Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
"Dealing with Alzheimer's"
By
Dr Who?
Sorry Julia had to do it!
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.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.
Tech-A, given my absent mindedness, you might be closer to the truth than you think!
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.
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.
Abstract
Human breast cancer incidence has seasonal patterns that seem to vary among global populations. The aggregate monthly frequency of breast cancer diagnosis was collected and examined for 2,921,714 breast cancer cases diagnosed across 64 global regions over spans from 2 to 53 years. Breast cancer is consistently diagnosed more often in spring and fall, both in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, regardless of presumable menopausal status (<or=50, >50). This seasonality is increasingly more prominent as population distance from the equator increases and this latitude dependence is most pronounced among women living in rural areas.
Moreover, the overall annual incidence (2005-2006), per 100,000 population, of breast cancer increased as the latitude of population residence increased. These data make it clear that human breast cancer discovery occurs non-randomly throughout each year with peaks near both equinoxes and valleys near both solstices. This stable global breast cancer seasonality has implications for better prevention, more accurate screening, earlier diagnosis, and more effective treatment.
This complex latitude-dependent breast cancer seasonality is clearly related to predictable local day/night length changes which occur seasonally. Its mechanism may depend upon seasonal sunlight mediation of vitamin D and seasonal mediation of nocturnal melatonin peak level and duration.
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.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Serum vitamin D levels measured as 25-hydroxyvitamin D have been shown to be low in cancer patients, including breast cancer patients. However, the vitamin D status has yet to be studied in different breast cancer phenotypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2+/ER-, and triple negative comprising the majority of basal-like.
CASE PRESENTATION: Fifteen triple-negative breast cancer patients have presented to our medical oncology office in the last five years.
Thirteen of these fifteen patients (87%) were found to be vitamin D deficient, defined as serum 25(OH)D less than 80 nmol/L, prior to initiation of adjuvant therapy. Ninety-one breast cancer patients from our office were classified as: luminal A (ER+ &/or PR+ and HER2-), luminal B (ER+ &/or PR+ and HER2+), HER2+/ER- (ER-, PR-, and HER2+), and triple-negative or basal-like (ER-, PR-, and HER2-). A normal mean was found from 78 volunteers. The breast cancer patients were found to be statistically different than the normal population. The triple-negative phenotype was found to be the most statistically different than the normal population.
CONCLUSION: The triple-negative breast cancer phenotype has the lowest average vitamin D level and the highest percentage of patients that are vitamin D deficient. These data suggests that low vitamin D levels are characteristic of the triple-negative phenotype.
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.
They used new DNA sequencing technology to create a map of vitamin D receptor binding across the genome in a study funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC), the MS Society, the Wellcome Trust, the Canadian MS Foundation and others. The vitamin D receptor is a protein activated by vitamin D, which attaches itself to DNA and thus influences what proteins are made from our genetic code.
The researchers found 2,776 binding sites for the vitamin D receptor along the length of the genome. These were unusually concentrated near a number of genes associated with susceptibility to autoimmune conditions such as MS, Crohn’s disease, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and to cancers such as chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and colorectal cancer.
They also showed that vitamin D had a significant effect on the activity of 229 genes including IRF8, previously associated with MS, and PTPN2, associated with Crohn’s disease and type 1 diabetes.
‘Our study shows quite dramatically the wide-ranging influence that vitamin D exerts over our health,’ says Dr Andreas Heger from the MRC Functional Genomics Unit at Oxford University, one of the lead authors of the study.
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.
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.
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
The maximum daily dose of vitamin D currently recommended is 2000 IU. Ergocalciferol (D2) 50,000 IU orally weekly for 8-12 weeks is often used to treat vitamin D deficient patients (25(OH) vitamin D <20 ng/mL).
We report a case of a 56-year-old woman who received supratherapeutic doses of ergocalciferol (150,000 IU orally daily) for 28 years without toxicity. We discuss the possible mechanisms which may account for a lack of toxicity despite intake of massive daily doses of ergocalciferol in this patient.
The key point is that 25(OH)D level, ideally, needs to be kept high and stable.
Motorway
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.
Not even osteoporosis and bone fractures have been proven to be reduced by taking extra vitamin D.
Given your promotion of people taking this vitamin, could you please comment on Vit D toxicity
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.
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.
There are two reports of households where industrial concentrates of vitamin D3 were mistaken for cooking oil.
In contrast, all reports of iatrogenic vitamin D intoxication of adults have involved vitamin D2, a synthetic analogue of the physiological
compound, vitamin D3.
Our cases offer a perspective into the risks, management and prognosis of the worst
possible form of vitamin D3 toxicity.
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.
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.
When you take vitamin A as retinol, such as in cod liver oil, you intervene in this closed system and bypass the controls. Proceed at your peril.Vitamin D is also a closed, controlled system and I don't recommend intervening in that system either.
Vitamin D cholecalciferol is a substrate like carotenoids, it is not the active substance.
Taking vitamin A as retinol is like taking activated vitamin D (calcitriol). Doing so bypasses controls and I have never recommended anyone take activated vitamin D except patients with renal failure under the care of a nephrologist.
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.
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.
The study was released with Memorial Day weekend approaching. Store shelves throughout the country are already crammed with tubes, jars, bottles and spray cans of sunscreen.
The white goop, creams and ointments might prevent sunburn. But don't count on them to keep the ultraviolet light from destroying your skin cells and causing tumors and lesions, according to researchers at Environmental Working Group.
Might have to check my levels.
Doctor might not be too happy, as he tests for me quite a few things already
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.
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.
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).
The Swedish researchers note that 1,25(OH)2D was measured in bladder cell cultures, which indicated that the cells of the bladder are capable of producing the active form of the vitamin.
Results from the supplementation trial showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 was associated with an induction in the expression of cathelicidin when bladder biopsies were exposed to E. coli. No general induction of the antimicrobial peptide was observed during vitamin D supplementation, added the researchers.
“Here we show that oral 25D3 supplementation of healthy postmenopausal women prepares the bladder tissue to fight E. coli infection by increased production of cathelicidin upon bacterial contact,” report the researchers. “25D3 is locally converted to 1,25D3 in bladder epithelial cells, binds to vitamin D receptor, which leads to […] synthesis of cathelicidin.
“The increased production in turn enhances the direct antibacterial effect on uropathogenic E. coli,” they added.
An alternative to antibiotics ?
“In light of the emerging resistance to antibiotics used against UTI, new treatment strategies are needed,” report the researchers. “Our data suggest that vitamin D can stimulate an increased production of the antimicrobial peptide cathelicidin. By inducing and activating cathelicidin with vitamin D, a local rather than a systemic effect can be achieved.
“This could offer selective and site-specific treatment of pathogens without perturbing commensal microbes elsewhere in the body.”
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.
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.
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
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 )
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..
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
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
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
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).
At that level, no one should have chronic substrate starvation.In the paper below, Dr. Heaney collaborated with two other Creighton scientists, Dr. Diane Cullen and Dr. Laura Armas, as well as one of the premier experts in measuring vitamin D in the world, Dr. Ron Horst of Heartland Assays. Ron runs tens of thousands of vitamin D samples a year as Heartland Assays performs vitamin D testing for most of the big studies and Dr. Horst is one of the few people in the world who can accurately measure cholecalciferol, and not just 25(OH)D.
Anyway, in his latest paper, Dr. Heaney found that if you regularly take 2,200 IU per day, you have about 12 days supply of vitamin D in your body. He explained, "What this indicates is that fat reserves of the vitamin are essentially running on empty and that . . . additional vitamin D inputs are [converted to 25(OH)D] almost immediately . . . The currently recommended intake of vitamin D needs to be revised upward by at least an order of magnitude.
"What is not known, at least by me, is what happens when cholecalciferol intake far exceeds the body's requirement. We know it is stored in the body, mainly in fat and muscle, but what does the body do to control excess cholecalciferol from building up in the body? Professor Reinhold Vieth has written that much of it will simply be excreted unchanged in the bile, but how does that system work exactly, to get rid of excess cholecalciferol?
We know it works because the few patients with vitamin D toxicity reported in the literature””almost always due to industrial errors””reduce their vitamin D levels rather quickly by simply stopping the vitamin D and staying out of the sun.
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.
But the 1984 study was flawed: it failed to measure the amount of vitamin D administered; based on the findings of other studies, it now looks as though subjects were given 100 times more vitamin D than intended.Moreover, how could it be that 3,800 IU was toxic, when 20 minutes of midday sunbathing in the summer makes at least 10,000 IU of vitamin D in our bodies?
In 1999, Reinhold Vieth published a review of vitamin D research in response to the IOM conclusions. In it, he argued that there was no evidence that amounts lower than 20,000 IU a day could be toxic. “Throughout my preparation of this review, I was amazed at the lack of evidence supporting statements about the toxicity of moderate doses of vitamin D,” Vieth wrote.
Studies have since shown 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D to be safe. While any substance will become toxic in excess, vitamin D researchers today accept that the current vitamin D recommendations could be more than quadrupled with no fear of toxicity.
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.
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.
Laboratory of Cell Biology, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
Melanomas are the most prevalent cancers in 25-29 yr old females and compose roughly 12% of cancers in 20-40 yr old women; under the age of 40, women have a higher incidence of melanomas than do men. Within the past few decades, the alarming trend to use commercial sunlamps for cosmetic pigmentation is of particular concern, especially since 71% of those patrons are women with 50% of patrons under the age of 29. A major problem may be the use of UVA-rich sunlamps which produce a visible tan but afford little to no protection from subsequent UV exposure. We hypothesize that the additional exposure of adolescents to unnaturally large amounts of UVA from artificial UV sources is implicated in the increasing incidence of malignant melanomas disproportionately in young women.
PMID: 19968819 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2810005 [Available on 2011/2/1]
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?