# Vitamin D changes everything



## motorway (19 December 2010)

Vitamin D changes everything
What we think is normal is instead really just broken



We just don't know !..
We only know what happens 
In Vitamin D deficient Populations


Motorway


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

FACT VERSUS THEORY

Who thinks wheat bran is good for them ?




> In the early 1970s two young Americans, Frank and Cedric Garland, who
> were studying science and medicine, made an epic journey across America
> from San Diego, California, to John Hopkins Medical School on the east coast.
> The brothers rode proudly in a 1972 Mustang Sprint Fastback with blue trim.
> ...








> When the famous Dr. Denis Burkitt noted that "diseases of civilization" were rare in Africa””although many patients died of malaria or gastrointestinal diseases””he was working in Uganda, right on the equator.
> 
> What Dr. Burkitt failed to notice, when he hypothesized it was fiber in the diet that prevented the diseases of civilization,* was his patients frequently wore little clothing and were under an equatorial sun 365 days a year. Dr. Burkitt thought it was fiber, but it was the vitamin D.*







> As far as dying, remember, everyone who takes Vitamin D will die. It's simply a question of when. What we hope, even expect, is vitamin D will square off the mortality curve. Now, people start dying from the diseases of civilization in their forties, struck down by heart disease, cancer, etc. Premature deaths accelerates in the 50s and are in full swing by the 60s.
> 
> That is, the mortality curve slops downward, beginning in the late 40s, people succumbing to the diseases of civilization. Perhaps vitamin D will allow people to live normal lives until they reach their 90s–100s, when we will all suddenly drop dead of old age!




Quotes from  http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/


> may be reproduced as long as you properly and prominently attribute it's source. Please reproduce it, post it on Internet sites, and forward it to your friends.






Pic is  Truganini and last 4 Tasmanian Aborigines

See the clothes ? Dark Skin in Tassie ?
And diet they were given at this stage ?

How many native peoples
Did Vitamin D deficiency _finally _Kill off 
after everything else did it's work.

Motorway


----------



## roland (19 December 2010)

I was a little worried that my D levels may not be up to spec, but some research seems to suggest that getting enough from the sun shouldn't be that hard:

from: http://www.sunshinevitamin.org/

Sunlight Exposure (full body exposure)*     3,000 – 20,000 IU

* Sun exposure to the arms and legs for 10-15 minutes. The amount of vitamin D produced depends on the intensity of the UVB in the sun and many other factors. Darker-skinned individuals may need 5-10 times more exposure than a fair-skinned person to make the same amount of vitamin D.

from: http://www.darksideoftanning.com.au/get_facts/download.aspx#vitamin_d

The Australian climate, with hot summers and clear skies has plenty of UV radiation, so most Australians make enough vitamin D through sun exposure by following their regular day to day routines, even when protecting themselves from the sun. Keep in mind the following tips:

    * Always protect yourself from the sun during peak UV periods (when the UV Index in above 3).
    * In NSW from August to May, six to eight minutes of sun exposure to the face, hands and arms (15% of the body) on most days of the week at times when the UV index is below 3 (before 10am and after 3pm daylight savings time) is all the sun exposure a fair skinned person requires for vitamin D production.
    * In June and July this may increase to 40 to 50 minutes.
    * Short bursts of sun (outside peak UV periods) are better for making vitamin D than long periods, as the body can only absorb a set amount at a time.
    * Your body can rely on its stores of Vitamin D for 30 to 60 days.
    * Exposing your skin to the sun when the UV Index is above 3 increases your risk of developing skin cancer.
    * Exposing yourself to UV radiation in a solarium is a not an effective way to obtain vitamin D and will damage your skin and increase your risk of developing skin cancer.
    * Look after your bones by maintaining a healthy diet, exercising regularly and knowing when to protect your skin.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2010)

Do people who worry about Vitamins suffer more constipation than the average poster on ASF.

I believe they do, as a non sufferer.

How can we as a community of investors help them?

gg


----------



## sails (19 December 2010)

Thanks for the info, Motorway...

I think some over zealous Mums don't give their kids even a few minutes in the sun.  I know of one such mother who is a school teacher.  She rushes around with hats and sunscreen and has spares for other kids.  She was horrified when I politely rejected her offer of a hat for my granddaughter - it was late in the afternoon!  I said something about getting enough Vit D and she looked at me as if I was being negligent!

Her two children are unusually pale and I wonder if she will one day regret protecting so tightly.  Sure they won't get skin cancer, but with the lack of natural Vit D, I wonder if she is inadvertantly opening them up to other problems with this almost fanatical approach.

I have also done a lot of research on osteoporosis and soon learned the value of Vit D.  As it is inadvisable for me to take the pharmaceutical medications, my GP allowed me to try Strontium (not the radioactive kind) together with calcium, Vit D, Vit K and a few other trace minerals. I did extensive research on it and was only able to find very positive feed back.

I had been losing bone density on every dexa scan for the last few years so something had to be done.  After 18 months on Strontium, the dexa scan showed an average of 5% increase.  My GPs jaw litterally dropped at the result of not only stopping the decrease but such a significant increase in that time...  I do know that strontium can be heavier than calcium, but read somewhere that they are no longer adjusting the scores.  I told the radiologist that I was on it so they were fully aware.

A few months before the scan, I fell down about a half flight of stairs.  Fell sideways and crashed down on to a tiled floor.  Amazingly, nothing was broken!  So I felt that the strontium must have been somehow strengthing the bones and possibly making them a bit less brittle. 

You seem quite knowledgeable on these sorts of things, Motorway.  Do you know anything about strontium for osteoporisis in addition to Vit D?

I thought it worth mentioning here in case it should help anyone else who can't take the pharmaceutical alternatives.


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

> * Always protect yourself from the sun during peak UV periods (when the UV Index in above 3).




You need the UVB
UVB only makes up a small % of solar radiation

It only reaches the ground when the sun is Above 45 degrees
IE your shadow is shorter than you are...

More as been learnt about vitamin D in the last year than the last ten
and In the last Ten than ever

So there is much ignorance  ( I have seen this with Doctors )

To make Vitamin D from the SUN you need to expose a significant amount of skin probably over 70%.... This is because UVA destroys Vitamin D after a time

So more skin exposed for a shorter time in the middle of the day
rather than less skin for a longer time..Or exposures at morning or late afternoon..

If the UV index is only 3 I would doubt you will make any Vitamin D..

OK what about Melanoma and Skin cancer  ? 

Remember most people who go out in the SUN are Vitamin D deficient
They get Sunburned and it takes a couple of months to build up levels in the body

This is not what many do.. But get intermittent Burning

Sunburn is a sign of low vitamin D levels..

This is incredibly interesting and slightly counter intuitive 
And HEALTH and WELLBEING start here..

I supplement with Vitamin D and enjoy the SUN
I find I do not even go PINK in SUN anymore (  I used to burn very easily and avoided the SUN )

*YOU DO NOT WANT TO GET SUNBURNED
*
But the same vitamin D that protects against major cancers
Also protects against Melanoma..

But for reasons I will post
Vitamin D levels need to be both adequate and stable throughout the year
Fluctuating levels are not healthy




> Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma☆
> 
> Dianne E. Godara, Robert J. Landrya, Anne D. Lucasa
> Received 6 June 2008; accepted 12 September 2008. published online 20 January 2009.
> ...





Fact is it is not just the incidence of Melanoma that is growing exponentially but all cancers

We hear of the breast cancer the prostate cancer the Bowel cancer epidemics
Asthma , Diabetes , Autism etc etc epidemics...

FACTS and THEORIES

I have seen dramatic health improvements in myself and loved ones..
So the desire to share some of my knowledge journey here

It is fascinating how one nutrient can do so much and the WHY

I will Say more on your important question Roland

But

*If you are Vitamin D deficient anything will give you cancer ( In fact you can just get it without any outside cause . The communication between cells just breaks down )*

Motorway


----------



## lindsayf (19 December 2010)

Motorway
Has your research sufficiently explained how people in  extreme latitudes get sufficient Vitamin D?  Wouldnt it  be assumed that where the sun was not available or the weather so cold for long periods that cancer rates and other health issues would then be measurably higher than otherwise?


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

sails said:


> Thanks for the info, Motorway...
> 
> I think some over zealous Mums don't give their kids even a few minutes in the sun.  I know of one such mother who is a school teacher.  She rushes around with hats and sunscreen and has spares for other kids.  She was horrified when I politely rejected her offer of a hat for my granddaughter - it was late in the afternoon!  I said something about getting enough Vit D and she looked at me as if I was being negligent!
> 
> ...




Hello Sails.. All life evolved under the SUN...( says it all... We are still here and life in its abundance  on this planet )..  Our genes still think  they are in Africa ...( We are a type of Ape  All of which are only found in the tropic zones )

For strong bones you need Vitamin D , Magnesium , Vitamin K2-7 , Boron and I have seen Strontium mentioned...

The need for supplements of all kinds drastically falls when Vitamin D is right
EG Most people will get enough calcium in their diet ... But supplement a little if you need to.. Prehistoric man had incredible strong bones without any dairy !

Vitamin k2-7 ,Magnesium and  Vitamin D, these are harder to get optimal amounts of  in the modern diet
*esp Vitamin D......
*
Weight bearing exercise is important for bones as well as muscle
Adequate protein ( Bones are living tissue )  ( long chain omega 3s fish oil are important )

But
*Everything starts with Vitamin D
*Evolution based it's most important control system on the one thing that could aways be countered on.. because it always shone anew everyday..
foods were seasonal and famines a reality...




> Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually
> the most satisfying and inspiring science.* Without that light it
> becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or
> curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.*




Motorway


----------



## roland (19 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Do people who worry about Vitamins suffer more constipation than the average poster on ASF.
> 
> I believe they do, as a non sufferer.
> 
> ...




mmm, "worry" was a little exaggerated, I don't actually ever recall being constipated, all those spicy dishes and curries probably have me on the other side 

GG, although I am aware that your comment was a light hearted one, but it does highlight the fact that there are many that have no desire to learn about nutrition and are quick to debunk or ridicule new findings.

Personally I find the subject fascinating, and if by chance, learning more about how our bodies work gives me an advantage, then that's a pretty good investment.


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

lindsayf said:


> Motorway
> Has your research sufficiently explained how people in  extreme latitudes get sufficient Vitamin D?  Wouldnt it  be assumed that where the sun was not available or the weather so cold for long periods that cancer rates and other health issues would then be measurably higher than otherwise?




Yes the original peoples who moved north and south
where Hunters and esp Fisherman

eg Inuits eat nearly 100% such foods
The Original Tasmanians

Fish is one food that has very high levels of Vitamin D

When Caesar invaded Britain .. The Inhabits were dark skinned ...
They also were still hunting and living the old ways
As people gave up the old ways and became farmers of grains

( only from 10000 years ago less for many )

Much disease did eventuate

see the research on
Skeletons of paleolithic Peoples ( hunters gatherers Vs Neolithic farmers )

Major diseases of the 19th century were TB and Rickets...

Today there are many more diseases the further from the equator
 IT IS A LONG LIST

Mutiple Scelrosis for example
various Cancers
Heart Disease
etc

Big Pharma would be all over the news if any drug would work 10% more than a placebo. Vitamin D => 80-96% ?

But It is NON PATENTABLE and is the cheapest nutrient supplement available to make.
There is no money for anyone to make here..
So you won't hear about it..

No conspiracy just the way things work !



> Cenegenics ® Medical Institute, the global age management medicine leader, collaborated with Dr. Ernst R. von Schwarz””professor of medicine at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine””to investigate current evidence linking vitamin D deficiency with heart failure. Their expert scientific review recently appeared in the Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics.
> 
> The stats show why co-authors Cenegenics and von Schwarz zeroed in on vitamin D deficiency: An estimated 1 billion people worldwide have deficient or insufficient levels of vitamin D. Even more alarming is the association of vitamin D deficiency with many types of diseases, particularly heart failure.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## roland (19 December 2010)

motorway said:


> I supplement with Vitamin D and enjoy the SUN
> Motorway




Motorway, why do you supplement Vitamin D, did you have tests to see your levels before supplementing?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2010)

roland said:


> mmm, "worry" was a little exaggerated, I don't actually ever recall being constipated, all those spicy dishes and curries probably have me on the other side
> 
> GG, although I am aware that your comment was a light hearted one, but it does highlight the fact that there are many that have no desire to learn about nutrition and are quick to debunk or ridicule new findings.
> 
> Personally I find the subject fascinating, and if by chance, learning more about how our bodies work gives me an advantage, then that's a pretty good investment.





Mate, anyone who lives on the Eastern seaboard of Australia or in Perth and environs, who is not Aboriginal or homeless has a problem if they are Vitamin deficient.

The Great Barrier Reef is awash with the pee of the anxious and indolent gobbling Vitamins they do not need.

gg


----------



## roland (19 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate, anyone who lives on the Eastern seaboard of Australia or in Perth and environs, who is not Aboriginal or homeless has a problem if they are Vitamin deficient.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef is awash with the pee of the anxious and indolent gobbling Vitamins they do not need.
> 
> gg




Yep, beginning to agree, but not being as learned as I could be, just learnin' some more.


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

75% Less Cancer Deaths with Vitamin D

If you are Vitamin D deficient anything will give you cancer (* In fact you can just get it without any outside cause . The communication between cells just breaks down *)

This is the D stage of Dinomit cancer model
current screening only targets the O ( overgrowth ) stage



Roland I supplement because  of all the benifits optimal levels Of D brings
and it is the only way to have stable year round levels

A healthy body uses 5000 iu a day ( D is used only once )
Fight a virus , a cancer  , some other challenge eg I know a Psorasis Sufferer
The body will use more ( If it has it )

The research I have read
suggest 5000 iu a day safe and sensible

( but tests might show you need a lot more )

Here is a linK to the 7.30 report on curing multiple Sclerosis

http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/Recovery-Program/Sunlight-and-Vitamin-D/

has some useful info on doses eg


> There is evidence that optimal levels are really quite a bit higher24. The recommended daily allowance of vitamin D in Australia is 200IU. This amount of vitamin D is way too low.* It is based on the amount required to prevent rickets.*
> 
> It is equivalent to the amount of vitamin D your skin would make in 6 seconds of all over sun in Perth on a summer’s day. Vieth and others have shown that in sunny countries the vitamin D levels are at least 100-140nmol/L, and more like 135-225nmol/L, and that a level of 200nmol/L may actually be optimal.25 *Others have suggested a level as high as 250nmol/L may be optimal.26*
> 
> ...




Roland the info you posted is only targeting bone health
Without bones you die so does the species ( Dinosaurs went extinct from Vit D deficiency )

Every bit of D you have in your body is prioritized to bone health
it takes the least amount to acheive this..
Only when this is optimal does D get used to fight cancer, viruses
Maintain other aspects of health

People I have known who have tested are all low
even on 2000 iu a day



> the body does not reliably begin storing cholecalciferol in fat and muscle tissue until 25(OH)D levels get above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). The average person starts to store cholecalciferol at 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L), but at 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) virtually everyone begins to store it for future use.
> 
> *That is, at levels below 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L), the body uses up vitamin D as fast as you can make it, or take it, indicating chronic substrate starvation””not a good thing. 25(OH)D levels should be between 50–80 ng/ml (125–200 nmol/L), year-round.*




I do not think it feasible to get to these levels without supplements
Unless you go live in the Tropics

Our winters will beat you
and if your levels drop
The Sun will then burn you

Motorway


----------



## motorway (19 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate, anyone who lives on the Eastern seaboard of Australia or in Perth and environs, who is not Aboriginal or homeless has a problem if they are Vitamin deficient.
> 
> The Great Barrier Reef is awash with the pee of the anxious and indolent gobbling Vitamins they do not need.
> 
> gg




Agree with you GG
Most supplements do more HARM than GOOD..

But Vitamin D is different
Both for what it does
and what we have done
with our modern life styles

Motorway


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2010)

motorway said:


> Agree with you GG
> Most supplements do more HARM than GOOD..
> 
> But Vitamin D is different
> ...





MW I value your opinion, I'll look in to it.

gg


----------



## Mister Mark (20 December 2010)

So what symptems would a person low in vitamin D show?


----------



## johenmo (20 December 2010)

Motorway - you do mention the growing incidence of other diseases.  Everyone has to die from something, and something has to be the #1 killer.  With our ability to keep people alive longer, some of the later age diseases/conditions are now showing up in greater numbers.  So this must be kept in mind.

However I agree (as posted in the Aspirin thread) with you re Vit D, and a female friend of ours was diagnosed an deficient - despite living in WA and working outdoors.  I tend to think of getting a dose of sun like drinking alcohol.  Binge drinking isn't good for your liver (body) and the same goes with the sun.

Incidentally you may be interested in an article re calcium supplementation without Vit D and heart risk.  
http://www.theheart.org/article/1108009.do

and the following re Vit D and sunshine
http://www.lakelandecho.co.uk/nhshealth/Sun-and-vitamin-D-advice.6665055.jp

Off I go to get some Vit D.
Cheers


----------



## motorway (20 December 2010)

Mister Mark said:


> So what symptems would a person low in vitamin D show?




Maybe not a lot until the wheels fall off

Vitamin D allows the intelligence in the DNA Library inside each cell to be unlocked
(It has only been recently been realized what the entire Blueprint of the genome is doing inside each and every cell )

So with optimal Vitamin D , Everything works as and when it should

Ie insulin , immune system , blood pressure , brain , mood , calcium /bones
Heart , Muscle Strength etc

You name it... You are a living system with intelligence rife..cells communicating with each other ... Command and control systems all in  place

Ready to meet any challenge..

Ok low vitamin D is like deciding to never check the oil air water or ever service
your car But just drive ( and with your eyes shut ) and throw out the manual...

For a while nothing will seem to happen
Until ..Something breaks down

And then maybe your dead
and in between you just do not feel well with aches and pains etc 


johenmo


> *As far as dying, remember, everyone who takes Vitamin D will die.* It's simply a question of when. What we hope, even expect, is vitamin D will square off the mortality curve. Now, people start dying from the diseases of civilization in their forties, struck down by heart disease, cancer, etc. Premature deaths accelerates in the 50s and are in full swing by the 60s.
> 
> That is, the mortality curve slops downward, beginning in the late 40s, people succumbing to the diseases of civilization. Perhaps vitamin D will allow people to live normal lives until they reach their 90s–100s, when we will all suddenly drop dead of old age!




Also most official recommendations are conservative still based on outdated models
The Understanding of Vitamin D is only very new eg what I have said above

Even recommendations For osteoporsis are too low ( SAILS for you ) ( still based on Rickets model )



> in the very large population-based NHANES analysis, bone density increased with higher 25(OH)D levels far beyond 50 nmol/l in younger and older adults suggesting that the IOM threshold recommendation is too low for optimal bone health in adults[4]. In contrast to the IOM report, *the IOF recommended in their 2010 position paper on vitamin D a threshold of 75 nmol/l for optimal fall and fracture reduction*




And that is still just focusing on Bone Health..

This is important ... The old model saw Vitamin D just involved with Bones
BUT only 15% is for bones .. 85% is used by all the other cells in the body when they
need to do something intelligent.. eg A Heart Beating


See the  Plate of the old scheme D  for calcium/bones
Second is recent understanding Given optimal D
85% is for all the other cells and processes

*ONLY 15% for bones
*
It only seemed that it was all for Bones
Because people were deficient and 
Bones is where it all goes until there is optimal levels..



> Calcitriol Made in KidneysThe first pathway leads to the kidney, where calcidiol is turned into calcitriol. Calcitriol is a potent steroid hormone, in fact, it is the most potent steroid hormone in the human body. A steroid hormone is simply any molecule in the body that is made from cholesterol and that acts to turn your genes on and off. They are always important to health, always need to be handled with care, and are often quite potent.
> 
> Calcitriol made by the kidney circulates in the blood to maintain your blood calcium levels. Calcium is vital to the function of the cells in the body, without enough calcitriol in the blood calcium levels will fall and illness will set in.
> 
> Therefore, the first priority for calcidiol is to go to the kidney where it makes enough calcitriol to secrete into the blood in order to regulate serum calcium.






> The second vitamin D pathway leads to your tissues and that is where all the action is. All of the amazing health benefits of vitamin D discovered in the last 10 years are from vitamin D going down the second pathway. If any calcidiol is left over””that is, if your tank is full and your kidneys are getting all the calcidiol they need to maintain serum calcium””then calcidiol is able to take another pathway, one that leads directly to the cells.
> 
> This path is only now being fully understood and is causing excitement all around the world, especially concerning cancer. These are the autocrine (inside cell) and paracrine (around the cell) functions of the vitamin D system.These functions are crucial to understanding why you should keep your vitamin D tank full.
> 
> If you only have a small amount of calcidiol in your blood, virtually all of it goes to your kidney, which then makes extra calcitriol to keep your serum calcium levels from falling. Almost no calcidiol gets to your tissues to make tissue calcitriol.




*So one thing you could get without sufficient D is cancer
*or maybe Diabetes or Heart Disease 
or Depression or whatever breaks down first..

eg cancer



> *But when your tank is full, the left over calcidiol goes to the many cells in the body that are able to make their own calcitriol to fight cancer””and they do so with gusto! In fact, they appear to make as much calcitriol as they can. The more calcidiol they get, the more calcitriol they make.*





Breaking a Hip is a terrible thing to happen when you are over 50

You need levels of D  where there is no limit on cells ability to self regulate
The Threshold where all The Vitamin D Tanks are FULL

motorway


----------



## Mister Mark (20 December 2010)

Thank you for the info. The reason i asked the question is we live on the east coast and my wife recently had a blood test and was for the first time diagnosed with low vitamin D
She has worked in a large shopping centre for 4 years now, previously a lot more time was spent outdoors.
In this time she has experienced more colds and gets fatigued much more easily and has just come down with a bad dose of broncitis, symptoms we atributed to being in air condiyioning and getting older, interesting to read this info.
Thank you


----------



## motorway (20 December 2010)

Mister Mark said:


> Thank you for the info. The reason i asked the question is we live on the east coast and my wife recently had a blood test and was for the first time diagnosed with low vitamin D
> She has worked in a large shopping centre for 4 years now, previously a lot more time was spent outdoors.
> In this time she has experienced more colds and gets fatigued much more easily and has just come down with a bad dose of broncitis, symptoms we atributed to being in air condiyioning and getting older, interesting to read this info.
> Thank you




great to hear feedback



But when your tank is full, the left over calcidiol goes to the many cells in the body that are able to make their own calcitriol (for example )to fight cancer””and they do so with gusto! 






> Editor, New York Times:
> 
> We have closely followed the stories in the Times about the mammography controversy. The coverage has been thorough and superb.
> 
> ...




multiply by 2.5 to get our units   nmol/L

So 100nmol/L to 150nmol/L

motorway


----------



## Gringotts Bank (20 December 2010)

Every second person I talk to is telling me that their GP is recommending higher vit D.  The research must b fairly solid.  either that or the recommended dose has increased - think it might be the latter. Melbourne weather not really helping!


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

What's a Vitamin D deficiency?

Here is a presentation I found interesting:


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

Thanks Motoway for bringing the Vitamin D issues to our attention.

The more I research Vitamin D deficiencies the more profound the problem the problem appears to be. The further you are away from the equator the less D we have in our bodies and this directly correlates to mortality rates from Cancer. In fact you can overlay maps of Cancer death rates over a map of the world to see the astounding correlation.

A study in Japan showed the same, even within the boundaries of their own country - they could map higher cancer rates in areas of lesser UV-B


----------



## tech/a (20 December 2010)

I really am sceptical.

But Ive bought my Vitamin D
Now what dosage do you recommend?
Says 1000IU a day.
I live on the coast get a fair amount of sun but cover up.


----------



## motorway (20 December 2010)

tech/a said:


> I really am sceptical.
> 
> But Ive bought my Vitamin D
> Now what dosage do you recommend?
> ...




It is harder to get sufficient from the sun than many think
some for interesting reasons ( I will post later )

Heaney and all the D scientists keep raising the level of Optimum 
And also the level  needed to produce toxicity ( some interesting studies here )

I take 7000 iu a day atm
Also I enjoy the sun

I no longer get sunburn ( post why later )
My resting pulse is twenty beats lower ( sub 50 ) ( The heart is a muscle after all )
At fifty I find I am Physically stronger than I ever have been
I am leaner more Muscular , My recovery from exercise is much improved

My Joints feel great and loose 
My eyesight Sharp
Sleep deeper and better
No morning stiffness

And I just feel great 

Nothing has ever done this
I have taken Vit C , E Co enzymeQ10 etc

Did they do me good I COULD NOT TELL.. felt no difference
Fish oil made measurable improvements in blood chemistry ( still take )
But did not feel different

*Vit D... I feel Different
*Feel a million dollars

Also see measurable benefits
in blood chemistry and how people feel --real improvements in real long standing conditions.. In number of others

Just the mood enhancing is tremendous

how much to take
I have gone with

This from  http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/


> take 5,000 IU per day for 2–3 months, then obtain a 25-hydroxyvitamin D test. Adjust your dosage so that blood levels are between 50–80 ng/mL (or 125–200 nM/L) year-round.




here is a good series from Reinhold Vieth for the general public













Many people are on
medication for blood pressure. Cholesterol and Diabetes 

How many Doctors check Vitamin D first ?
If they did how many would need those medications ?

I have seen what happens when D is optimized

and I have FELT the difference

Motorway


----------



## tech/a (20 December 2010)

Thanks M/W I'm on it!
7000IU
Wow.
Would that vary if your in the sun enough to tan?


----------



## motorway (20 December 2010)

tech/a said:


> Thanks M/W I'm on it!
> 7000IU
> Wow.
> Would that vary if your in the sun enough to tan?




You will get Some D from the Sun 

But if you use Soap and regularly shower
Most will end literally down the drain ( Why many surfers have low D )

Here is some info from  - Professor George Jelinek MD site

http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/html/newsletter.php?id=ef9ad172

I have decided to supplement and get some SUN

Why SUN too



> Why not just take the supplements and forget about the sun?
> 
> Vitamin D made in the skin lasts at least twice as long in the blood as vitamin D ingested from the diet.  When you are exposed to sunlight, you make not only vitamin D but also at least five and up to ten additional photoproducts that you would never get from dietary sources or from a supplement.
> 
> ...




Professor George Jelinek is   the Australian Featured on the 7.30 report the other night
regarding Multiple Sclerosis

He has a  nice summary of up to date data




> Supplementing with vitamin D of up to 10,000IU per day is now thought to be very safe, although in the past many medical authorities have been concerned about the possibility of side effects with doses of this magnitude. Hathcock et al have applied the risk assessment methodology used by the Food and Nutrition Board in the USA to derive a revised safe Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D3
> 
> Their risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human clinical trials of vitamin D3 concluded that the UL is 10,000IU vitamin D3 per day,* that is, it is safe to take up to 10,000IU of vitamin D3 per day. Even with plenty of sun exposure, supplementing even up to this dose appears to be quite safe.*
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## IB12 (20 December 2010)

Doctors and scientists can be confusing sometimes.
First they say get out of the sun, b/c you'll get skin cancer.
Now they're telling us to go back out again and get a tan.


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

This is interesting: from http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/html/newsletter.php?id=ef9ad172

Seems like I can get my wife off the calcium as Vitamin D on it's own is enough...



> As for calcium, like many other heavily-marketed supplements, now that the evidence is coming in, we can see that it pays to be very, very selective about what supplements to take. Supplements need to be taken for a good reason, with a therapeutic aim in mind, and utilising the best available evidence to support their use. For people with adequate vitamin D levels (and for people in most geographic regions this means supplementation with relatively large doses of vitamin D in winter), calcium supplementation is completely unnecessary. For those who avoid the sun or cannot get much sun in winter, and those with osteoporosis, supplementation with at least 5,000IU of vitamin D daily is recommended, rather than with calcium. Calcium supplementation, on the basis of current evidence, poses too great a risk to human health, and is not recommended.


----------



## motorway (20 December 2010)

roland said:


> This is interesting: from http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/html/newsletter.php?id=ef9ad172
> 
> Seems like I can get my wife off the calcium as Vitamin D on it's own is enough...




Absolutely...

In fact Magnesium is more important ( get an absorbable form  not oxide  I use Citrate )
Soils are totally deficient in it

Vitamin D needs it
and bone health needs it
it also has many other benifits

If we look at ancestral diets
calcium to magnesium ratio was about 1 to 1

today we over dose on Calcium
WHY ?

Because people are D deficient 
and the thinking is you can force the Calcium into bones with brute force..

But without D the cells are deaf dumb and blind

In the cancer vid
D does not KIll the cancer cells 
They kill themselves

D just make things work as it should
Cancer cells are forming in your body moment to moment
With D they repair themselves or suicide

Without D.. cells lose connection and intelligence

What that Vid shows is if it is not too late is that
Getting D back to healthy levels allows the DNA library ( where the information that informs cells what to do,,, not become a cancer cell ,, absorb calcium etc )
to be available

You still need adequate levels of nutrients like calcium
But a reasonable diet will provide most.....

It was D that was missing
levels we would have if we were in the horn of Africa
Levels much higher with no seasonal variation

http://www.healthiertalk.com/natural-blood-pressure-regulator-017



> The Blood Pressure Regulator You Need to Know About: One Vitamin Could Replace ACE Inhibitors Altogether
> By Dr. Jonathan Wright on 01/07/2009
> 
> 
> ...




Prescription drugs .. Act like sledge hammers.. They block or turn off key processes

Vitamin D works by allowing intelligent optimized regulation ( here blood pressure . But you name it eg Sugar Metabolism.. )

A whole different thing altogether...



Motorway


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

I did come across a march larger list of agricultural mineral and element deficiencies that have occured over time. I am sure it was one promoting Seafood, but other than Vitamin D reduction due to geographic population shifts, we also have the following to contend with if we are wanting to re-establish our genetically ideal environment.

The combined effect of soil mineral depletion and the reduced availability of those minerals that remain is that most of the food that we eat is mineral deficient. The table below summarizes the reductions in the average mineral content of 27 vegetables and 17 fruits, between 1940 and 1991. The results of the latest research are expected to show mineral values in continual decline.
Reduction in average mineral content of fruit and vegetables between 1940 and 1991 

Mineral 	  	Vegetables 	  	Fruit
Sodium 	  	-49% 	  	-29%
Potassium 	  	-16% 	  	-19%
Magnesium 	  	-24% 	  	-16%
Calcium 	  	-46% 	  	-16%
Iron 	  	-27% 	  	-24%
Copper 	  	-76% 	  	-20%
Zinc 	  	-59% 	  	-27%


A new study published earlier this year shows that, as might be expected, mineral levels in animal products reflect the picture in plant foods. Comparing levels measured in 2002 with those present in 1940, the iron content of milk was found to be 62% less, calcium and magnesium in parmesan cheese had each fallen by 70% and copper in dairy produce had plummeted by a remarkable 90%.


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

here it is http://www.truehealth.org/atrclist.html

Our daily food, as produced by our modern agriculture, contains:

# 3 - major nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium - or N-P-K);
# 6 - minor nutrients (calcium, chloride, magnesium, iron, sodium, sulphur) and
# 5 - trace elements as monitored and maintained in agricultural soils
(boron, copper, manganese, molybdenum, zinc) and
# 3 - trace elements as added at other stages of our nutrition
(iodine in table salt; cobalt in salt licks for cattle and sheep; and selenium in fortified chicken feed)
- for a total of 8 (!) nutritional trace elements.

All of the above vital nutrients are generally available in adequate amounts in today's agriculturally grown food products. However, since cobalt and selenium are added to livestock feed, rather than to the soil, pure vegetarians are at some risk of cobalt and selenium deficiencies.

However, all living things need about 72 (!) biological trace elements - as found throughout nature and in all 'wild' plant and animal life - for the normal function of their metabolism, reproductive and immune systems. Today, the only readily available food which still contains the complete natural range of the 72 biological trace elements is seafood.

etc.......


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Eye Problems



> Two years ago a study appeared in the Archives of Ophthalmology that showed that people who ate more foods with vitamin D, or took vitamin D supplements in lieu of eating foods high in vitamin D, were less likely to have age-related macular degeneration, the foremost cause of blindness in older adults.




http://www.stopagingnow.com/liveinthenow/article/vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-eye-problems


----------



## roland (20 December 2010)

Vitamin D and hearing loss:



> (Vitamin) D: As far as hearing is concerned, a deficiency in this vitamin has serious consequences and has been associated with otosclerosis (abnormal bone growth in the middle ear), unexplained and bilateral cochlear deafness, presbycusis, and sensorineural hearing loss. Researchers had to conclude that vitamin D deficiency is likely one of the causes and supplementation should be considered in persons with hearing loss. Vitamin D can be inhibited if there is also a magnesium deficiency. If there is a magnesium deficiency, this will also affect calcium intakes. As you can see, not just one nutrient can be isolated as being a cause or cure of something.




http://www.innvista.com/health/ailments/earail/hearnutr.htm


----------



## aussiepipe (21 December 2010)

A few years ago I changed my opinion on vitamins and supplements. They changed our family's life, for the better. Thanks for the reminder about vitamin d we had stopped taking it.

I use iherb to get my vitamins from as they sometimes come in larger amounts than what you get here in Oz and usually cheaper. So you aren't taking as many capsules. I usually pay around $12USD for DHL delivery.

The other thing i have found was spreading out the daily dosage for the water-soluble vitamins to 3 - 4 times a day helps. I think Vitamin D is fat soluble so you can take it all at once. Vitamin B, C and Magnesium are water-soluble, I think.

Cheers
aussiepipe


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

Yes Iherb seems great

With  D you do not really want to use anything longer than monthly
Dosing ( weekly better and really taking every day I think is better )

You start to get cycle peaks and troughs
Which we are not designed to deal with

( no summer winter on the equator as such )

Vieth has Written a very good paper about why this can be real problem
and have negative heath consequnces.. Also why synthetic D2 causes same problems

There are lag effects when levels fluctuate
Imbalances !



> It's an important hypothesis as it explains why it is better to use daily, weekly supplements rather than rely on large doses at extended intervals.
> 
> keeping 25(OH)D levels stable will prevent the need for fine tuning of the immune system and shorten the time where there is imbalance between activating (25- and 1a-hydroxylase) and the metabolizing (24-hydroxylase) enzymes.




some more D
I have found large personal effect for me regarding this..



> If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication.However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D.
> 
> How much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on the amount of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in your blood. In turn, how much 25-hydroxyvitamin D is in your blood depends on how much vitamin D you put in your mouth or how often you expose your skin to UVB light.






Thanks for the mineral info Roland
Wild Fish is the last natural food maybe

Motorway


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

IB12 said:


> Doctors and scientists can be confusing sometimes.
> First they say get out of the sun, b/c you'll get skin cancer.
> Now they're telling us to go back out again and get a tan.




Melanoma is what worries people



> "The number one risk factor for melanoma is an inability to tan; people who tan easily or have dark pigmentation are far less likely to develop the disease."
> 
> ~ David E Fisher MD PhD, Director, Melanoma Program, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Professor in pediatrics, Children's Hospital Boston




This is if you get Sun exposure or not ... The inability to Tan is the risk factor...

I have  fair skin hazel Eyes
I have found I do not sun burn anymore
( But you still want to treat the Sun with respect )





> HIGHER BLOOD LEVELS, QUICKER TAN
> 
> Dr. Dixon presented fascinating evidence that high vitamin D blood levels prevent sunburn! Of course, it makes sense. When vitamin D levels are low, the skin stays as white as it can to make as much vitamin D as it can. When vitamin D levels are high, the skin rapidly tans to prevent excessive vitamin D skin production. A number of people have emailed me that observation: now that their levels are high, they tan very quickly. I've noticed the same thing.







> The final conversion of vitamin D in the skin requires heat and the heat of sunburn will increase the amount of vitamin D made by any *one* sun-exposure. Thus, sunburns evolved for a reason. Nature cares less if you damage your skin with sunburn; Nature cares more that vitamin D deficient people maximize any one sun-exposure. That is, people with low 25(OH)D levels have a reason to burn, they make more vitamin D.
> 
> Easy sunburning and sun sensitivity may simply be a symptom of vitamin D deficiency. This is also a good study for some young vitamin D scientist to do.Vitamin D sufficient people do not need any extra vitamin D from the sun, so the extra heat in the skin generated by sunburn is not needed.
> 
> ...







> Diets rich in vegetables, fruits, and omega-3 fats””and the absence of appreciable quantities of omega-6 and trans-fats””also protects your skin from burning. The people who get sunburned are modern humans who live and work indoors, avoid fruit and vegetables, love french fries and chips, hate salmon, and go to the beach two or three times in the summer to roast themselves.
> 
> Frequent sunburns, especially in childhood, are but one factor in melanoma””genetics and diet are more important.




John Jacob Cannell MD
 Executive Director   http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/



Women who regularly sunbathe live longer, a leading cancer specialist has claimed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...er-say-scientists-Lund-University-Sweden.html

There is also Vitamin Ds regulation of Glutathione 




> Besides reducing inflammatory cytokines, vitamin D does one more thing: it increases concentrations of glutathione””The  master antioxidant and Detoxifier.




Glutathione does about everhthing you can think of ... Unlike Vitamin C & E etc
 glutathione exists within the cells, it is in a prime position to neutralize free radicals.

remove heavy metals
protect against Sunburn
protect the Brain etc etc

Motorway


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

Another reason for why supplements ( with D3 ! in the earlier quote from Hollick, It looks to me he was talking about D2 )




> SHOWERING AFTER SUNBATHING
> Dr. Cannell:
> Does showering after sunbathing wash off the Vitamin D?
> Sarah,
> ...




Good short Vid
with a good punchline

"I'll see you in Acapulco" 



Motorway


----------



## johenmo (21 December 2010)

Motorway  - interesting point re washing.  With humanity becoming more and more paranoid about sterility (anti-bac handwashes etc etc) and better hygiene, have we swapped some diseases for something else?  From what Dr Cannell suggests we aren't helping ourselves.  And this likely all ties into the increase in allergen sensitivity in the population.

I shall have to get my books out again when I get back home!

What Vit D suppl do you use, If I may ask?


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

johenmo said:


> Motorway  - interesting point re washing.  With humanity becoming more and more paranoid about sterility (anti-bac handwashes etc etc) and better hygiene, have we swapped some diseases for something else?  From what Dr Cannell suggests we aren't helping ourselves.  And this likely all ties into the increase in allergen sensitivity in the population.
> 
> I shall have to get my books out again when I get back home!
> 
> What Vit D suppl do you use, If I may ask?




more from John on washing



> sunbathing  may not produce much vitamin D if you shower with soap after exposure. Water cleans the body but does not destroy as much sebum, human body oil.
> 
> When you think about it, God made the perfect body oil for humans””sebum””but humans wash off her body oil and then apply body oils made by the cosmetic industry. I doubt she likes that.





On D supplements best in OZ i found was this

http://www.bioceuticals.com.au/product.aspx?function=displayproduct&productid=237

But for value

moved on to this

http://www.iherb.com/Now-Foods-Vitamin-D-3-Highest-Potency-5-000-IU-240-Softgels/22335?at=0

and this

http://www.iherb.com/Healthy-Origins-Vitamin-D3-10-000-IU-360-Softgels/21298?at=0

Add $4.00 for Air mail...

you can adjust dose by taking one every so many days

Motorway

Motorway


----------



## johenmo (21 December 2010)

Tks.  Actually got some and some Mg AA chelate today.  Had good discussion with pharmacist re vit D.  He has quite a few taking it, with some up to 6,000 IU /day.  Will check out yr sites.  He also didn't recommend the MgOxide.

The modern lifestyle is so nutritionally destructive. We have a friend who has a daughter  with SMA.  Was supposed to die by 12-18 months, but she has turned 17 and is finishing high school.  The diet is strict vegan but they know what they're doing and they are all healthy.  A "normal" diet would kill her.

Cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2010)

The barmy vitamin munchers are as deleterious to a vibrant Australia as the greens, basket weavers and weather pseudoscientists.

If you are not indigenous, live on the Eastern coat of Australia or Perth and environs, you have buckleys of being deficient in anything, vitamins, Vit D, et al

All this concentration on nutrition is a substitute for religion, and its purveyors resemble priests more than scientists.

Wake up to yourselves, fish, get a veggie garden, bake, cook and stew, kill a beast now and then, r00t and don't worry about all this data, as it is not validated.

gg


----------



## roland (21 December 2010)

This is quite an unattractive site, but has good info on vitamins and minerals contained in foods and RDI's

http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data5d.html

Re: Magnesium, looking at where you can get this element from, naturally, one wonders why you would need to supplement.???


----------



## roland (21 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The barmy vitamin munchers are as deleterious to a vibrant Australia as the greens, basket weavers and weather pseudoscientists.
> 
> If you are not indigenous, live on the Eastern coat of Australia or Perth and environs, you have buckleys of being deficient in anything, vitamins, Vit D, et al
> 
> ...




Seems like that is not correct GG:



> Vitamin D deficiency in adults
> 
> Devina Joshi, Bone and Calcium Registrar, 1, 2 Jacqueline R Center, Associate Professor of Medicine (Conjoint), 3 Staff Endocrinologist1 and Senior Research Fellow, 2 and John A Eisman, Professor of Medicine (Conjoint), 3 Staff Endocrinologist 1 and Director 2
> 
> ...





Read more: http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/33/4/103/6


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

roland said:


> This is quite an unattractive site, but has good info on vitamins and minerals contained in foods and RDI's
> 
> http://www.healthyeatingclub.org/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data5d.html
> 
> Re: Magnesium, looking at where you can get this element from, naturally, one wonders why you would need to supplement.???




What is the RDI for Vitamin D ?
Should we accept that ?

http://www.mgwater.com



> Magnesium requirements are underestimated. This is due to: (1) the misconception that the daily requirement is the amount that prevents signs and symptoms of severe deficiency or hypomagnesemia; (2) the difficulties in assaying cellular Mg, plasma Mg being a poor index of body status; (3) the maintenance of Mg-balance at suboptimal intakes and tissue levels; and (4) the increased needs caused by growth, development, repair, stress, dietary imbalances, and environmental factors.





If we accept the RDI

American Data is not too good in any case
I expect Australian data similar



> The latest survey of magnesium (Mg) intakes of Americans (NHANES) indicates the majority of Americans have Mg intakes below the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) in all age and race groups tested. In fact, the daily intakes were: 70 mg/day less than recommended in Caucasian men; 130 mg/day less in African American men; 60 mg/day less in Caucasian women; and 120 mg/day less than recommended in African American women. (The RDA is 320 mg/day for women and 420 mg/day for men.) Also, one statistic””called the standard error of the mean””was quite low. For example, +/- 6 for Caucasian men, raising the possibility that the vast majority of Americans are Mg deficient.




http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/



> VITAMIN D'S CO-FACTORSVitamin D has co-factors that the body needs in order to utilize vitamin D properly. They are:
> magnesium
> zinc
> vitamin K2
> ...




It probably is not needed if you have a very good diet ( I think  I do )
But it is the most important Vit D co factor ( much more important than Calcium supplementation )

The levels in the diet of "Early Man" like Vit D would  have been high esp compared to calcium ( 1 to 1 ratio ).. And I also have to rely on soft rainwater for drinking water.



> High Mg foods were probably staples of Paleolithic man.




Seems also to have so many health benefits 



> Magnesium (Mg) is the forgotten mineral, an "orphan," as Professor Robert Heaney of Creighton University says. It is the fourth most abundant mineral in the body, for it is involved in more than 300 biochemical reactions. All the enzymes that metabolize Vitamin D require Mg. It is also required in each of the steps concerned with replication, transcription, and translation of genetic information, and thus it is also needed for the genetic mechanism of action of Vitamin D.
> 
> Besides these two reviews, any scientist interested in Vitamin D and the immune system should read Interactions between magnesium and vitamin D: possible implications in the immune system.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## roland (21 December 2010)

motorway said:


> It probably is not needed if you have a very good diet ( I think  I do )
> But it is the most important Vit D co factor ( much more important than Calcium supplementation )
> 
> Motorway




Sounds like you probably don't need a chemist's lab to solve a magnesium deficiency you most likely don't have.

Vitamin D I can understand, other elements and nutrition inputs should always be attempted with improving your diet, I mean - even a few brazil nuts sounds like a much better solution to buying a pill.

Also you must keep alert to what else is contained in the supplement. I chose not to use Blackmores D because of the sulphites they use as a preservative.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 December 2010)

roland said:


> Seems like that is not correct GG:




Please provide some peer reviewed proof.

gg


----------



## roland (21 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please provide some peer reviewed proof.
> 
> gg




Motorway is a peer right now, and he swears by it. I'll immerse myself and will provide a further peer review in due course. That is of course, GG, if you will accept Motorway and myself as peers??


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

roland said:


> Sounds like you probably don't need a chemist's lab to solve a magnesium deficiency you most likely don't have.
> 
> Vitamin D I can understand, other elements and nutrition inputs should always be attempted with improving your diet, I mean - even a few brazil nuts sounds like a much better solution to buying a pill.
> 
> Also you must keep alert to what else is contained in the supplement. I chose not to use Blackmores D because of the sulphites they use as a preservative.




Basically agree Roland

Vitamin D I see  as different ...If we want optimum health we really need to supplement ..
After that a good diet will do it
We don't need C & E and Calcium etc ..

With sufficient Vitamin D... things will work as they should
eg calcium will be absorbed and regulated..

Still take long chain omega 3s
in the form of molecular distilled  oil from small cold water wild fish

But that is about it..

magnesium don't really disagree with you
but atm supplement with it
and feeling very well
with the Vit D Omega 3 and Mg
and good diet


Have seen the results show up  in Blood tests with omega 3
So sticking with that...

certainly not a huge supplementation program  


Motorway


----------



## Julia (21 December 2010)

roland said:


> Motorway is a peer right now, and he swears by it. I'll immerse myself and will provide a further peer review in due course. That is of course, GG, if you will accept Motorway and myself as peers??




Somehow I suspect that anonymous posters on a stock forum may not have been what gg had in mind when he requested peer reviewed data.

gg, I wouldn't hold your breath.  The vitamin/health food industry is not exactly known for its scientifically controlled double blind studies.

I'm not suggesting that Vit D isn't indeed useful, but I'd be looking for qualified medical advice before rushing out to buy and gulp down what someone anonymous on the internet tells me is the right thing to do.

Motorway, the above is not intended as being disrespectful to you personally, but is made as a general cautionary comment.


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please provide some peer reviewed proof.
> 
> gg




Aust Fam Physician. 2004 Mar;33(3):133-8.
Vitamin D in Australia. Issues and recommendations.
Nowson CA, Diamond TH, Pasco JA, Mason RS, Sambrook PN, Eisman JA.
School of Health Sciences, Deakin University, Victoria.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A significant number of Australians and people from specific groups within the community are suffering from vitamin D deficiency. It is no longer acceptable to assume that all people in Australia receive adequate vitamin D from casual exposure to sunlight.


Motorway


----------



## roland (21 December 2010)

motorway said:


> Basically agree Roland
> 
> Vitamin D I see  as different ...If we want optimum health we really need to supplement ..
> After that a good diet will do it
> ...




Sounds sensible, I grow 90% of my vegies and supplement my soil with my own compost from known inputs and add trace elements. I do take fish oil and CoQ10 and now Vitamin D - thanks to you!

Trying to guess what you are missing, nutritionally, is a tough call. Common sense is a good regulator.


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Somehow I suspect that anonymous posters on a stock forum may not have been what gg had in mind when he requested peer reviewed data.
> 
> gg, I wouldn't hold your breath.  The vitamin/health food industry is not exactly known for its scientifically controlled double blind studies.
> 
> ...




Plenty of Double Blind Random trials with Vitamin D

Work your way through here

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research.shtml
These will link to Journal Articles

I do not think I have posted one link to
The vitamin Industry
Just to the leading Scientists in the Field

If one did sneak in I apologize




For GG

Med J Aust. 2005 Mar 21;182(6):281-5.
Vitamin D and adult bone health in Australia and New Zealand: a position statement.
Working Group of the Australian and New Zealand Bone and Mineral Society; Endocrine Society of Australia; Osteoporosis Australia.
Comment in:
Med J Aust. 2005 Jul 4;183(1):52; author reply 53-4.
Med J Aust. 2005 Jul 4;183(1):52-3; author reply 53-4.
Abstract
A significant number of Australians are deficient in vitamin D--it is a fallacy that Australians receive adequate vitamin D from casual exposure to sunlight. 

Motorway


----------



## motorway (21 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Somehow I suspect that anonymous posters on a stock forum may not have been what gg had in mind when he requested peer reviewed data.
> 
> gg, I wouldn't hold your breath.  The vitamin/health food industry is not exactly known for its scientifically controlled double blind studies.
> 
> ...




For Julia

J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 11. [Epub ahead of print]
Vitamin D Decreases Risk of Breast Cancer in Premenopausal Women of Normal Weight in Subtropical Taiwan.
Lee MS, Huang YC, Wahlqvist ML, Wu TY, Chou YC, Wu MH, Yu JC, Sun CA.
School of Public Health, National Defense Medical Center.
Abstract
Background: Evidence for an association between vitamin D status and breast cancer is now more convincing, but is uncertain in subtropical areas like Taiwan. This hospital-based case-control study examined the relationship of breast cancer with vitamin D intake and sunlight exposure.


Methods: A* total of 200 incident breast cancer cases in a Taipei hospital were matched with 200 controls by date of interview and menopausal status. Information on risk factors for breast cancer was collected in face-to-face interviews and assessed with reference to vitamin D intake (foods and nutrients) and sunlight exposure. Vitamin D intake was divided into quartiles, and threshold effect was evaluated by comparing Q2-Q4 with Q1.*

Results: After controlling for age, education, parity, hormone replacement therapy, body mass index (BMI), energy intake, menopausal status, and daily sunlight exposure, *the risk of breast cancer in participants with a dietary vitamin D intake greater than 5  µg per day was significantly lower (odds ratio [OR], 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.97) than that of participants with an intake less than 2  µg per day.*

 In analysis stratified by menopausal status and BMI, both dietary vitamin D and total vitamin D intakes were associated with a protective effect among premenopausal women.

 There was a significant linear trend for breast cancer risk and dietary vitamin D intake in premenopausal women (P = 0.02). In participants with a BMI lower than 24 kg/m(2) (ie, normal weight), dietary vitamin D intake was inversely related to breast cancer risk (P for trend = 0.002), and a threshold effect was apparent (Q2-Q4 vs Q1: OR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.23-0.90).

*Conclusions: Vitamin D had a protective effect against breast cancer in premenopausal women of normal weight in subtropical Taiwan, especially an intake greater than 5  µg per day.*


----------



## roland (22 December 2010)

There are quite a few contrarian articles that are worth noting, here is one to have a read through: http://www.examiner.com/nutrition-i...thyl-iodide-pesticide-on-california-s-produce


----------



## motorway (22 December 2010)

roland said:


> There are quite a few contrarian articles that are worth noting, here is one to have a read through: http://www.examiner.com/nutrition-i...thyl-iodide-pesticide-on-california-s-produce




Which is the negative one ??

The first one if you search for the actual paper states

THURSDAY, Dec. 3 (HealthDay News) -- New research points to the possibility of a genetic link between vitamin D and heart disease.

People with high blood pressure who had a gene variant *that reduces vitamin D activation in the body were found to be twice as likely as those without the variant to have congestive heart failure, the study found.*

The other states


Researchers at Johns Hopkins are reporting what is believed to be the first conclusive evidence in men that the long-term ill effects of vitamin D deficiency are amplified by lower levels of the key sex hormone estrogen, but not testosterone. 


The third again found lower D the problem

In an age-stratified random sample of 200 Rochester, Minnesota women, the prevalence of aortic calcification rose with aging, as did the prevalence of vertebral fractures, while bone mass fell. The statistically significant positive association of aortic calcification with vertebral fractures and the negative associations with bone mass at six skeletal sites were mainly accounted for by age. After age-adjustment, the only association remaining was a negative one between calcified aortic plaques and bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine (P < 0.05). Aortic calcification was not associated with any measures of calcium metabolism, after adjusting for age, except for a slight *negative association* between linear aortic calcifications and 25(OH) vitamin D levels (P < 0.05). BMD values of the lumbar spine were somewhat greater than predicted for age in women with severe aortic calcification, but similar findings were seen at other skeletal sites and none of the differences was statistically significant. While overestimation of bone mass was generally minimal, severe aortic calcification may distort lumbar spine assessments in a minority of postmenopausal women.

I see three studies that found D deficiency the problem ?

many of these studies are studies on people with very low D levels
I have not seen one study that found negative or null effects
That did not have a major flaw ( some just ridiculous)

here is a better study on calcification one that used a useful levels of D


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19092644

The below open study by Dr. William Davis and colleagues studied 45 adults with evidence of calcified coronary arteries, treating them with high-dose statins, niacin, fish oil (not cod liver oil) capsules, and enough vitamin D (average of about 4,000 IU/day) to obtain 25(OH)D levels of 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L). They found that regimen reduced coronary calcium scores in 20 patients and slowed progression in 22 additional patients. That is, it reversed the coronary calcification process in about half of patients and slowed its progression in most of the rest.  

  Most studies have shown high-dose statins on their own do not reverse coronary arthrosclerosis, so we know it was not the statins alone.

 What would vitamin D levels of 70 ng/mL (175 nmol/L) do? So, if you have coronary artery disease: ask your cardiologist about statins and niacin, take 5–10 fish oil capsules per day, and least 5,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.


Motorway


----------



## motorway (22 December 2010)

Julia said:


> I'm not suggesting that Vit D isn't indeed useful, but I'd be looking for qualified medical advice before rushing out to buy and gulp down what someone anonymous on the internet tells me is the right thing to do.
> 
> Motorway, the above is not intended as being disrespectful to you personally, but is made as a general cautionary comment.




Had an appointment with Doctor
Asked about Vitamin D

Yes wonderful
great for bones . heart . diabetes falls fractures
Cholesterol

Told me all the elderly are deficient
told many young girls are deficient ( no SUN lots of makeup )

Said she had many patients who would be better of on D  than the handfuls of prescriptions they came in with ( from other doctors )

But She had never bought Vitamin D up==>* I did*..
Also said many patients coulld not care less
Just wanted prescriptions and nothing else

They would not take effort to 
work on Lifestyle ( vitamin D being key part )

So I agree 
Seek good medical advice
But be pro active

Do not wait for the Doctor to take initiative on lifestyle issues

You wait in a waiting room for over an hour
and get 8 mins to get a prescription !
It is not ideal health promoting model

The patient I was with was an 81 year old woman

Who had been taking 2000 iu a day for three months
So after talk with Doctor ( This was her long time Doctor )
She ordered all usual blood tests
and for the first time a Vitamin D test

3 mths on 2000iu a day the level came back at 80nmol/L

*Goodness knows what it was before the three months at 2000iu a day
*
And all the usual Blood tests ? 
AMAZING

Doctor said the HDL/LDL ratio and triglycerides were the best of any patient ( many of these were on Statins as well ..This patient was not)

Diabetes tests showed marked improvement
first time in over 10 years NORMAL

Blood presure
was excellent
She noted improved strength and balance

OK ask the Doctor I agree
But Make sure the agenda is optimizing HEALTH and not just
treating the Diseases
*I doubt the Vit D issues would have ever been addressed
*Just more prescriptions to treat Disease

But I do agree with you 100%
and see no disrespect etc

Motorway

PS If people do bring it up with Doctors it would be interesting  to see response
Arm yourselves with some basic info

These two sites are not for profits
and primary resources on all things Vid D

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

both have active Facebook activity ( Be more choosy about accepting postings here )

The agenda is 



> The Daction project is an international public health project to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic.
> 
> The major components of the project are
> 
> ...


----------



## motorway (22 December 2010)

Julia said:


> The vitamin/health food industry is not exactly known for its scientifically controlled double blind studies.





When you think about it Vit D will do no favors to the Vitamin/supplement industry

or the Pharmaceutical industry... it will put them all out of business

because everything changes when people are Vit D sufficient

The majority  ( imvho ) will just not NEED xyz & Z

My position is that if you do not make sure your loved ones are D sufficient

YOU really do not love them  ( again imvho   )

Here are two later and must see vids

Vit D is such a moving field
that the number of studies just in the last 12 mths 
are enormous

 



and then




Motorway


----------



## prawn_86 (22 December 2010)

Do you work for a co that sells Vitamin D motorway? 

Seriously though i have always thought a light tan is healthy


----------



## motorway (22 December 2010)

prawn_86 said:


> Do you work for a co that sells Vitamin D motorway?
> 
> Seriously though i have always thought a light tan is healthy




No Prawn ( and I realize your joking )

I have seen what difference this makes in me and several others
In one case 
life long psoriasis ------GONE

Others just amazing

So just sharing with the ASF community

I luvs yual allll 

as always 
DYOR

with lots of love 
Motorway


----------



## motorway (27 December 2010)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=another-reason-vitamin-d-is-importa-2010-03-07



> Vitamin D deficiency has been linked to a rapidly expanding inventory of ailments””including heart disease, cancer and the common cold. A new discovery demonstrates how the vitamin plays a major role in keeping the body healthy in the first place, by allowing the immune system's T cells to start doing their jobs.
> 
> In order for T cells to become active members of the body's immune system, they must transition from so-called "naive" T cells into either killer cells or helper cells (which are charged with "remembering" specific invaders). And, if ample vitamin D is not around, the T cells do not make that crucial transition, a group of researchers led by Carsten Geisler, head of the Department of International Health, Immunology and Microbiology at the University of Copenhagen, found. They draw this conclusion based on their experiments with isolated naÃ¯ve human T cells.
> 
> "When a T cell is exposed to a foreign pathogen, it extends a signaling device of 'antenna' known as a vitamin D receptor, with which it searches for vitamin D," Geisler said in a prepared statement.* If there is an inadequate vitamin D level, he noted, "they won't even begin to mobilize."*





Heany's quote is key to  understanding Vitamin D.



> Vitamin D is  "THE KEY THAT UNLOCKS THE DNA LIBRARY"






> It turns genes on and off at a dizzying rate.




The T cell Discovery reveals again Vitamin D in action

Before  cells act they seek out vitamin D..

Such quotes as this start to make sense



> *Vitamin D truly is the center of the universe.*
> ~ Dr. Russell Chesney, professor and chairman of pediatrics at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis.




Motorway


----------



## motorway (27 December 2010)

Question earlier in the thread about

Higher latitudes Vitamin D and Health...

What has changed is DIET

The Inuit (primal Diets ) and Original Tasmanians
( Seafood is only real good source of Vitamin D.. esp SEALS )
Did not have Vitamin D problems or need such pale white skins

Even so our genes still "think" they are in the Tropics
and need both adequate and stable vitamin D levels

Vitamin D is used once and then more is needed
It seems Every Time a cell needs to do something
It looks for Vitamin D



http://www.vitamind3uk.com/VitaminD_Scotland_deficiency.html




> *The citizens of Scotland have a very poor health record and a life expectancy that is one of the lowest in the Western world.* This poor health record holds true for all social classes.  It is now known that living in Scotland also results in extreme Vitamin D deficiency due to chronic lack of sunlight. (164) While deficiency in the UK is widespread the situation in Scotland is worse than for the rest of the country.
> 
> Scotland receives 30-50% less ultraviolet radiation (UVB) from the sun than the rest of the UK due to its high latitude and persistent low cloud cover. Vitamin D levels are consistently found to be even lower in Scotland than the rest of the UK. (168)(165)(166) (167)
> 
> ...






http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5663483.ece



> Multiple sclerosis could be prevented through daily vitamin D supplements, scientists told The Times last night.
> 
> The first causal link has been established between the “sunshine vitamin” and a gene that increases the risk of MS, *raising the possibility that the debilitating auto-immune disease could be eradicated.  *






> The incidence of MS in Scotland is one of the highest in the world where as many as 1:300 people suffer from the disease. This is a least twice the rate seen farther south in England. (110) Scotland is exposed to at least 50% less UV radiation than Southern regions of the UK, resulting in significantly lower Vitamin D levels.





http://www.shineonscotland.org.uk/



Motorway


----------



## Julia (27 December 2010)

Motorway, to therefore deduce that Scotland's poor health record is purely attributable to lack of Vit D is surely stretching a very long bow?

When we are passionate about something, we find it easy to attribute what is correlation to causality when they are actually not at all interchangeable.

Def: 







> CORRELATION AND CAUSATION
> Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.
> 
> by Martyn Shuttleworth (2008)
> ...




It may well be that the lack of Vit D does contribute to reduced overall good health, but the suggestion that the two factors imply causality is superficial and unrealistic.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 December 2010)

motorway said:


> Question earlier in the thread about
> 
> Higher latitudes Vitamin D and Health...
> 
> ...





Show us some evidence mate instead of wooly headed dreamtime assumptions.

gg


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Show us some evidence mate instead of wooly headed dreamtime assumptions.
> 
> gg





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19197344

PLoS Genet. 2009 Feb;5(2):e1000369. Epub 2009 Feb 6.
*Expression of the multiple sclerosis-associated MHC class II Allele HLA-DRB1*1501 is regulated by vitamin D.*
Ramagopalan SV, Maugeri NJ, Handunnetthi L, Lincoln MR, Orton SM, Dyment DA, Deluca GC, Herrera BM, Chao MJ, Sadovnick AD, Ebers GC, Knight JC.
Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex trait in which allelic variation in the MHC class II region exerts the single strongest effect on genetic risk. Epidemiological data in MS provide strong evidence that environmental factors act at a population level to influence the unusual geographical distribution of this disease. Growing evidence implicates sunlight or vitamin D as a key environmental factor in aetiology. We hypothesised that this environmental candidate might interact with inherited factors and sought responsive regulatory elements in the MHC class II region. Sequence analysis localised a single MHC vitamin D response element (VDRE) to the promoter region of HLA-DRB1. 

Sequencing of this promoter in greater than 1,000 chromosomes from HLA-DRB1 homozygotes showed absolute conservation of this putative VDRE on HLA-DRB1*15 haplotypes. In contrast, there was striking variation among non-MS-associated haplotypes. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays showed specific recruitment of vitamin D receptor to the VDRE in the HLA-DRB1*15 promoter, confirmed by chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments using lymphoblastoid cells homozygous for HLA-DRB1*15. Transient transfection using a luciferase reporter assay showed a functional role for this VDRE. B cells transiently transfected with the HLA-DRB1*15 gene promoter showed increased expression on stimulation with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (P = 0.002) that was lost both on deletion of the VDRE or with the homologous "VDRE" sequence found in non-MS-associated HLA-DRB1 haplotypes. Flow cytometric analysis showed a specific increase in the cell surface expression of HLA-DRB1 upon addition of vitamin D only in HLA-DRB1*15 bearing lymphoblastoid cells. *This study further implicates vitamin D as a strong environmental candidate in MS by demonstrating direct functional interaction with the major locus determining genetic susceptibility.

 These findings support a connection between the main epidemiological and genetic features of this disease with major practical implications for studies of disease mechanism and prevention.*

Not for me to prove anything
anyone interested will look into this  

For example Julia how far through the research links are you ?
and Garpal is this Study Proof

I mean 
This Study
States 

That 1)  Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a complex trait in which allelic variation in the MHC class II region exerts the single strongest effect on genetic risk

And 2) That IT IS  







> * is regulated by vitamin D*.




The T cell research above is that Proof ?

I can only guess you did not listen to the last Heany vid
where he details some of the Random Control Trials
Mentions many others . And explains the importance of the epidemiology evidence


Again Heany in that Vid goes through the mechanism

I apologize But you are missing the point of the Thread

It is a summary of some of the exciting findings
That anyone *Interested* can pursue..

yes ,Julia , Your point is addressed in the literature,




> You are saying that eg cancer causes low vitamin D levels, not the other way around. The problem is that Professor Joanne Lappe directly disproved that theory in a randomized controlled trial when she found that baseline vitamin D levels were strong and independent predictors of who would get cancer in the future. The lower your levels, the higher the risk. Furthermore, increasing baseline levels from 31 to 38 ng/ml (77.5 to 95 nmol/L) reduced incident cancers by more than 60% over a four year period. Therefore, advising patients to become vitamin D deficient,  will cause some patients to die from cancer.




But you should have seen that already ?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697

Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91.
Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial.
Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.
Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68131, USA. jmlappe@creighton.edu
Erratum in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):794.
Comment in:
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Dec;86(6):1804-5; author reply 1805-6.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Nov;86(5):1549; author reply 1549-50.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):792-3; author reply 793-4.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):792; author reply 793-4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.
DESIGN: *This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence.* The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.

RESULTS: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively.

 When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.

CONCLUSIONS: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.
------------------------------------------


I really do not see the point of your comments.
WHAT IS PROOF

If it is Not Random Controll Trialls + Intervention Studies + Observational Studies
and test tube Science all pointing in the same Direction ?

Either you have not read anything or you have a level of evidence above what Science
Requires ?

Everyone who is interested
DYOR
This is just a bringing to attention thread

Those not interested -- Ignore .

Others plenty of feedback and discussion by all means
but Do some research
before you say something like there is no Proof
or at least define what you mean..


Motorway


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

“Our research has married two key pieces of the puzzle. The interaction of vitamin D with the gene is very specific and it seems most unlikely to be a coincidence of any kind.”

If it was one disease well it would be nice
But it is many ( maybe all ) and the evidence in several others is even much stronger.

Garpal .. I see nothing woolly here  *  Our research has married two key pieces of the puzzle *

Julia ... They _are _talking about *Causation*

 a shortage of the “sunshine vitamin” is established as a factor

With Other diseases the RCTs  are already In in any case..


And has stated in the HEANY VID
Vit D regulates many genes ( *GARPAL  you could not have listened to it ?*

 Julia ? 

So there is likey to be many other mechanisms identified
and not just the one...



> It turns genes on and off at a dizzying rate.





Motorway




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5663483.ece



> A five-year research project by Oliver Gillie, a scientist and writer, demonstrates extensive and remarkable parallels between Scotland’s dull weather and indices of disease.
> 
> It suggests that the “Scottish effect”, the country’s hitherto unexplained high mortality rate compared with other industrial countries, is in large part down to lack of sun. Crucially, a shortage of the “sunshine vitamin” is established as a factor in higher rates of multiple sclerosis (MS), diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, several types of cancer, cardiovascular disease and other ailments that together give Scotland one of the worst health records and highest premature mortality rates in Western Europe.
> 
> ...







> I think it offers the potential for treatment which might prevent MS in the future,” Professor Ebers said.
> 
> *“Our research has married two key pieces of the puzzle. The interaction of vitamin D with the gene is very specific and it seems most unlikely to be a coincidence of any kind.”*
> 
> ...


----------



## Julia (28 December 2010)

Motorway, the ABC's Radio National, in "The Health Report", broadcast Monday mornings and evenings, had an interesting discussion today on many so called randomised controlled trials.  It is enlightening.

I happen to have a background in the area, and am only too aware of some of the very dodgy 'science' that is presented.

And no, I'm not going to spend hours trawling through dozens of links.

If I were to consider taking exogenous Vit D I would be discussing it with my doctor.


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

As you should

I would not tell anyone to do anything else




> And no, I'm not going to spend hours trawling through dozens of links.





ahhh !  I see now .

Motorway


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

> Motorway, to therefore deduce that Scotland's poor health record is purely attributable to lack of Vit D is surely stretching a very long bow?




Yes I agree seeing you have not read any of the material !
You would need a very long BOW indeed !


Motorway


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

Julia said:


> Motorway, the ABC's Radio National, in "The Health Report", broadcast Monday mornings and evenings, had an interesting discussion today on many so called randomised controlled trials.  It is enlightening.
> 
> I happen to have a background in the area, and am only too aware of some of the very dodgy 'science' that is presented.
> 
> ...




You mean the one about India ?
and a small mention of some pharmaceutical RCT's

what is the relevance ?

If you had looked at any of the material I think you would have to say NONE ?



> I happen to have a background in the area




Find that hard to believe
How can you comment with Authority about something without reading the material first ?
That does sound like the research in India mentioned in the Heath Report.
What I believe Garpal would call Woolly .


http://www.abc.net.au/rn/healthreport/stories/2010/3077627.htm



> Australians don't realise that many of the medications they'll be consuming in the future will have been trialled in India. The reasons drug companies are going there are that it's cheap and ethical controls are weak or non-existent. Indian researchers are sounding warnings. Also, an eminent statistician talks about problems in reporting of medical trials.




1) We are not talking about a Pharmaceutical that anyone can PATENT
and make lot's of $$$ ( nothing to be gained from fudging )
2) I do not think any of the studies are from India

I mean is Nebraska in India for example ?



> The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of *Nebraska* centered at latitude 41.4 degrees N. Subjects were *randomly* assigned to receive 1400-1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.




If it is another Health matters
appreciate the Link

I *will *read it ! 

Motorway


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2010)

The sewers of the developed world are awash with vitamins excreted by the worried well, who keep large national and multinational snake oil vitamin companies in business. 

I believe that excess vitamin D has affected the Great Barrier Reef and led to the Crown of Thorns infestation. 

As regards the Scottish nation, they drink to excess, are brainless to let a Libyan mass murderer free for a litre of fuel, fight at football matches and queue to watch a foreign monarch attend church every Christmas in inclement weather. 

They need more than Vitamin D mate. 

gg


----------



## Julia (28 December 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The sewers of the developed world are awash with vitamins excreted by the worried well, who keep large national and multinational snake oil vitamin companies in business.
> 
> I believe that excess vitamin D has affected the Great Barrier Reef and led to the Crown of Thorns infestation.
> 
> ...


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

Fine GG 

Julia  







> It may well be that the lack of Vit D does contribute to reduced overall good health, but the suggestion that the two factors imply causality is superficial and unrealistic.




I think your inquiry into the subject is superficial and hence Your comments unrealistic.

If you read the Health Matters link
This is near the bottom



> Doug Altman: Well if we're thinking of randomised clinical trials in particular evaluating new treatments in terms of methodology the most crucial aspect of a randomised trial is the way in which it's decided which patient receives which treatment and that should be done using a random process.
> 
> So one would look for reassurance in the journal article that this was done in an accepted method. But often we find in a ridiculous proportion, maybe three quarters of publications they just don't say how they did it. They say oh, we randomised but there's no detail, we're being asked to take it on trust that these people did what they say they did.
> 
> And I'd like to do that but we know when we look at some publications where they've used the term randomised we know sometimes the detail shows that they didn't actually do it properly. In terms of the results what we're hoping to see is that the researchers had pre-specified what they were most interested in looking at and that they had then analysed that and reported that.




If you look at the trials on Vitamin D

They are either Government Studies like the 







> National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is a division of the United States federal agency the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). As such, NCHS is under the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Its headquarters is located at University Town Center in Hyattsville, Maryland, near Washington, D.C.




Or They are from leading Research Universities  

eg   Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

eg Department of International Health, Immunology and Microbiology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Just the two mentioned above

They are not trying to get to market some dubious drug to make a fast buck
I doubt very much if these type of Studies are what Altman is talking about.

Anyone providing proof that Vitamin D is important... Will 
not profit from the research.
Because there are NO PATENTS....

But his comments are useful in a warning to beware Vitamin D analogues that some Pharmaceutical Companies are trying to Develop ) And Patent ...

The example of Tamiflu is pertinent ( In the Health Matters ) considering
The research on Vitamin D and Influenza


Here is a link to what began  the Scottish initiative 
It is dated 2008... The research has already moved on.

http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/scotland.pdf

This thread hasn't really touched on many of the intriguing connections
Between Vitamin D and Health

As Heany stated in the Vid ( the one I posted ) it is not possible to have conflicts of interest in this field .....

Motorway


----------



## Julia (28 December 2010)

motorway said:


> If you look at the trials on Vitamin D
> 
> They are either Government Studies like the
> 
> ...



Motorway, I don't have sufficient interest in this topic, certainly insufficient to match your messianic zeal about it, to be bothered arguing.

However, you seem unaware that before merging with Glaxo Smith Kline, Burroughs Wellcome was one of the world's largest and most successful pharmaceutical companies.

If you think universities, particularly in these cash strapped days, are not prepared to add their name to pharmaceutical company inspired research, you are naive.

And your comments do not address the remarks you have quoted from "The Health Report".

There is absolutely no guarantee that because some research says it was done under the auspices of a university or government (!) it will have enjoyed proper protocols.

I read an interesting book a few months ago, the title and author of which, regrettably I have now forgotten.

He made the absolutely simple suggestion that ALL clinical trials when commenced should be entered on an international register, with all the protocols clearly outlined before commencement, so that there is absolute transparency about the final results.

A favourite trick of the drug companies is to institute multiple trials but to simply bury those which do not produce an outcome favourable to what they are trying to represent.

If they were forced to report all findings, it would eliminate much of the sort of misrepresentation that occurs.

This is a generic suggestion and not necessarily related to Vit D.

I'd suggest not being gullible enough to think that because no patent applies to a substance, drug companies are ipso facto not interested.  There are infinite possibilities for them, e.g. combining Vit D with a bone building compound such as occurs in Fosamax Plus.

Pharmaceutical companies deal in billions.  They are not altruistically disposed.
If they are putting money into any sort of research, ethical or dodgy, you can be sure they are anticipating eventually reaping back their investment many times over.


----------



## motorway (28 December 2010)

> Motorway, I don't have sufficient interest in this topic, certainly insufficient to match your messianic zeal about it, to be bothered arguing.





I think that is a fitting closure to the thread
At least for my part


Motorway


----------



## roland (28 December 2010)

> Low Vitamin D in Newborns Linked to Wheezing
> Study Shows Link Between Low Levels of Vitamin D in Cord Blood and Respiratory Infection Risk
> By Katrina Woznicki
> WebMD Health News
> ...




from: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20101227/low-vitamin-d-in-newborns-linked-to-wheezing


----------



## tech/a (29 December 2010)

> I read an interesting book a few months ago, the title and author of which, regrettably I have now forgotten.




"Dealing with Alzheimer's"
By
Dr Who?

Sorry Julia had to do it!


----------



## Broadway (29 December 2010)

Nice post Julia.
The drug companies will throw 'out there' all kinds of 'advantages' to products, proven or not, until everyone 'believes' they should be on it - 'just in case'.
This is how the entire vitamin industry works. And it does work for them.

Let me give you guys a hint - IT'S ALL BS.

Anecdotal stories of benefit of xyz do not come close to representing truth.
You can go through your entire life without any supplements. Just eat normally.
Cavemen did it for 100000+ years.(antibiotics and hygeine and clean water extend life expectancy-not vitamins)
eg. Centrum - 'Are you feeling 100% today?'
Nobody ever feels 100% - its not in human nature to feel 100%.
'Hence we all need vitamins.' 
Same goes for 'fish oil' - alot of elderly take this. Nothing proven.
Same goes for 'glucosamine' - there is NO proven benefit for glucosamine, no effect on cartilage at all.
In fact it has been disproven.
Same goes for viagara, the american middle age male population now believe they cant have sex without it. And pfizer think its their constitutional right to advertise it.
Same for echinacea and colds - not proven. Vit C and colds - not proven.
And so on.
My point is, that vitamin D is the next big thing we should all be taking, according to drug companies.
Roland if you read that article further it says - 'the findings do not establish cause and effect'. Links (such as vitamin D to wheezing in newborns) should not be interpreted as truth, although to the uneducated the difference is minimal. And how can it 'therefore' be good for adults?

Vitamin D is an important chemical, no doubt. It's involved in alot of cellular functions, but our body automatically handles it. Has been for 100,000+ years.

And there are likely a half a billion elderly people on this planet who are deficient in vitamin D, but are leading normal lives and will do so till they die. And they will never know the difference. Just because a level of vit D is called - deficient - does not mean it needs a treatment.

The entire supplement industry could fall into a black hole, and NOTHING would change.
Now go for a 5 minute walk in the sun, its a nice day.


----------



## tech/a (29 December 2010)

I tend to agree Broadway.
There was a time when I was firmly a believer of "Natural therapies"
While I still believe an holistic approach is best and all in moderation,I am now firmly in Julia and Your court.

A very good friend of mine owned a health food store.
At 50 she was amazing--looked late 30s.
Was a feak with health from juicing to exercise to avoiding pesticides---you name it!
At 53 diagnosed with breast cancer and needed a small lump of around the size of a thumb nail removed.
She declared that she would beat the cancer naturally.
My exact words to her were that she was gambling a very high price--her life.
2 yrs later she died. Would still be alive today had she had the initial lump removed.

Of the 8 people I know who have been diagnosed with terminal cancer only one is surviving and he did not go down the "natural' therapies road.
All the others did.


----------



## Julia (29 December 2010)

tech/a said:


> "Dealing with Alzheimer's"
> By
> Dr Who?
> 
> Sorry Julia had to do it!




Tech-A, given my absent mindedness, you might be closer to the truth than you think!


tech/a said:


> I tend to agree Broadway.
> There was a time when I was firmly a believer of "Natural therapies"
> While I still believe an holistic approach is best and all in moderation,I am now firmly in Julia and Your court.
> 
> ...



 This reminds me of someone who was diagnosed with one of the leukaemias.  The oncologist told him if he didn't have aggressive treatment his outlook was dismal.

So he reluctantly agreed, having been firmly told that his preference for the 'natural approach' was a waste of time.

During the several weeks of the treatment he also pretty much fasted, ate nothing cooked, lots of raw juice etc.

Eventually he was pronounced cured, but seemed to think it was largely his 'natural' cure and his positive attitude that had been more influential in his recovery than the medical care.

Certainly mistakes are made in conventional medicine, but I've just never understood the unswerving belief that some people have that anything that is taken via a doctor's prescription is less 'healthy/beneficial' than something they buy in a health food store.  Do they just not know that most of these substances are not tested for efficacy?

Agree absolutely with Broadway that the vitamin and general health food industry has done a massively successful sales job.


----------



## IB12 (29 December 2010)

Went for a swim today, got a substantial dose of vitamin D. 
Especially by the looks of my tan.


----------



## tech/a (29 December 2010)

> Tech-A, given my absent mindedness, you might be closer to the truth than you think!




Nah your pretty sharp!

Is there a Merc in the garage for Xmas??
And a pair of goggles for Rover?


----------



## pointr (3 January 2011)

I have a paramedical background and am skeptical of the 'complimentary medicine industry' to a large degree. It used to be called alternative, but could not demonstrate that it was an alternative in randomised double blind trials. However I am a bit of a believer in VitaminD, but I dont need to buy it in Australia. One of the constant 'funny' themes of South Park and The Simpsons is the way the adults over react. We have over reacted to sun damage to a point where people don't get any exposure. VitaminD is on the discharge regime for the elderly in NSW as prophylaxis against osteoporosis, my brother in law is visiting a dermatologist for UVB treatment for psoriasis. There is increasing literature coming out in support of Vitamin D but I'll try and get mine from the sun, not a bottle.
A good little read rubbishing the complementary / alternative health industry is called "Snake oil and Other Remedies" written by an English journo(smoker), dying of throat cancer. Cant recall his name. 
Good health to all on the forum in 2011, I'd hope and pray


----------



## motorway (4 January 2011)

Some Important Problems in the last post imo ( hence the post )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed


How to optimize vitamin D supplementation to prevent cancer



> The question of what makes an 'optimal' vitamin D intake is usually equivalent to, 'what serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] do we need to stay above to minimize risk of disease?'. *This is a simplistic question that ignores the evidence that fluctuating concentrations of 25(OH)D may in themselves be a problem, even if concentrations do exceed a minimum desirable level. *







> I propose that delay in cellular adaptation, or lag time, in response to fluctuating 25(OH)D concentrations can explain why higher 25(OH)D in regions at high latitude or with low environmental ultraviolet light can be associated with the greater risks reported for prostate and pancreatic cancers.
> 
> At temperate latitudes, higher summertime 25(OH)D levels are followed by sharper declines in 25(OH)D, causing inappropriately low 1-hydroxylase and high 24-hydroxylase, resulting in tissue 1,25(OH)2D below its ideal set-point.
> 
> This hypothesis can answer concerns raised by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer about vitamin D and cancer risk.* It also explains why higher 25(OH)D concentrations are not good if they fluctuate, and that desirable 25(OH)D concentrations are ones that are both high and stable. *





eg  




> Global breast cancer seasonality.
> Oh EY, Ansell C, Nawaz H, Yang CH, Wood PA, Hrushesky WJ.
> Medical Chronobiological Laboratory, Dorn Research Institute, WJB Dorn VA Medical Center, School of Medicine and School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 6439 Garners Ferry Road, Columbia, SC 29209, USA.
> 
> ...




And Particular Nasty

"Triple-negative breast cancer is the most aggressive and hardest to treat form of the disease, as it is unresponsive to all the most effective drugs. The researchers found that it was eight times more common in women with vitamin D deficiency than in those with adequate levels of the vitamin."


And another



> Cases J. 2009 Jul 21;2:8390.
> Triple negative breast cancer patients presenting with low serum vitamin D levels: a case series.
> Rainville C, Khan Y, Tisman G.
> A Medical Corporation 13025 Bailey Street, Suite A, Whittier, CA 90601 USA.
> ...





Optimal is not what you have heard that is just necessary for  bones..
That is just 15% if "all the other tanks are full "..


*AND  Optimal is not just higher levels  BUT ALSO STABLE .
*

Also Skin as it ages  gets thiner and significantly loses the ability to make Vitamin D... Which is what will protect you from the SUN as well

Vitamin D is not the same as any other Vitamin or Nutrient
None of them are derived from Sunlight

And the earlier posted pivotal Studies
are NOT funded by "DRUG COMPANIES" or Vitamin PILL MERCHANTS



> As well as being a well-known risk factor for rickets, there is a growing body of evidence that vitamin D deficiency also increases an individual's susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), rheumatoid arthritis and type 1 diabetes, as well as certain cancers and even dementia.
> 
> The University of Oxford researchers have now shown the extent to which vitamin D interacts with our DNA.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## motorway (4 January 2011)

Here as a typical chart of seasonal variation in Vit D
( Northern Hemisphere )

Some points

*The key point is that 25(OH)D level, ideally, needs to be kept high and stable. 
*

The average 25(OH)D in this example is between 30nmol/l and 75nmol  at these low levels, a greater faster rise in 25(OH)D occurs when given full body sun exposure. 

Someone who has been supplementing  and has a level above 150 nmol/l  will be above this vulnerable zone. 

"When your body is fully charged with vitamin D it simply doesn't make as much vitamin D when given unlimited extra sun exposure. "

"It is vitamin D starved bodies that make the most vitamin D when fully exposed to sunlight. So it's these people who experience a greater rise in vitamin D level and a longer period of disregulation of the proliferative and anti-proliferative forces."



> Vieth produces evidence that this increased risk is related to widely fluctuating levels 25(OH)D in those who rely on summer sun exposure for their Vitamin D.
> 
> The latency of the intracellular enzymes that activate and destroy vitamin D explains why Vitamin D should be obtained on a regular basis and not in periodic high doses. When 25(OH)D levels fall abruptly, like in the autumn in countries far from the equator, the enzyme that makes activated Vitamin D inside the cell is still set on low and the enzyme that destroys activated Vitamin D is still set on high and it takes several weeks or even months to fully reset.




So if you want to enjoy some SUN
*get your Vitamin D levels Adequate and Stable First
* for many reasons imo  

How safe is supplementation ?



> The point Vieth makes in the first paper is that any sudden change in level (either up or down) is potentially harmful, as it allows a period of imbalance between the pro and anti proliferative controls.
> 
> Those people regularly taking  D3 daily will not experience ANY change in status as their level will always be at the maximum their body stabilizes.




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364661

"Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D."

"It generally takes prolonged (many months) intake of more than 40,000iu/daily before levels above 375nmol/l are reached and the possibility of adverse events is significant. Indeed it may be that 500nmol/l is the level where adverse events are recorded."


T







> he lack of vitamin D toxicity with megadose of daily ergocalciferol (D2) therapy: a case report and literature review.
> Stephenson DW, Peiris AN.
> Department of Endocrinology, Mountain Home VAMC, Mountain Home, TN , USA.
> Abstract
> ...





Where I have arrived is to take 7000iu of D3  Everyday
and Enjoy the Sun when I can as well..

Young Healthy Skin can make maybe as much as 50000iu a day
in the middle of the Day on a Tropical Beach..

So 7000iu  ?

DYOR  
and Answer the question in a way that is best for you..

Is there any good reason to be Vitamin D deficient ? 



Motorway


----------



## Broadway (4 January 2011)

motorway said:


> *The key point is that 25(OH)D level, ideally, needs to be kept high and stable.
> *
> 
> 
> ...




What evidence do you have for this statement.
How have humans been able to survive in all climates for thousands of years.
What if a varying vit D level is normal. What if we cope just fine with varying vit d levels.
And just because something is safe does not mean we should all be taking it.
Vit D is safe, thats not an issue.
But thats not a reason to take it.

*There is no proven reason to take vitamin D supplementation.*
Not even osteoporosis and bone fractures have been proven to be reduced by taking extra vitamin D.
There must be statistical proof before making any recommendations for any members of the public regarding any medicines or supplements.
Im sure people remember Thalidomide.
Where's the studies? Associations and links do not make for treatment.

btw, im a big fan of wychoff.


----------



## motorway (4 January 2011)

Broadway said:


> What evidence do you have for this statement.
> How have humans been able to survive in all climates for thousands of years.
> What if a varying vit D level is normal. What if we cope just fine with varying vit d levels.
> And just because something is safe does not mean we should all be taking it.
> ...




Hi Broadway  .. There is a series of vids posted earlier by Reinhold Vieth
That explains the issue of why stable levels are optimum

*It relates to how the Genome Evolved and under what conditions
*

That sets up how the Body manages Vitamin D ( Not evolved to deal with Fluctuation )
In that series is also the Richard Doll RCT Study
which compares the mortilty  curves for Smoking with Low D and Hip Fracture.

That it is in  that series that was why I posted it.
And of course that is already outdated by later research



REINHOLD VIETH PhDProfessor
Departments of Nutritional Sciences,  Laboratory Medicine, 
and Pathobiology
University of Toronto
Director, Bone and Mineral Laboratory
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Mount Sinai Hospital600 University Avenue
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1X5
Phone: +1.416.586.5920
Fax: +1.416.586.8628
E-mail: rvieth@mtsinai.on.ca

click here for his research

Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=author:"R+Vieth"&btnG=Search

PubMed:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&db=PubMed&term=vieth+r[au]


Just put Vitamin D into PUBMED
along with anything you are interested in

eg

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219962

Randomized trial of vitamin D supplementation to prevent seasonal influenza A in schoolchildren.


Also I know how I feel
and How others close to me have been effected..

I have seen the Blood Tests
I have also Seen the changes in other metabolic measurements




> Not even osteoporosis and bone fractures have been proven to be reduced by taking extra vitamin D.




Have you searched this in Pubmed ?

Give it a Try

Or were the trials in the second Heany Vid not convincing either ?

*13 osteoporosis & Fractures 
5 Falls
*
*RCTs level one evidence
*
*30 RCTs mentioned in that Vid
*


The only thing Drug companies are doing are trying to come up with 
synthetic Vitamin D analogues that  they can Patent ..

I wonder why ?

Motorway


----------



## Whiskers (4 January 2011)

I saw a TV program a few days ago called "Skin Deep". Unfortunately I missed the start but I gathered it was mainly about a couple of prof's reserching the genome of Neanderthal man to determine if he was more black or white and the evolutionary effect of the genome in relation to skin colour. Apparently they found some skeletel remains in Spain and extracted some DNA... and reckon he was more whiteish than previously thought. 

But Vitamin D came up quite often in terms of the genetic makeup and how different cultures obtained their Vitamin D, ie some cannot absorb enough through the skin and exposure to sunlight alone.

If I recall correctly a bit of a side issue from their research is the increasing rate of cosmopolitan blending of cultures and the genitic mix of the new generations that is not idealy suited to their new enviornment, lifestyle and diet, that Vitamin D uptake in particular (and some other nutrient issues) is regulated by your genetic makeup but people tend to incorrectly think one size fits all in terms of requirements. Black people have particular health issues in western society because they don't get enough Vitamin D because of higher Melanin levels and genetically adversely predisposed to 'western food'. 

Black skin Americans apparently have higher rates of diabetes, hypertension,  osteoporosis, some types of cancer and memory loss because they are very deficient in Vitamin D. I don't recall atm how they said the blacks got a better balance in their native enviornment.

The point that struck a cord with me is that your genitic makeup determines your nutritional requirements and how you perform in a particular enviornment, or as motorwar says, how the Genome Evolved and under what conditions.

From my earlier involvement in Plant Breeding programs with hybridisation varitiey selection and tissue culture trials, I was involved with inbreding varities that were then selectively crossed ( hybridised) and saw some quite extreme differences in performance, both growth rate and size, quality and quanity of fruit, ie how they metabalised the same set of nutrients, differently. 

I can even claim credit for going against the norm in the 1990's of assuming that one nutrition program fits all varities of a particular fruit and doing my own research via soil and sap analysis to identify that one variety that was written off as a poor performer actually performed better than the norm if the Nitrogen application rate was substantially reduced and Phosphate and Potasssium and their associated trace elements were increased. While I was a registered Plant Breeder at the time, I didn't renew my registration, but I later convinced the main plant breeder in the industry to produce the particular hybrid and tweek the nutrient program accordingly in his advisories to growers and it has since become one of the main varities in the industry.

The siginificant point I can relate to is that when you start substantially meddling with the genome, in the Vitamin D issue in particular, via the  Natural Hybridisation of people across cultures you have to expect some very different nutritional requirements to crop up with the aesthetics.

Many people also probably don't know how the so called 'Ideal' or recommended levels are arrived at. Best quess, trial and error.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2011)

Motorway:   Vit D is fat soluble.  It can therefore be stored in the body, unlike e.g. Vit C which will simply be excreted via the kidneys if excess is taken.

Given your promotion of people taking this vitamin, could you please comment on Vit D toxicity.


----------



## motorway (4 January 2011)

After You have watched the Vids
and read Vieths paper on toxicity ( That says almost everything you need to know . I would have thought ? )

If you need to..

Read this page

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Then This page

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDPhysiology.shtml

Then This

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

To at least get some background..




> Given your promotion of people taking this vitamin, could you please comment on Vit D toxicity




I have 

No promotion
*Information 
*

Vitamin D  is something interesting to find out about
Could be very important
But People have to make the decisions for themselves
it is a fascinating topic.

*I am sharing
*I take it you do not supplement with Vitamin D
have you ever had you levels checked ?

How about sharing something ?

Julia ,you have to do the reading and Study.. If you have an interest ( You do not have to   )

It does not work that I can do that for you..

CALCITRIOL (1,25(OH)2D3 OR 1,25D3) We are Not talking About this

Or this  CALCIDIOL (25(OH)D3 OR 25D3)

*But This  CHOLECALCIFEROL (VITAMIN D3)*

This is not a Hormone
This is Not a pre Hormone

What did you make of Vieths comments on this in his Vid Series ?
I though he was pretty clear ???

*Those vids were for the General Public, after all.
*

*It does not work That I can watch the Vids for you or do the reading.
*

You tell me something interesting about Toxicity !
There are some interesting cases maybe you have a few ?

eg
The woman who tried to murder her Husband with pure Vitamin D Crystals
She swapped it for the sugar in the house... He and her Son took
massive doses over a long period.. Did not work !

And This



> CHOLECALCIFEROL, NOT ERGOCALCIFEROL, IS SAFE
> 
> Although there are documented cases of pharmacological overdoses from ergocalciferol, the only documented case of pharmacological””not industrial””toxicity from cholecalciferol we could find in the literature was intoxication from an over-the-counter supplement called Prolongevity.
> 
> On closer inspection, it seemed more like an industrial accident but it was interesting because it gave us some idea of the safety of cholecalciferol. The capsules consumed contained up to 430 times the amount of cholecalciferol contained on the label (2,000 IU). *The man had been taking between 156,000–2,604,000 IU of cholecalciferol a day (equivalent to between 390–6,500 of the 400 unit capsules) for two years. He recovered uneventfully after proper diagnosis, treatment with steroids, and sunscreen. *





yes Vit D can be stored But I have already posted the blood levels required  inorder
to meet immediate needs and those needed to leave some over for storage
and That was in an optimally healthy body.. How did you miss that ?

I suspect as you said you are not really interested.

I am sure when there is a subject we are both interested in we can have a great discussion ..

Whiskers You bring up a key point
So does Broadway

But I think he missed it 

Motorway


----------



## motorway (4 January 2011)

This is a good one
I look forward to your informed comments Julia

http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/VitDVieth/Vit_D_Sugar_Poisoning.pdf



> the patient and his father had
> consumed more than 1·3 g of vitamin D3 per month, or
> 42 000  µg/day *(1 700 000 IU/day*), in vast excess of the
> minimal toxic level (95  g, 3800 IU per day),
> *for 7 months*.






> All known poisonings of adults with vitamin D3 reflect
> misuse on an industrial scale. Huge excesses of vitamin
> D3 have been added in error to milk, or to a food supplement.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## roland (5 January 2011)

*Vitamin D deficiencies linked to onset of autoimmune lung disease*



> Vitamin D deficiency could be linked to the development and severity of certain autoimmune lung diseases, according to a new study.
> 
> Brent Kinder, MD, UC Health pulmonologist, director of the Interstitial Lung Disease Center at the University of Cincinnati and lead investigator on the study, says vitamin D deficiencies have been found to affect the development of other autoimmune diseases, like lupus and type 1 diabetes.




from: http://www.sify.com/news/vitamin-d-...g-disease-news-international-lberahhieei.html


----------



## motorway (5 January 2011)

Here is a nice description relating to Toxicty using Vitamin A as a guide


From Dr John Cannell 



> The key is having the proper ratio of vitamin D to vitamin A in your body. To obtain this proper D/A ratio, you must make a choice. (1) Either obtain the D/A ratio Nature intended””that is, the ratio the human genome evolved on””or (2) assume one knows better and intervene in a closed system, bypass the controls in the intestine, and inject active A directly into your blood by taking vitamin A or cod liver oil.
> 
> Vitamin A production is tightly controlled in the body, the source (substrate) being carotenoids from vegetables in your intestine. The body uses these carotenoid substrates to make exactly the right amount of retinol for your body. That is, it is a closed, tightly regulated, system, one designed to perfection by Nature.
> 
> ...






* Vitamin D cholecalciferol is a substrate like carotenoids
*
 As long as your vitamin D (cholecalciferol) dose is not excessive, you are not intervening in a closed system, you are simply providing the vitamin D substrate.

 The body, if and when it has enough vitamin D substrate, will use what it needs and dispose of, or store, the rest.


cholecalciferol = D3

Posted this in another Thread..



And just on Vitamin A

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/05/24/study-many-sunscreens-may-be-accelerating-cancer/



> WASHINGTON (May 24) -- Almost half of the 500 most popular sunscreen products may actually increase the speed at which malignant cells develop and spread skin cancer because they contain vitamin A or its derivatives, according to an evaluation of those products released today.
> 
> AOL News also has learned through documents and interviews that the Food and Drug Administration has known of the potential danger for as long as a decade without alerting the public, which the FDA denies.
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## Happy (5 January 2011)

Might have to check my levels.

Doctor might not be too happy, as he tests for me quite a few things already


----------



## motorway (5 January 2011)

Happy said:


> Might have to check my levels.
> 
> Doctor might not be too happy, as he tests for me quite a few things already




Testing is a VERY GOOD idea...The Vit D test has not been available for that long (Only a  few years I think )

Doctor should not care.. And you then have a real basis to work from..

we do not get around without out clothes anymore 
We do not hunt and gather fresh game and fish Daily..

You will have seen the TV ads against any SUN exposure

So Many  live in a Vitamin D vacuum  

We work  9 to 5 etc
We avoid mid day sun ( when we can make Vitamin D )



Why governments are selling Vitamin D short ( Though things are changing and the trials are flowing )
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/11180df8-beaa-11de-b4ab-00144feab49a.html#axzz1A8KS9x98




> In the 1950s and 1960s, when American and other dietary guidelines first specified vitamin D intakes of up to 400 IU for adults, nobody understood that vitamin D could do anything other than regulate calcium. And since 200 IU is enough to prevent rickets in children – assuming they have at least a moderate amount of calcium in their diet – it was assumed that 200 IU was sufficient. It was only in the following decades, as scientists came to understand how vitamin D works in our bodies, that the picture changed.




Whiskers this was your point !



The purpose of this thread is to raise some awareness
because Vitamin D is different
to all the other supplements ...

On recent blood tests I have seen the normal range was stated as 50 to 150
( but believe other labs have higher range )


People who do get full sun exposure year round ( lifeguards )

have higher levels..

But even the middle of  the accepted range is a big improvement on even recent
recommendations..  And where many people will be at..

Motorway


----------



## motorway (6 January 2011)

> If you have only a small amount of D in your body, it will all be used by the kidneys to produce calcitriol and maintain blood calcium levels. But when there is more vitamin D available, something very different happens. As scientists have discovered in recent decades, it’s not only the kidneys that can make calcitriol from the calcidiol produced in the liver. *Many tissues throughout the body can as well. These tissues use the hormone locally, within the cells, to regulate their behaviour.*
> 
> “Calcidiol is like a blank piece of paper,” Vieth explains. “And calcitriol is like the message written on to it. Calcitriol is needed by our bodies to convey many kinds of messages, and virtually every cell in our body has a receptor that can read and respond to it.”
> 
> The first real evidence for the cancer-fighting properties of vitamin D emerged in the early 1980s, when researchers found that if they added calcitriol to immature malignant leukaemia cells, the cells would stop growing. They could only guess why this was, but scientists have since shown that vitamin D interacts with an unusually large number of genes and has the apparent ability to turn them on and off.





We see this here is this Study Published: December 14, 2010


Vitamin D Induction of the Human Antimicrobial Peptide Cathelicidin in the Urinary Bladder

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0015580




> Study details
> 
> The Stockholm-based scientists analyzed vitamin D blood levels in 22 postmenopausal and six premenopausal Swedish women. An additional eight women with a median age of 62 were recruited to participate in a supplementation trial (2000 units per day of D3 for 12 weeks).
> 
> ...






"Determining the vitamin D status of individuals with a history of UTI may be of importance to evaluate their ability to fend off intruding bacteria. 

Supplementation to restore proper vitamin D levels may therefore help preparing the bladder epithelium to mount a stronger and faster immune response once bacteria enter the bladder."



OK if there is a Vit D 3 deficiency... these Cathelicidins are not going to be expressed
as they should..

refer to the first Short Vid in this Thread by Dr Cannell

 and Also the second Heany Vid... 


Dr Cannell on what does it take to have a "FULL TANK"



> In a recent study, Heaney, et al expanded on Bruce Hollis's seminal work by analyzing five studies in which both the parent compound (cholecalciferol) and 25(OH)D levels were measured. They found that the body does not reliably begin storing cholecalciferol in fat and muscle tissue until 25(OH)D levels get above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L).
> 
> The average person starts to store cholecalciferol at 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L), but at 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) virtually everyone begins to store it for future use.
> 
> ...





Motorway

PS I have not seen  much Sun lately

JUST   RAIN RAIN AND MORE RAIN


----------



## Happy (8 January 2011)

Are there any symptoms when level of Vitamin D is too low?

(Sorry if it was mentioned already, must have missed it)


----------



## motorway (8 January 2011)

motorway said:


> Maybe not a lot until the wheels fall off
> 
> Vitamin D allows the intelligence in the DNA Library inside each cell to be unlocked
> (It has only been recently been realized what the entire Blueprint of the genome is doing inside each and every cell )
> ...




From Mister Mark 



> Thank you for the info. The reason i asked the question is we live on the east coast and my wife recently had a blood test and was for the first time diagnosed with low vitamin D
> She has worked in a large shopping centre for 4 years now, previously a lot more time was spent outdoors.
> In this time she has experienced more colds and gets fatigued much more easily and has just come down with a bad dose of broncitis, symptoms we atributed to being in air condiyioning and getting older, interesting to read this info.
> Thank you





Name Anything  and very likely  Vitamin D will be involved...


 Mayo Clinic Study Suggests Those Who Have Chronic Pain May Need to Assess Vitamin D Status



As Reinhold Vieth stated in the last video

Feeling BETTER...


"*'HOW MUCH VITAMIN D SHOULD I TAKE?*

Again, we don't know. This is a difficult question because it relies on so many personal factors. Everyone's situation is either a lot, or at least a little, different. How much vitamin D you need varies with age, body weight, percent of body fat, latitude, skin coloration, season of the year, use of sunblock, individual variation in sun exposure, and””probably””how ill you are.

 As a general rule, old people need more than young people, big people need more that little people, heavier people need more than skinny people, northern people need more than southern people, dark-skinned people need more than fair-skinned people, winter people need more than summer people, sunblock lovers need more than sunblock haters, sun-phobes need more than sun worshipers, and ill people may need more than well people.Quite a few factors are involved, as you can see. However, don't feel bad, no one understands it. Vitamin D is used by the body””metabolically cleared””both to maintain wellness and to treat disease. 

If you get an infection, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the infection? If you have cancer, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the cancer? If you have heart disease, how much vitamin D does your body use up fighting the heart disease? If you are a child with autism, how much vitamin D does your brain need to turn on the genes that autism has turned off? If you are an athlete, how much vitamin D does your body use to make you stronger and quicker? Nobody knows the answer to these questions."




> Professor Robert Heaney of Creighton University just discovered that if you take 2,200 IU of vitamin D every day, you only have about 12 days supply of vitamin D in your bodyI love Robert Heaney's papers. In a previous paper, Dr. Heaney discovered that at blood levels of 35 ng/mL (87.5 nmol/L), a large number of people are using up their vitamin D as quickly as they take it.
> 
> That is, they are not storing any for future use and suffer from chronic substrate starvation. Obviously, one wants to take enough so the body has all it can use, which is why I recommend 25(OH)D levels of at least 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L).
> 
> ...





"*That is, they are not storing any for future use and suffer from chronic substrate starvation. Obviously, one wants to take enough so the body has all it can use, which is why I  ( John CANNELL ) recommend 25(OH)D levels of at least 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L). *"


Happy.. It is about being and feeling how we should
              ...

*Look at the Study on urinary Tract infection
*With Vitamin D ... The messages with the correct information get sent
and the immune system mobilizes.....
etc

Motorway


----------



## motorway (8 January 2011)

Some more on Toxicity for Julia  



> Can we overdose?
> 
> One of the debates surrounding vitamin D is whether too much can be toxic. The US’s Institute of Medicine’s recommendations – unchanged since 1997 – were influenced in part by a 1984 study concluding that 3,800 IU of vitamin D per day could cause hypercalcemia, or too much calcium in the blood. Symptoms include kidney stones, vomiting and muscle atrophy.
> 
> ...




So Do Your OWN Research...  


Modern Lifestyles can be and often are. Far removed from what the Genome is adapted to deal with..


*In this thread that is Vitamin D levels
*

Think of
Shift Workers, office  workers
SUN avoidance,,, disrupted Sleep patterns... A long list  

And perversely an unhealthy SUN exposure ( when it does occur )

Genes are switched on and OFF
GENES are not FATE
They interact with Environment...
Genes are expressed



> The expression of genes in an organism can be influenced by the environment, including the external world in which the organism is located or develops, as well as the organism's internal world, which includes such factors as its hormones and metabolism. One major internal environmental influence that affects gene expression is gender, as is the case with sex-influenced and sex-limited traits.
> 
> Similarly, drugs, chemicals, temperature, and light are among the external environmental factors that can determine which genes are turned on and off, thereby influencing the way an organism develops and functions.






And  interesting issue is the different  effects   of UVB versus UVA radiation..

This connects to the earlier... abstract on Melanoma and office workers.

You do not need to use a SUNBED to get too much UVA
and miss out on UVB...

Motorway

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19968819




> Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2010 Feb;23(1):57-63. Epub 2009 Dec 2.
> UVA tanning is involved in the increased incidence of skin cancers in fair-skinned young women.
> 
> Coelho SG, Hearing VJ.
> ...


----------



## motorway (9 January 2011)

less than 1% of UV Radiation is UVB..

It only reaches the ground when the Sun is overheard..

UVA always reaches the Ground and makes up 99% of UV Radiation

UVB causes SUNBURN and does not penetrate deep into the SKIN
UVB creates Vitamin D when it interacts with the Skin..

UVA degrades and destroys Vitamin D in the SKIN...
and penetrates Deep into the SKIN 

SUN SCREENS were Originally created to stop SUNBURN
and allow longer SUN EXPOSURE



> Ultraviolet A (UVA): wavelength 315–400 nm. UVA penetrates deep into the skin and can cause damage like wrinkles and discolouration. UVA's intensity is more constant than UVB, as it does not vary with time of day or year. No UVA is blocked by the ozone layer nor is it filtered by glass.
> 
> Sunscreen lotions do not protect against UVA unless they are wide-spectrum.
> ( My comment ==>and used as they are recommended .. Thick and Often )
> ...




Ok on that basis these slides should be interesting..

and that is what I am posting them for
Not to promote sun exposure,, But for important information relating to Vitamin D

If  I said buy heaps of XYZ ltd
You would DYOR

same here 


Motorway


----------



## motorway (15 January 2011)

At what time should one go out in the sun?  ( For Vitamin D ! )

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18348449



> research shows that to get an optimal vitamin D supplement from the sun at a minimal risk of getting cutaneous malignant melanoma (CMM), the best time of sun exposure is noon.
> 
> That means that common health recommendations given by authorities in many countries -- that sun exposure should be avoided for three to five hours around noon and postponed to the afternoon --
> 
> ...




http://www.metamedicine.nl/when-should-you-go-out-in-the-sun


So not so easy to get optimal maybe from the sun

Also ,, Studies of Surfers that Show Low D




> Do you shower with soap after you sunbathe? If so, you may be washing off the vitamin D-containing body oils (sebum); . Also, remember what I said about solar noon? In Michigan, even in the summer, the sun is not high enough up in the sky to make much vitamin D, except for one or two hours on each side of solar noon. *While it is true that your shadow must be shorter than you are to make vitamin D, the shorter the shadow the more the D, and the relationship is not linear.*
> 
> That is, you really want the sun high up in the sky. Air pollution also reduces UVB. For you, simply shirtless will not do it; you need full body exposure.
> The Vitamin D Council





http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21177785 very interesting study

http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Research/Vitamin-D3-87-percent-more-potent-than-D2-Study




> Scientists led by Robert Heaney, MD, from Creighton University in Nebraska supplemented 33 health adults with 50,000 International Units (IU) of either vitamin D2 or D3 per week for 12 weeks. Results showed that about 17 percent of the D3 ingested was stored by the subjects, and the rest was consumed or metabolized or both.
> 
> “This is a daily utilization rate of about 6500 IU at a [blood vitamin D] concentration of 50 ng/ml at the end of treatment,” write the researchers. Optimal levels of vitamin D are considered to be between 50–80 ng/mL.
> 
> “At the doses used in this study, most vitamin D is metabolically consumed. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to have quantified this issue,” added Dr Heaney and his co-workers."





* “At the doses used in this study, most vitamin D is metabolically consumed. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to have quantified this issue,” added Dr Heaney and his co-workers." *

D2 is a patented form of vitamin D ... ( Those companies Julia has warned about )

D3 is the natural and very cheap non patentable form of Vitamin D

But the Bold is what caught my eye ...


Motorway


----------



## poverty (15 January 2011)

Started reading this thread but ended up skipping the last few pages.

Motorway if Vit-D was an ASX code you would be shut down for ramping by now 

It has spiked my interest tho.  Just a question, one of the products you linked were some kind of drops that you put in water and then drink.  Do these have to be added to water or is beer ok?  Do I need to mail order in these fancy brands or will just ordinary Vit-D tablets from the nearest WOW supermarket do the trick?  Will loading up on Vit-D make up for my additional supplement of 15 beers/day?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 January 2011)

poverty said:


> Started reading this thread but ended up skipping the last few pages.
> 
> Motorway if Vit-D was an ASX code you would be shut down for ramping by now
> 
> It has spiked my interest tho.  Just a question, one of the products you linked were some kind of drops that you put in water and then drink.  Do these have to be added to water or is beer ok?  Do I need to mail order in these fancy brands or will just ordinary Vit-D tablets from the nearest WOW supermarket do the trick?  Will loading up on Vit-D make up for my additional supplement of 15 beers/day?




I showed this thread to my DVA doctor whose a whiz at nutters, and he reckons its OCD.

Obsession Compulsion Disorder. 

I looked it up on a Freud site, and they said it was due to not being breast fed.

Motorway mate, were you or were you not breastfed, and if so, for how long?

gg


----------



## motorway (16 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I showed this thread to my DVA doctor whose a whiz at nutters, and he reckons its OCD.
> 
> Obsession Compulsion Disorder.
> 
> ...




A good question regarding Vitamin D 

Expectant Mothers... And Hopeful Fathers ( healthy sperm )
The Studies suggest Vitamin D could be very important




> Investigators also looked at the effects of vitamin D supplementation on complications during pregnancy, including preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, infections, and preterm labor and birth.
> 
> "The spectacular part of the study was it showed women replete in vitamin D had lower rates of preterm labor and preterm birth, and lower rates of infection," Dr. Wagner said.




Also .. Studies on Child Development  

eg Autism



> Obsession Compulsion Disorder.



 ?   GG..There are research papers regarding Vitamin D and Mental Health,, Depression... Schizophrenia etc

*Hell ,,Maybe even an excessive sense of humor syndrome  
*


.....


Poverty

Vitamin D is certainly linked to the LIVER in a major way
on one hand it is connected to up regulating the master anti oxidant ==>

GlutathioneThe body's master antioxidant (synthesized mainly in the liver but also in the brain) that protects cells from toxins such as free radicals. Glutathione also acts as a chelating (binding) agent to remove heavy metals from the brain and body.




> Dr. Cannell:
> Does taking a vitamin D-3 supplement of 5,000 IU per day affect liver functions tests such ALT, AST, bilirubin, etc.? I have non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and my liver tests are now normal, the first time in ten years. Could it be the vitamin D?
> Megan,
> Florida
> ...




*BUT poverty you also need a healthy LIVER to utilize Vitamin D
*


> Will loading up on Vit-D make up for my additional supplement of 15 beers/day?




 I would not try it. ( Drinking that much or of beer ( fruit based wines ciders and brandies for Me .. And I can not give medical advice 

I can say what I am doing and share the info..


Some studies suggest that Oil caps or emulsions are better than dry powder tablets
and taking with a larger meal is better than an empty stomach..


I certainly found those drops effective in raising blood levels
But moved on because of cost and convenience

Motorway


----------



## tech/a (9 February 2011)

Had blood tests for issues (all OK) so decided to get vitamin "D" checked.
The normal range is 60-160 whatever's and mine was/is 84.
So on the lower end of acceptable levels.

Ill keep taking my drops a little more regularly.
Has given me indigestion before bed!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 February 2011)

tech/a said:


> Had blood tests for issues (all OK) so decided to get vitamin "D" checked.
> The normal range is 60-160 whatever's and mine was/is 84.
> So on the lower end of acceptable levels.
> 
> ...




Obviously not a technical analyst.

gg


----------



## motorway (10 February 2011)

tech/a said:


> Had blood tests for issues (all OK) so decided to get vitamin "D" checked.
> The normal range is 60-160 whatever's and mine was/is 84.
> So on the lower end of acceptable levels.
> 
> ...




Tech
Have read in some small studies that best to take with or after food
( best with the largest meal of the day )

I take mine usually with Breakfest

Also there is strong suggestion that if you have low Magnesium 
You can be a bit sensitive to the D supplement

 I am  still taking Magnesium using Magnesium Malate now( find if better than the Citrate )
seems very absorbable..

The normal range is still based on history of what was needed to avoid rickets and then osteoporosis..D was for bone Health

Papers Daily seem to be coming out about D in all aspects of Health

recently some Australian research that made the headlines

I look to keep My level around 150
If you believe the research is right you want all your tanks full
Not just enough for bone health

Goes without saying DYOR 

Interesting what your level would have been without the drops you had been taking.

Also it could be the base that the D is emulsified in that you could be sensitive to.
That is likely given the D content of a drop is  tiny.

The D I take ( back in the thread ) is just in a olive oil capsule

Motorway


----------



## Julia (10 February 2011)

Motorway, if you didn't hear this item on Radio National's "Breakfast" this morning, you will be interested.  Multicentre trial over several years re sunshine and MS.

The researcher said, in addition to effect of sunshine and Vit D, there is also some additional X factor which they are at this stage unable to pinpoint.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3134812.htm


----------



## motorway (10 February 2011)

Thanks Julia
I did not see that particular one.



Here is the recent news that made Headlines.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/572741/



> Previously linked to the severity of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in humans, vitamin D deficiency has now been shown to alter lung structure and function in young mice. The new study, conducted by researchers in Australia, offers the first concrete evidence linking vitamin D deficiency with deficits in lung function and altered lung structure.







> Dr. Zosky noted that although recent studies suggest that vitamin D deficiency is associated with reduced lung function, causal data confirming a relationship between vitamin D and lung function have been lacking.
> 
> “For the first time, we have demonstrated a direct role for vitamin D in causing decreased lung function in the absence of known confounders such as physical inactivity, confirming the assertion by epidemiological studies that there is a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and lung function,” Dr. Zosky said.
> 
> “The differences we observed in lung volume and lung mechanics, which were substantial and physiologically relevant, raise serious concerns regarding the increased prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in communities around the world. The results also raise concerns about the potential this deficiency may have on lung health, and in particular, the potential impact deficiency may have on the susceptibility to obstructive lung disease.”




Since I last updated the Thread
There as been continuing news of various kinds

Heart Disease
Aids
Cancer

eg

http://technorati.com/women/article/vitamin-d-shows-promise-in-the/




> Sun exposure and supplementation with the natural human form of vitamin D (D3) are essential to boost vitamin D levels, as dietary sources are scarce and unreliable. The results of a study published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention followed more than 67,000 postmenopausal women for a decade and examined degree of exposure to the sun and intake of vitamin D. Researchers found significant protection against breast cancer for those women with the most sun exposure and highest intake of vitamin D.






> Information from this study underscores the importance of establishing a high circulating level of vitamin D to lower risk from cancer. The researchers noted that there was no significant risk reduction from taking vitamin D or sun exposure independently. The combination of moderate sun exposure and low dose vitamin D supplementation was shown to lower breast cancer risk by 32%. Women with the most sun exposure and highest level of dietary intake of vitamin D experienced a 45% reduction in breast cancer incidence.





The researchers noted that there was no significant risk reduction from taking vitamin D or sun exposure independently. 

Why did they find this ?



> The referenced study found no cancer protection from taking a vitamin D supplement that provides the recommended dose of 400 IU. Additionally, cancer incidence was not affected by sun exposure alone. Combining both sources provided a degree of risk reduction that was dose dependent. Both sources were necessary to provide sufficient circulating vitamin D to demonstrate protection against breast cancer.
> 
> The revised RDA suggests that 600 IU of vitamin D will protect against disease. Unfortunately this will have no effect on cancer risk and millions will succumb to this preventable affliction. As this study confirmed, sun exposure is not a reliable source of vitamin D as our skin loses the ability to efficiently produce the vitamin as we age.
> 
> ...




That is  why !

Motorway


----------



## tech/a (10 February 2011)

> Interesting what your level would have been without the drops you had been taking.




That would be about the level as I stopped taking it when I had indigestion.
Ill take it a breakfast and see what happens
Magnesium I have taken for years great for muscle recovery and the best sleeping pill you can have.

Blood tests for other issues were fine.
Been told no problems with Osteoperosis,Colestorol 3.9 blood pressure fine.
Im just a big ball of fitness!!

Birthday tommorow---so not happy JAN.
But as my kids say---not many of their friends can ride in a 100k bike race with their Dad.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2011)

tech/a said:


> Birthday tommorow---so not happy JAN.
> But as my kids say---not many of their friends can ride in a 100k bike race with their Dad.



Best wishes for an especially happy day tomorrow, Tech, and the kind of year to follow that you would wish for yourself.

Don't dare be unhappy about another birthday in light of your healthy blood results.
You enjoy your life and all the people in it.  You simply cannot ask for more.


----------



## motorway (11 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Motorway, if you didn't hear this item on Radio National's "Breakfast" this morning, you will be interested.  Multicentre trial over several years re sunshine and MS.
> 
> The researcher said, in addition to effect of sunshine and Vit D, there is also some additional X factor which they are at this stage unable to pinpoint.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2011/3134812.htm




The X factor to likely to be more Vitamin D

Even those with Higher D in these studies often still have LOW levels of D
(Note the Breast cancer study D was so low that Sun and Supplements the little that they were , were both needed to make a dose related difference )



> and while the authors tried to show that both sun exposure and vitamin D levels influence risk of MS on their own, some experts were doubtful that this was possible.
> 
> "They may have independent roles, but the reality is it's extremely difficult to sort them out," said Alberto Ascherio, who studies the link between vitamin D and MS at the Harvard School of Public Health and was not involved in the current study.
> 
> *He noted that the authors didn't know the participants' blood levels of vitamin D over the course of their lives, and that it's possible that measuring somebody's sun exposure over the years is really just another way of measuring how much vitamin D they had at those times.*





Does Sunlight have benefit other than Vitamin D for sure

eg Melatonin in traditional Mediterranean diets

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20536683



> Compared with other industrialized countries, the lower incidence of chronic-degenerative disorders in Mediterranean populations has been emphasized in recent decades. The health-promoting effects arising from Mediterranean dietary habits have been attributed to the large intake of plant foodstuffs rich in bioactive phytochemicals, such as melatonin. Recently, it has been suggested that melatonin present in edible plants may improve human health, by virtue of its biological activities and its good bioavailability.
> 
> Plant melatonin, besides contributing to optimize the physiological functions regulated, in humans, by endogenous melatonin, may be involved in nutritional therapy to reduce the risk of cancer, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases in western populations. In this view, the presence of melatonin in some Mediterranean foods and beverages adds a new element to the hypothesis of health benefits associated to Mediterranean dietary patterns, although the available data are still preliminary and incomplete.





Melatonin is made by the pineal gland at night



> When night time rolls around, our brain's pea-sized pineal gland produces melatonin (a neurohormone) causing us to fall asleep. However, the level of secretion is greatly influenced by sunlight.




Melatonin is not just about the sleep cycle..

Disrupted sleep cycles are connected to many health problems with melatonin
a key research focus.

Light entering the eyes during the day and lights out with sunset was the evolutionary norm.

Vitamin D is the Sunshine Vitamin
Melatonin is the Night time equivalent maybe..

All studies on modern people are on people who are in the main Vitamin D deficient
So when a study says those with the higher levels did better.
It just shows how important Vitamin D is.

There are many studies linking Vitamin D to MS

Motorway


----------



## satanoperca (11 February 2011)

Interesting read and thanks for the vast amount of information Motoway. 
Conclusion, we need Vitamin D, we get it from sunlight, who would have thought. Didn't humans evolve outside built structures, ie we wondered the plans looking for food but today we live in houses, get in side enclosed cars, work in offices, maybe the simple answer is spend more time outside or drive a convertible combined with regular exercise and reduce processed foods. I just like to KISS.

Cheers


----------



## Julia (11 February 2011)

motorway said:


> The X factor to likely to be more Vitamin D




Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?

The Ass. Prof. suggested it could have to do with diet or any number of other factors which they have yet to research.  She at no stage referred to the possibility of increased Vit D.


----------



## motorway (12 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?
> 
> The Ass. Prof. suggested it could have to do with diet or any number of other factors which they have yet to research.  She at no stage referred to the possibility of increased Vit D.




There are many studies on Vitamin D

and Vitamin D  &  MS

This review made this statement



> over 70% of MS cases in
> the USA and Europe could be prevented by increasing the
> serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of adolescents
> and young adults to above 100 nmol/L




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20494325

In the Study You posted

As I said



> while the authors tried to show that both sun exposure and vitamin D levels influence risk of MS on their own, some experts were doubtful that this was possible.
> 
> "They may have independent roles, but the reality is it's extremely difficult to sort them out," said Alberto Ascherio, who studies the link between vitamin D and MS at the Harvard School of Public Health and was not involved in the current study.
> 
> *He noted that the authors didn't know the participants' blood levels of vitamin D over the course of their lives, and that it's possible that measuring somebody's sun exposure over the years is really just another way of measuring how much vitamin D they had at those times.*




They did not Know The participants Blood levels of Vitamin D over the course of their lives !

So How likely is it that it was always in the optimal range ?
All the time ?

no one can even know !

I have posted material on optimal levels.
The need for stable levels.



How many likely were taking supplements to get into what is being considered a protective level ( and not just bone health ) ?

What is your understanding of the study ?

Mine is that no one was monitored or encouraged over the study period to Take 
Vitamin D... 

If that is so it tends to be the majority of people have lower levels some just have less lower than others.




> According to a report in "Neurology," Robyn Lucas of The Australian National University and colleagues studied 216 adults who has just started having the first symptoms of MS between 2003 and 2006.
> 
> They also found a comparison group of nearly 400 people from the same regions of Australia, who matched the subjects in age and gender, but had no signs or symptoms of MS.
> 
> ...




No mention of getting people to take supplements ?

Consider the Tasmanian Study



> Australian researchers have provided important evidence about the value of maintaining a high vitamin D level for people with MS. In a prospective study as part of the Southern Tasmanian Multiple Sclerosis Longitudinal Cohort Study, published in the Annals of Neurology, they followed 145 people with MS for an average of 2.3 years.
> 
> Many of the cohort were taking vitamin D supplements, although surprisingly most of these were taking a dose below 400IU/day, and supplementation did not have a significant effect on vitamin D levels as expected.
> 
> ...








http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20695012




> We observed up to a 12% decrease in relapse risk for each 10-nmol/L increase in
> serum 25(OH)D, in line with contemporaneous work by Mowry et al32 who found an
> inverse association between higher 25(OH)D levels and risk of relapse in pediatriconset
> MS, with each 25 nmol/L increase in serum 25(OH)D reducing the subsequent
> ...





The thread has listed material on what  Vitamin D levels are optimal
and how hard it is to get to those levels without supplementation.

Also how much a Healthy body will utilize ( If it has it )

etc

Why do I think more D might be part of the X
Because of the nature of the study.

Also I pointed out that sunlight is important
with the link to melatonin.

Why is the Mediterranean Diet Healthy compared to Nothern Europe ?
Well one reason might be  they live in more sunshine. The foods they eat are grown in more sunlight ( the study above and others like it )
etc

I already pointed to Sunlight and food.  Better Day night  cycle etc as possible X

The valid reason to hold a view is the research on what happens when you get
levels higher By supplementation.

This study was not about that as far as I can see

This one was==>


http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis.org/Recovery-Program/Sunlight-and-Vitamin-D/



> In a small Canadian study presented to the American Academy of Neurology meeting in 2009, patients were given increasing doses of vitamin D to determine its safety at high dose. Apart from finding that high doses were safe (the higher dose group averaged 14,000IU per day through the study versus 1,000IU for the group treated with standard doses by their doctors), the researchers found that the higher dose group had 2/3 fewer relapses through the course of the study.
> 
> Further, measures of immune activity showed a shift in balance away from an inflammatory profile. This is very important data. The magnitude of the benefit derived from taking vitamin D supplements at high dose was roughly twice as big as the effect of taking disease-modifying drugs like the interferons; and this was in comparison to taking a conventional dose of vitamin D. Had it been compared to taking placebo, the effect would almost certainly have been even bigger. This is compelling evidence that vitamin D supplements should be routinely prescribed for people with MS, and at a substantial dose.







> Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?




Well I read what has been posted to this thread and I read the limitations of this study.

In your opinion do the Studies with supplementation give any reason to from an opinion that more Vitamin D might be part of the X ?
Esp seeing that in this study they never mention any supplementation  or measured D levels over the course of life times ?


Consider How important the Mothers D status is ? They never took that into account either ?

There are many ways more D could be the X imo 

There is some significant material on the importance of expecting mothers Vitamin D levels
( and even before that on hopeful Fathers levels . Hopeful of healthy Children ) and after birth there is only D in breast Milk if The mother has significant D herself etc.

Lots of way more D could be part of the X.



Motorway


----------



## motorway (12 February 2011)

satanoperca said:


> Interesting read and thanks for the vast amount of information Motoway.
> Conclusion, we need Vitamin D, we get it from sunlight, who would have thought. Didn't humans evolve outside built structures, ie we wondered the plans looking for food but today we live in houses, get in side enclosed cars, work in offices, maybe the simple answer is spend more time outside or drive a convertible combined with regular exercise and reduce processed foods. I just like to KISS.
> 
> Cheers




Thankyou satan

Modern life has strayed far from an optimal  natural life.
Vitamin D is an important obvious major example.

Continue to see those close to me benefit.

The thing about the adds warning people to keep totally out of the SUN
cover yourself in Sunscreen esp  No such thing as a Healthy Tan etc

Well OK But where do they warn people to be careful about Vitamin D deficiency  ?

The material in the thread suggest the last thing you want to be is D deficient.

As Gwyneth found out.. 

http://www.naturalnews.com/029750_Gwyneth_Paltrow_vitamin_D.html

and consider the link to various cancers

eg


 International Journal of Cancer
15 March 2011, Volume 128, Issue 6, pages 1414–1424



> High blood levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of colorectal cancer, according to a new meta-analysis of observational studies from an international team of researchers.
> Analysis of data from nine studies revealed that, for every 10 nanograms per milliliter increase in levels of vitamin D (25-hydroxyvitamin D) the associated risk of colorectal cancer decreased by 15 percent.





Motorway


----------



## motorway (24 February 2011)

Dr. Robert P. Heaney Interview
Anticancer Journal Article






Link to the Study

http://www.iiar-anticancer.org/openAR/journals/index.php/anticancer/article/view/215/216





> Abstract. Background: Studies indicate that intake of vitamin D in the range from 1,100 to 4,000 IU/d and a serum 25- hydroxyvitamin D concentration [25(OH)D] from 60-80 ng/ml may be needed to reduce cancer risk.
> 
> Few community-based studies allow estimation of the dose–response relationship between oral intake of vitamin D and corresponding serum 25(OH)D in the range above 1,000 IU/d. Materials and Methods: A descriptive study of serum 25(OH)D concentration and self-reported vitamin D intake in a community-based cohort (n=3,667, mean age 51.3 ±13.4 y).
> 
> ...




multiply ng/ml by 2.5 to convert to nM/L

So 40 , 60 to 80ng/ml  becomes 100 , 150 to 200nM/L

Motorway


----------



## Broadway (24 February 2011)

Personally, Im still not convinced a normal adult that gets a little sun and exercise each week needs vitamin D supplementation, until proper random controlled studies are performed. What will give you far better reduction in diseases and cancers is obesity control and avoiding cigarrettes and excessive alcohol. These are far bigger public health concerns and of far more benefit.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/the-miracle-of-vitamin-d-sound-science-or-hype/

"Although numerous studies have been promising, there are scant data from randomized clinical trials. *Little is known about what the ideal level of vitamin D really is, whether raising it can improve health*, and what potential side effects are caused by high doses.

And since most of the data on vitamin D comes from observational research, *it may be that high doses of the nutrient don’t really make people healthier*, but that healthy people simply do the sorts of things that happen to raise vitamin D.

“Correlation does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect relationship,” said Dr. JoAnn E. Manson, a Harvard professor who is chief of preventive medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“People may have high vitamin D levels because they exercise a lot and are getting ultraviolet-light exposure from exercising outdoors,” Dr. Manson said. “Or they may have high vitamin D because they are health-conscious and take supplements. But they also have a healthy diet, don’t smoke and do a lot of the other things that keep you healthy.”

Just putting forward an alternative view on this topic.


----------



## motorway (24 February 2011)

Broadway said:


> Personally, Im still not convinced a normal adult that gets a little sun and exercise each week needs vitamin D supplementation, until proper random controlled studies are performed. What will give you far better reduction in diseases and cancers is obesity control and avoiding cigarrettes and excessive alcohol. These are far bigger public health concerns and of far more benefit.
> 
> http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/the-miracle-of-vitamin-d-sound-science-or-hype/
> 
> ...






Point what is a high dose ? 

People who live and work in concrete jungles.. travel in cars . live their lives behind windows and artificial lights ? Do these people represent optimal ? Should their blood levels be considered some sought of natural healthy levels ?

People who always wear Sunscreen ?

Or should we look at the levels the Body would naturally produce if It was naked at noon in the sunshine ?

What is natural and optimal about modernity ?

Obesity  . Alzheimers , Diabetes , Cardiovascular , Cancers , ETC.

*How can a normal Physiological Dose be considered HIGH
*

Been reading studies on all the above


Your link asks  " There probably is a risk to having too much vitamin D in the system."

You bet.. But What's the baseline .  I would say What is natural , What nature produces  .. Not what is the level in a modern sick human being .Who thinks Disease at the levels existing in populations is normal..

This study's key focus was about what   doses are needed to produce  normal and what doses produce toxicity ...

I go with how I feel and with Nature 

There are so many observational studies
and RCT studies and the weight of findings tend to point one way..

Studies with Elderly do not have exercise confounding as far as I can see etc

Vitamin D seems to be involved in nearly everything you can imagine

People can think they are living healthy natural lives. But I think for many the reality is very different.. Far from nature and far from natural..

Real Food ( With vibrant color costs money unfortunately) , Fresh Air , Sunshine , Freshwater & Healthy activity levels etc.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433889

"1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 interacts with curcuminoids to stimulate amyloid-beta clearance by macrophages of Alzheimer's disease patients."

There is just so much being reported all the time

http://www.betterbones.com/blog/pos...-fracture-a-hip-are-vitamin-D-deficient-.aspx

"Such findings have led researchers to ask if vitamin D level is not the best predictor of hip fracture risk. Our research at the Center for Better Bones and the Better Bones Foundation would lead us to agree that low vitamin D should indeed be considered as a major, if not the major, risk factor for hip fracture."

I agree if I was out in the tropical sun everyday leading a "Normal" life. I maybe would not need to supplement. 

But how can people be "Normal" to that extent..

Sunshine is a whole interesting topic
Is it Friend or Foe ?

Vitamin D is also extremely cheap supplement
I can get a years supply for about $20 odd dollars.



Motorway


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 February 2011)

For all the Vitamin suckers and Homeopathic gobblers.



gg


----------



## motorway (28 February 2011)

GG homeopathy is a NONSENSE...Vitamin D is the opposite if you do beleive in KARMA
I hope it does not bite you on the bum  

Broadway .. your link is interesting ... It reveals why Vitamin D is different

All those studies on C & E & Beta carotene etc were NOT about using amounts to rectify deficiency . But were about using supra physiological doses to derive some pharmaceutical  like benefit... 

A healthy diet points to what optimal C & E Etc levels are likely to BE

Vitamin D the same.. Healthy levels = what natural SUN EXPOSURE would produce

IE NAKED AT NOON

No one would suggest that a deficiency of C & E or SELENIUM OR A== OR FOLIATE Etc
would not be serious .. WHY would D be different ?

http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/Can-vitamin-D-compete-with-bone-drugs.aspx

To take supra doses above normal natural levels of C or E or xyz is tending towards HUBRIS..

But that is NOT what the D story is about

HEALTH IS WEALTH.. AT the very least it is the FOUNDATION of ALL

We disregard nature at our peril

All those who ARE naked at NOON ( and live on the tropics ) can disregard this thread  imo 


We have hidden away from the SUN. 

It is a TOPIC of huge IMPORT...


imvvvvho


Motorway


----------



## Broadway (28 February 2011)

If I had bone problems (thinning or fractures) then I would likely take anything remotely connected to bone strength,proven or not.

But imagine you are Australia's top doctor and Ju-liar Gillard comes to you and says "Ive been reading this forum where a guy reckons vitamin D changes everything."

She goes on - "Dr. Motorway, I want you to tell me if I should be adding vitamin D to all our water and bread supplies forever?"

"Dr. Motorway, do you believe you have the evidence to make this multi-billion dollar change in all Australian's diets."


----------



## motorway (28 February 2011)

Broadway said:


> If I had bone problems (thinning or fractures) then I would likely take anything remotely connected to bone strength,proven or not.
> 
> But imagine you are Australia's top doctor and Ju-liar Gillard comes to you and says "Ive been reading this forum where a guy reckons vitamin D changes everything."
> 
> ...



 and again 

Vitamin D is as cheap as chips so where is this multi Billions ?

And EVERYONE should do their OWN research
and discuss with their OWN DOCTORS

I am amazed when people do and what levels are found  when tests are done !

THE thread is a JUST  a PURE INFO share ... 

Can you name any other nutrient that is a must have. That comes form UVB sunlight ?

Yet people in modern life are Hidding and hidden away from UVB sunlight.

Of course I think this SERIOUS ... and have found it to be SO

People have to work out what it might mean for their health and what to do about it.

CERTAINLY DISCUSS WITH YOUR DOCTOR..

The Vitamin D receptor is found throughout your genome !
What happens when there is no Vitamin D to bind to ?

Everyones call 

As I said I have seen the results of supplementing
In Myself and connected loved ones..

Literally people JUMPING out of their SKINS !

So just sharing this
it is nothing like Vitamin C or E etc  imo !

It is out on its own imvho..

My advice 

GET TESTED

read the cutting edge studies
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY

Do not take MY word for ANYTHING 



Motorway


----------



## motorway (2 March 2011)

Broadway said:


> If I had bone problems (thinning or fractures) then I would likely take anything remotely connected to bone strength,proven or not.
> 
> But imagine you are Australia's top doctor and Ju-liar Gillard comes to you and says "Ive been reading this forum where a guy reckons vitamin D changes everything."
> 
> ...




I would be different to you I would tend to use things with the most proven efficacy. 
Esp if those things were natural must haves..



> The vitamin D studies. How powerful is vitamin D as a fracture-reduction agent? To answer this question, researchers conducted a similar meta-analysis of clinical trials investigating vitamin D and fracture. They summarized the findings of 12 state-of-the-art randomized control trials, involving 19,114 individuals 60 years of age and older.
> 
> This analysis found that, “A vitamin D dose of 700–800 IU a day reduced the relative risk of hip fracture by 26% and any non-vertebral fracture by 23%.” Lower dose vitamin D was not effective at reducing fractures, and no clinical trials had looked at the fracture-reduction power of higher dose vitamin D.




You can not fortify foods .. You need all your tanks full and you need optimal levels.
That is YOU as an individual !

As Julia stated why put ourselves above the expert researchers in the field ?

In case for some reason you could not play Heany's Vid

"Markedly Higher Vitamin D Intake Needed to Reduce Cancer Risk

 Researchers reported that markedly higher intake of vitamin D is needed to reach blood levels that can prevent or markedly cut the incidence of breast cancer and several other major diseases than had been originally thought.

The findings by researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha are published February 21 in the journal Anticancer Research. 

While these levels are higher than traditional intakes, they are largely in a range deemed safe for daily use in a December 2010 report from the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. 

"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4000-8000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases -- breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes," said Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. "I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high -- much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century." 

"I was not surprised by this" said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, a distinguished biomedical scientist who has studied vitamin D need for several decades. "This result was what our dose-response studies predicted, but it took a study such as this, of people leading their everyday lives, to confirm it." 

The study reports on a survey of several thousand volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements in the dosage range from 1000 to 10,000 IU/day. Blood studies were conducted to determine the level of 25-vitamin D -- the form in which almost all vitamin D circulates in the blood. 

"Most scientists who are actively working with vitamin D now believe that 40 to 60 ng/ml is the appropriate target concentration of 25-vitamin D in the blood for preventing the major vitamin D-deficiency related diseases, and have joined in a letter on this topic," said Garland. "Unfortunately, according a recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, only 10 percent of the US population has levels in this range, mainly people who work outdoors." 

Interest in larger doses was spurred in December of last year, when a National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine committee identified 4000 IU/day of vitamin D as safe for every day use by adults and children nine years and older, with intakes in the range of 1000-3000 IU/day for infants and children through age eight years old. 

While the IOM committee states that 4000 IU/day is a safe dosage, the recommended minimum daily intake is only 600 IU/day. 

"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," Garland said. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial." He added that people who may have contraindications should discuss their vitamin D needs with their family doctor. 

"Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Heaney. "






> Motorway, unless you are a medically qualified researcher with those qualifications being superior to the Associate Professor who reported this study I referred to above, how can you have any valid basis for making such an assumption?
> 
> The Ass. Prof. suggested it could have to do with diet or any number of other factors which they have yet to research. She at no stage referred to the possibility of increased Vit D.




Exactly in this spirit why second guess the cutting edge research of experts in the field ? In this entire thread ?



> "Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures," said Heaney. "




Who is better qualified to disagree ?

On Julia's particular  MS study .. it was what it was ( fairly limited )==>and interesting comments form the researcher and some of the participants on the web...

UVA can damage skin 
But only UVB makes Vitamin D

The first does not mean the second.

EG:


http://community.ozms.org/content/sunshine-and-vitamin-d-again-new-research



> This study (of which I was a particpant) confirms that people who have spent more time in the sun and those with higher vitamin D levels may be less likely to develop multiple sclerosis, according to an Australian study.
> 
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/08/us-sun-ms-idUSTRE7170BL20110208
> 
> ...




Motorway


----------



## motorway (7 March 2011)

A must read .. Not directly about Vitamin D.. But very interesting and implication across many fields ( including investing and trading )



> If everyone smoked 20 cigarettes a day, then clinical, case-control and cohort studies alike would lead us to conclude that lung cancer was a genetic disease; and in one sense that would be true, since if everyone is exposed to the necessary agent, then the distribution of cases is wholly determined by individual susceptibility.






> The hardest cause to identify is the one that is universally present, for then it has no influence on the distribution of disease.




*The hardest cause to identify is the one that is universally present, for then it has no influence on the distribution.*

Exactly...eg Why in 1929 Irving Fisher could say what he did when it came to the fortunes of the stock market. 

The universal cause is invisible.. It is like the water fish swim in and the air people breath.. Like the nose between our eyes etc  

Ok here is the paper 

Rose G. Sick individuals and sick populations. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1985;14:32–8.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/427.full


Its relevance to the Vitamin D story is at least a few fold and should be obvious.
Vitamin D to the extent it is involved in long latency diseases is likely to be "invisible" 
Being such a universal etc

I think the thread has run it's course. 

So will no longer update.

I will leave the thread with a quote from Professor Heany



> "Finally, I believe that the presumption of adequacy should rest with vitamin D intakes needed to achieve the serum 25(OH)D values (i.e., 40–60 ng/mL) that prevailed during the evolution of human physiology. *Correspondingly, the burden of proof should fall on those maintaining that there is no preventable disease or dysfunction at lower levels."*
> 
> Dr. Robert P.Heaney, MD
> John A Creighton University Professor and Professor of Medicine
> Creighton University




Important Quote

As a rule I find that==>

Not many  take Vitamin C or E or any other supplement in order  to correct and  produce levels that would have  prevailed during the evolution of human physiology..

*Not at all.* People tend to take "Pharmaceutical" like amounts well over such levels.

Vitamin D seems to me exactly the opposite.. People assume the low levels found in modern humans is some how Normal. That people covering themselves with clothes , Keeping out of the mid day sun . Slathered with Sunscreen and behind glass. Somehow represent some sort of optimal.

To make such a statement is to somehow claim that the levels of Vitamin D that prevailed during the evolution of human physiology are what is  not optimal.

Just has the onus of proof should be on those who would ask us to take mega doses of C & E etc. The same onus imo resides with those who would  ask us to subsist on unnatural low levels of D.

My research and my experience suggests that vitamin D deficiency *is* such a universal cause of the uppermost importance.

So good health, DYOR.  And again watch the very first vid in the thread. It was where the title and the theme of the thread came from..


Seek the hidden Universal Causes !

Motorway


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 March 2011)

motorway said:


> I will leave the thread with a quote from Professor Heany
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lets see a good meta-analysis of the studies, if you are so confident. 

I once saw a paper out of upstate New York that came about because a Professor of Sociology fell in love with a trailer trash, ( She was female, the TT male, for the politically sensitive) on Influences etc etc on living in Trailers.

Individual papers or perceptions mean nothing. 

Get thee to a beach.

gg


----------

