Vitamin D changes everything

[motorway]

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 )

Ultraviolet B (UVB): wavelength 280–315 nm. UVB can cause sunburn yet is also what enables vitamin D production in the skin by 7–dehydrocholesterol. Dependent upon the angle at which the sun's rays reach the earth, optimal UVB exposure is between 10:00 am–2:00 pm and in the summer (70% of a person's yearly dose is received in summer).

Sunscreens block UVB, preventing vitamin D production. UVB does not penetrate glass and most is blocked by the ozone layer.

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]

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 --

could be wrong and may even promote CMM.

This is in part because the action spectrum for CMM is likely to be centered at longer wavelengths than that of vitamin D generation.
from : Advanced Experiments in Medical Biology 2008; 624: 86-88

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]

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]

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]

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

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


This topic is close to my heart as my wife was so diagnosed, had a liver biopsy, and told to expect progressive liver disease. The hepatologist even talked about a liver transplant well in the future, which scared us both to death. Her liver function tests first went down, then came close to normal, and are now low-normal on 5,000 IU per day! A single human study strongly supports this:

Targher G, et al found decreased 25(OH)D concentrations were closely associated with the histological severity of hepatic steatosis, necroinflammation, and fibrosis, (P<0.001 for all) independent of other risk factors.

They concluded that non-alcoholic fatty liver disease patients have a marked decrease in serum 25(OH)D concentrations, which is closely associated with severity of disease on liver biopsy. If you have liver disease, get your 25(OH)D above 70 ng/mL. If you do not have liver disease, do the same

John Cannell

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]

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]

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!

Obviously not a technical analyst.

gg

 

[motorway]

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!

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]

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]

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.

Most adults will require at least 5,000 IU of vitamin D each day to establish a circulating blood level of 50 - 70 ng/ml.

At this level all cells become fully saturated with vitamin D and cancer risk plummets.

That is why !

Motorway

 

[tech/a]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Participants in both groups were asked how much time they had spent in the sun and where they had lived at different points in their lives, with skin damage from the sun and the level of vitamin D in their blood also checked.

On average, people with the first signs of MS had been exposed to a smaller "UV dose" -- based on how much time they had spent in the sun and how close to the equator they had lived -- over the course of their lives.

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.

The important findings were that for every 10nmol/L higher the vitamin D level in blood, there was a 12% reduction in the risk of relapse. This effect was linear, that is, the benefit did not seem to reach a threshold level over which there was no additional benefit.

It can be seen that there is essentially a straight line relationship between risk reduction and increasing vitamin D levels. If the line is continued down to no risk, it intersects at a vitamin D level of around 150nmol/L .

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
relapse rate by 34%. Our data imply that increasing serum 25(OH)D levels by 50
nmol/L could more than halve the risk of relapse, a reduction at least on par with most
immunomodulatory therapies.33 Importantly, these reductions were seen in a cohort
that was largely using immunomodulatory therapy (82%), suggesting that 25(OH)D
has additive beneficial effects.

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]

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]

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).

Results: Serum 25(OH)D rose as a function of self-reported vitamin D supplement ingestion in a curvilinear fashion, with no intakes of 10,000 IU/d or lower producing 25(OH)D values above the lower-bound of the zone of potential toxicity (200 ng/ml). Unsupplemented all-source input was estimated at 3,300 IU/d.


The supplemental dose ensuring that 97.5% of this population achieved a serum 25(OH)D of at least 40 ng/ml was 9,600 IU/d. Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.

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]

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]

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.

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