studies suggest that a
higher dietary intake of calcium and vitamin D, and/or sunlight-induced
vitamin D synthesis, correlates with lower incidence of cancer [44-51]. In
fact, for over 60 years researchers have observed an inverse association
between sun exposure and cancer mortality [33]. The inverse relationship
between higher vitamin D levels in blood and lower cancer risk in humans is
best documented for colon and colorectal cancers [44-50]. Vitamin D emerged
as a protective factor in a study of over 3,000 adults (96% of whom were
men) who underwent a colonoscopy between 1994 and 1997 to look for polyps or
lesions in the colon. About 10% of the group was found to have at least one
advanced neoplastic (cancerous) lesion in the colon. There was a
significantly lower risk of advanced cancerous lesions among those with the
highest vitamin D intake [52].

Additional well-designed clinical trials need to be conducted to determine
whether vitamin D deficiency increases cancer risk, or if an increased
intake of vitamin D is protective against some cancers. Until such trials
are conducted, it is premature to advise anyone to take vitamin D
supplements for cancer prevention.

"bigvince" wrote in message
oups.com...
Recent studies have linked adequate intake of vitamin d the most
natural being sunlight to drastic reductions in cancer; MS; and many
other illnesses. Is it to the point where the evidence requires the
medical community to reassess their recommendations. And how much
damage has the inordinate fear of sun exposure done. excerpts from a
recent editorial in the

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650, March
2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2" .....................

.......Randomized trials using the currently recommended intakes of
400 IU vitamin D/d have shown no appreciable reduction in fracture
risk (3). In contrast, trials using 700-800 IU vitamin D/d found less
fracture incidence, with and without supplemental calcium (3). The
reduction in fracture incidence occurs when mean serum 25(OH)D
concentrations exceed 72 nmol/L, and this change may result from both
improved bone health and reduction in falls due to greater muscle
strength (3). Although it is not yet proven through clinical trials,
higher intakes may also reduce the incidence of colon and other
cancers, and these relations indicate that the desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (3). One recent report associates greater
25(OH)D concentrations with lower risk of nursing home admission; the
most desirable category of concentration starts at 75 nmol/L (5).

Human diets do not provide sufficient vitamin D; if they did, the
abovementioned associations between health and serum 25(OH)D
concentrations would not be so routinely observed. The vitamin D
provided by foods and supplements is overwhelmed by the effect of skin
exposure to ultraviolet B light. Geography, season, skin color, and
sun-related behavior are the main predictors of vitamin D nutritional
status (6-10). Correction of low 25(OH)D concentrations can happen
only if some or all of the following are implemented: the
encouragement of safe, moderate exposure of skin to ultraviolet light;
appropriate increases in food fortification with vitamin D; and the
provision of higher doses of vitamin D in supplements for
adults. ................

.......It is important for major journals such as the AJCN to publish
evidence of a widespread nutrient deficiency. Regrettably, we are now
stuck in a revolving cycle of publications that are documenting the
same vitamin D inadequacy (1-3, 5, 7-9, 13-17). This phenomenon has
been referred to as "circular epidemiology" (18), and, for vitamin D,
the phenomenon will continue for as long as the levels of vitamin D
fortification and supplementation and the practical advice offered to
the public remain essentially the same as they were in the era before
we knew that 25(OH)D even existed............

...........A major reason is that there is little public pressure on
policy makers to support efforts to update recommendations about
nutrition. Public pressure is generally rooted in the media, but we do
not think that the public media present the vitamin D story in a
complete and accurate manner. Reports about vitamin D inadequacies are
presented straightforwardly, but, when it comes to discussing the
intake of vitamin D needed to correct the situation, outdated official
recommendations for vitamin D are propagated by the public media. This
probably occurs because of restrictive editorial policies driven by
concern about possible litigation if media were to advise a "toxic"
intake greater than the UL. The unfortunate result is that there is
minimal motivation for policy makers to implement the relatively
simple steps that could correct this nutrient deficiency.

Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong evidence
of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support public health-
the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to undertake new
initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making a difference
in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for international agencies
such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the European Commission's
Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General to reassess as a
matter of high priority their dietary recommendations for vitamin D,
because the formal nationwide advice from health agencies needs to be
change" http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649#R13

Is it about time the 'conventional doctors" get it?

Thanks Vince

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.

--
Juhana

On Sep 20, 10:08 pm, "Juhana Harju" wrote:

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.

To convert vitamin D from IU to mcg, 200 IU is equivalent to 5 mcg.
So Juhana is saying that 2000 IU doesn't require consultation.

--
Ron

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.

--
Dawid
http://www.headache-migraine.net _Migraine headache information_

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.

--
Juhana

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.
2. for the rest of you post you have a good bit of nonsense to
support.

The OP study is one of many showing the need for more than 5mcg
and even the conservative '97 report by the Food and Nutrition
Board
gave 15mcg as merely "Adequate Intake".

abstract of PMID: 10232622:
For adults, the 5-microg (200 IU) vitamin D recommended dietary
allowance may prevent osteomalacia in the absence of sunlight, but
more is needed to help prevent osteoporosis and secondary
hyperparathyroidism. Other benefits of vitamin D supplementation are
implicated epidemiologically: prevention of some cancers,
osteoarthritis progression, multiple sclerosis, and hypertension.
Total-body sun exposure easily provides the equivalent of 250 microg
(10000 IU) vitamin D/d, suggesting that this is a physiologic limit.
Sailors in US submarines are deprived of environmentally acquired
vitamin D equivalent to 20-50 microg (800-2000 IU)/d. The assembled
data from many vitamin D supplementation studies reveal a curve for
vitamin D dose versus serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] response
that is surprisingly flat up to 250 microg (10000 IU) vitamin D/d. To
ensure that serum 25(OH)D concentrations exceed 100 nmol/L, a total
vitamin D supply of 100 microg (4000 IU)/d is required. Except in
those with conditions causing hypersensitivity, there is no evidence
of adverse effects with serum 25(OH)D concentrations 140 nmol/L,
which require a total vitamin D supply of 250 microg (10000 IU)/d to
attain. Published cases of vitamin D toxicity with hypercalcemia, for
which the 25(OH)D concentration and vitamin D dose are known, all
involve intake of or = 1000 microg (40000 IU)/d. Because vitamin D
is potentially toxic, intake of 25 microg (1000 IU)/d has been
avoided even though the weight of evidence shows that the currently
accepted, no observed adverse effect limit of 50 microg (2000 IU)/d is
too low by at least 5-fold.

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.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...ubmed_RVDocSum

The most toxic is VitA, so you'll find more on that then any other
vitamin. However, toxicity information is available for all vitamins,
in their MSDS's, which can be easily found on google.


2. for the rest of you post you have a good bit of nonsense to
support.

As for long-term intake of VitD (or other vitamins), caution is the best
route. The reason is simple - no one has done any serious studies
looking into the long-term effects of high-dose vitamins. And while you
may not see immediate toxic effects at doses such as 5mcg, there is
absolutely no guarantee that a 5mcg dose does not have long-term toxic
effects associated with it.

For example, we know that toxic doses of VitD will cause immediate
calcification of various tissues including the vasculature, lungs and
kidneys. Calcification, BTW, is bad. Unfortunately, no one has looked
for signs of tissue calcification in people (or animals) taking doses
like the ones you propose, over long periods of time. So while single
5mcg doses are safe, no one knows how safe it is to take those kinds of
doses over a period of many years.

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. Kidney
problems, liver problems, certain genetic disorders, being a young
child, being elderly, and having a body fat content outside of the
normal range (too much or too little) all interfere with your ability to
process vitamins. 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.

Bryan

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.
Thanks Vince

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.


I totally agree that the best route is through assessing ones levels of
nutrients and then supplementing if needed. However for this to be
effective one should undergo continual monitoring, say on a weekly
basis, to prevent overdose which can be just as bad as deficiency. It is
just my experience, based on personal experimentation, that it's very
easy to overdose on vitamins and minerals even if taken at low doses.

Furthermore each vitamin and mineral has its antagonist(s), so if one
takes large doses of certain nutrient, the levels if its antagonist(s)
will go down. Which in turn can lead to deficiency of the antagonist(s).

--
Dawid
http://www.headache-migraine.net _Migraine headache information_