Low vitamin D levels: a greater risk of nursing home admission and mortality

[Juhana Har]

Persons with circulating vitamin D values under 25 nmol/L had
nearly 4 times the risk of being admitted to a nursing home as
did persons with values over 75 nmol/L.

--------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------

Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616-22; quiz 671-2. Low serum
concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and the
risk of nursing home admission. Visser M, Deeg DJ, Puts MT,
Seidell JC, Lips P. Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of
Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije University, Amsterdam,
Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in nursing
home patients is high. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to ascertain
whether lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
concentrations increase the risk of future nursing home
admission and early death. DESIGN: We included 1260
independent, community-dwelling persons aged > or =65 y who
were participating in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam
(1995-1996). Study outcomes were time to nursing home
admission during 6 y of follow-up and time to death until 1
April 2003. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 25
nmol/L] and insufficiency [25(OH)D = 25-49.9 nmol/L] were
present in 127
(10.1%) and 462 (36.7%) subjects, respectively. During
follow-up, 138 subjects (11.0%) were admitted to nursing
homes, and 380 subjects (30.2%) died. The risk of nursing
home admission for participants with 25(OH)D deficiency
was 53 cases per 1000 person-years higher than that for
those with high 25(OH)D (> or =75 nmol/L) concentrations
(58 compared with 5 cases). After adjustment for potential
confounders, the hazard ratio (95%
CI) of nursing home admission was 3.48 (1.39, 8.75) for
vitamin D-deficient,
2.77 (1.17, 6.55) for vitamin D-insufficient, and 1.92 (0.79,
4.66) for vitamin D-borderline persons as compared
with persons with high 25(OH)D (P for trend = 0.002).
The results remained after additional adjustment for
frailty indicators. Lower 25(OH)D was associated with
higher mortality risk, but this association was not
significant after adjustment for frailty indicators.
CONCLUSION: Lower serum 25(OH)D concentrations in
older persons are associated with a greater risk of
future nursing home admission and may be associated
with mortality. PMID: 16960177

http://tinyurl.com/jnuep

Editorial comment by vitamin D scholar Robert P. Heaney:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/471

--
Juhana

[Larry]

Readers of this should note that this comes from a nutrition
journal that is NOT a medical journal.

Larry E.

Juhana Harju wrote:

> Persons with circulating vitamin D values under 25 nmol/L
> had nearly 4 times the risk of being admitted to a nursing
> home as did persons with values over 75 nmol/L.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------
>
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616-22; quiz 671-2. Low serum
> concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and
> the risk of nursing home admission. Visser M, Deeg DJ, Puts
> MT, Seidell JC, Lips P. Institute of Health Sciences,
> Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije University,
> Amsterdam, Netherlands.
>
> BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in
> nursing home patients is high. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to
> ascertain whether lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
> concentrations increase the risk of future nursing home
> admission and early death. DESIGN: We included 1260
> independent, community-dwelling persons aged > or =65 y who
> were participating in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam
> (1995-1996). Study outcomes were time to nursing home
> admission during 6 y of follow-up and time to death until 1
> April 2003. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 25
> nmol/L] and insufficiency [25(OH)D = 25-49.9 nmol/L] were
> present in 127
> (10.1%) and 462 (36.7%) subjects, respectively. During
> follow-up, 138 subjects (11.0%) were admitted to nursing
> homes, and 380 subjects (30.2%) died. The risk of
> nursing home admission for participants with 25(OH)D
> deficiency was 53 cases per 1000 person-years higher
> than that for those with high 25(OH)D (> or =75 nmol/L)
> concentrations (58 compared with 5 cases). After
> adjustment for potential confounders, the hazard ratio
> (95%
> CI) of nursing home admission was 3.48 (1.39, 8.75) for
> vitamin D-deficient,
> 2.77 (1.17, 6.55) for vitamin D-insufficient, and 1.92
> (0.79, 4.66) for vitamin D-borderline persons as
> compared with persons with high 25(OH)D (P for trend
> = 0.002). The results remained after additional
> adjustment for frailty indicators. Lower 25(OH)D was
> associated with higher mortality risk, but this
> association was not significant after adjustment for
> frailty indicators. CONCLUSION: Lower serum 25(OH)D
> concentrations in older persons are associated with
> a greater risk of future nursing home admission and
> may be associated with mortality. PMID: 16960177
>
> http://tinyurl.com/jnuep
>
> Editorial comment by vitamin D scholar Robert P. Heaney:
>
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/471

[Juhana Har]

Juhana Harju wrote:
: Persons with circulating vitamin D values under 25 nmol/L
: had nearly 4 times the risk of being admitted to a nursing
: home as did persons with values over 75 nmol/L.
:
: ------------------------------------------------------------
: ------------------------------
:
: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616-22; quiz 671-2. Low serum
: concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and
: the risk of nursing home admission. Visser M, Deeg DJ, Puts
: MT, Seidell JC, Lips P. Institute of Health Sciences,
: Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije University,
: Amsterdam, Netherlands.
:
: BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in
: nursing home patients is high. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to
: ascertain whether lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
: concentrations increase the risk of future nursing home
: admission and early death. DESIGN: We included 1260
: independent, community-dwelling persons aged > or =65 y who
: were participating in the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam
: (1995-1996). Study outcomes were time to nursing home
: admission during 6 y of follow-up and time to death until 1
: April 2003. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 25
: nmol/L] and insufficiency [25(OH)D = 25-49.9 nmol/L] were
: present in 127 (10.1%) and 462 (36.7%) subjects,
: respectively. During follow-up, 138 subjects (11.0%) were
: admitted to nursing homes, and 380 subjects (30.2%) died.
: The risk of nursing home admission for participants with
: 25(OH)D deficiency was 53 cases per 1000 person-years higher
: than that for those with high 25(OH)D (> or =75 nmol/L)
: concentrations (58 compared with 5 cases). After adjustment
: for potential confounders, the hazard ratio (95% CI) of
: nursing home admission was 3.48 (1.39, 8.75) for vitamin
: D-deficient,
: 2.77 (1.17, 6.55) for vitamin D-insufficient, and 1.92
: (0.79, 4.66) for vitamin D-borderline persons as
: compared with persons with high 25(OH)D (P for trend
: = 0.002). The results remained after additional
: adjustment for frailty indicators. Lower 25(OH)D was
: associated with higher mortality risk, but this
: association was not significant after adjustment for
: frailty indicators. CONCLUSION: Lower serum 25(OH)D
: concentrations in older persons are associated with
: a greater risk of future nursing home admission and
: may be associated with mortality. PMID: 16960177
:
: http://tinyurl.com/jnuep
:
: Editorial comment by vitamin D scholar Robert P. Heaney:
:
: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/471

According to this study more than half (52 %) of North
American women receiving osteoporosis therapy have vitamin D
inadequacy.

--------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Jun;90(6):3215-24. Prevalence of
Vitamin D inadequacy among postmenopausal North American women
receiving osteoporosis therapy. Holick MF, Siris ES, Binkley
N, Beard MK, Khan A, Katzer JT, Petruschke RA, Chen E, de Papp
AE. Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany Street,
M1013, Boston, Massachusetts 02118, USA.

PURPOSE: To evaluate serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
concentrations and factors related to vitamin D inadequacy in
postmenopausal North American women receiving therapy to
treat or prevent osteoporosis. METHODS: Serum 25(OH)D and PTH
were obtained in 1536 community-dwelling women between
November 2003 and March 2004. Multivariate logistic
regression was used to assess risk factors for suboptimal
(<30 ng/ml) 25(OH)D. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of study
subjects were Caucasian, with a mean age of 71 yr.
Thirty-five percent resided at or above latitude 42 degrees
north, and 24% resided less than 35 degrees north. Mean (sd)
serum 25(OH)D was 30.4 (13.2) ng/ml: serum 25(OH)D was less
than 20 ng/ml in 18%; less than 25 ng/ml in 36%; and less
than 30 ng/ml in 52%. Prevalence of suboptimal 25(OH)D was
significantly higher in subjects who took less than 400 vs.
400 IU/d or more vitamin D. There was a significant negative
correlation between serum PTH concentrations and 25(OH)D.
Risk factors related to vitamin D inadequacy included age,
race, body mass index, medications known to affect vitamin D
metabolism, vitamin D supplementation, exercise, education,
and physician counseling regarding vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS:
More than half of North American women receiving therapy to
treat or prevent osteoporosis have vitamin D inadequacy,
underscoring the need for improved physician and public
education regarding optimization of vitamin D status in this
population. PMID: 15797954

http://tinyurl.com/zt9tq

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:
: Readers of this should note that this comes from a nutrition
: journal that is NOT a medical journal.
:
: Larry E.

Go and educate yourself, Larry. Clinical nutrition is a part
of nutritional medicine. American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition is the top rated specialized nutrition journal in
the world.

In this fresh article Professor Aliya Khan states that "ninety
seven percent [97%] of people admitted to hospital for
fractures have inadaquate vitamin
D."

http://www.therecord.com/pdfs/2006Sep29/F01.PDF

--
Juhana

: Juhana Harju wrote:
:
:: Persons with circulating vitamin D values under 25 nmol/L
:: had nearly 4 times the risk of being admitted to a nursing
:: home as did persons with values over 75 nmol/L.
::
:: -----------------------------------------------------------
:: ---------------------------------
::
:: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616-22; quiz 671-2. Low
:: serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older
:: persons and the risk of nursing home admission. Visser M,
:: Deeg DJ, Puts MT, Seidell JC, Lips P. Institute of Health
:: Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije
:: University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
::
:: BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in
:: nursing home patients is high. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to
:: ascertain whether lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
:: concentrations increase the risk of future nursing home
:: admission and early death. DESIGN: We included 1260
:: independent, community-dwelling persons aged > or =65 y who
:: were participating in the Longitudinal Aging Study
:: Amsterdam (1995-1996). Study outcomes were time to nursing
:: home admission during 6 y of follow-up and time to death
:: until 1 April 2003. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D
:: < 25 nmol/L] and insufficiency [25(OH)D = 25-49.9 nmol/L]
:: were present in 127 (10.1%) and 462 (36.7%) subjects,
:: respectively. During follow-up, 138 subjects (11.0%) were
:: admitted to nursing homes, and 380 subjects
:: (30.2%) died. The risk of nursing home admission for
:: participants with 25(OH)D deficiency was 53 cases per
:: 1000 person-years higher than that for those with high
:: 25(OH)D (> or =75 nmol/L) concentrations (58 compared
:: with 5 cases). After adjustment for potential
:: confounders, the hazard ratio (95% CI) of nursing home
:: admission was 3.48 (1.39, 8.75) for vitamin
:: D-deficient,
:: 2.77 (1.17, 6.55) for vitamin D-insufficient, and 1.92
:: (0.79, 4.66) for vitamin D-borderline persons as
:: compared with persons with high 25(OH)D (P for
:: trend = 0.002). The results remained after
:: additional adjustment for frailty indicators. Lower
:: 25(OH)D was associated with higher mortality risk,
:: but this association was not significant after
:: adjustment for frailty indicators. CONCLUSION:
:: Lower serum 25(OH)D concentrations in older persons
:: are associated with a greater risk of future
:: nursing home admission and may be associated with
:: mortality. PMID: 16960177
::
:: http://tinyurl.com/jnuep
::
:: Editorial comment by vitamin D scholar Robert P. Heaney:
::
:: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/471

[Juhana Har]

Juhana Harju wrote:

: In this fresh article Professor Aliya Khan states that
: "ninety seven percent [97%] of people admitted to hospital
: for fractures have inadaquate vitamin D."
:
: http://www.therecord.com/pdfs/2006Sep29/F01.PDF

The above statement made by professor Khan is further
confirmed by this study where virtually all (99 %) of hip
fractrure patients admitted to hospital in London had
suboptimal vitamin D status.

--------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------

Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Dec;21(12):1891-4. Prevalence of
vitamin D inadequacy in osteoporotic hip fracture patients in
London. Moniz C, Dew T, Dixon T. Department of Clinical
Biochemistry, King's College Hospital, London, UK.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that vitamin D levels are
suboptimal in the elderly and that adults with fragility
fracture are more likely to have serum vitamin D levels either
lower than those of control patients of similar age, or below
the normal range. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of
vitamin D inadequacy in an elderly population with hip
fractures from London (UK) and compare levels with data
previously presented from Glasgow (UK). RESEARCH DESIGN AND
METHODS: A retrospective patient audit was carried out over a
17-month period (September 2003-January 2005). Patient records
were searched for hip fracture admissions and cross matched
with vitamin D analysis carried out within 3 days of the hip
fracture admission. The resulting records were hand searched
to exclude patients with a hip fracture resulting from high
impact/trauma. RESULTS: There were data for 103 hip fracture
patients, 79.6% of the patients were women (n = 82). The mean
age at the time of fracture was 73.4 years, 100% were aged 60
years or over and 41% were aged 75 years or over. Around 20%
of the patients were receiving supplementation with calcium
and/or vitamin D and were not excluded from the analysis. The
mean vitamin D level was 32.1 nmol/L (12.9 ng/mL), SD = 19.4
(7.8), however, it is likely that the true mean is lower since
in approximately 15% of cases vitamin D levels were reported
as < 12.5 nmol/L, but were transcribed at 12.5 nmol/L in order
to allow a numerical value to be calculated. Ninety-nine per
cent of patients had a vitamin D level < 80 nmol/L, 94.2% < 70
nmol/L and 81.6% < 50 nmol/L. There were no significant
differences by patient age or sex, however, there were
significant seasonal differences in vitamin D. In the year
from September 2003 to August 2004, 82.8% of summer admissions
had vitamin D levels < 70 nmol/L compared with 98.0% in winter
(p = 0.04). Mean vitamin D levels in the 30 patients with
parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels above the reference range
were significantly lower than levels in the 71 patients within
the range: mean 19.9 nmol/L, SD = 16.2 versus mean 37.5
nmol/L, SD = 18.5 (p < .0001). Furthermore, 50% of the
patients with PTH levels above the reference range had vitamin
D levels < 12.5 nmol/L, reflecting extremely low levels of
vitamin D. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms almost universal
vitamin D inadequacy among 103 patients admitted to hospital
with hip fracture in London, although the prevalence of
inadequacy is slightly lower than that seen in a similar study
carried out in Glasgow. PMID: 16368037

http://tinyurl.com/k832e

--
Juhana

[Larry]

No need. The mere fact that there is absolutely no medical
insight at all in your posts demonstrates that nutrition is a
field unto itself (certainly a profession) and the fact that
you are willing to push vitamins and supplements without
medical advice or testing reinforces that.

Larry E.

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> : Readers of this should note that this comes from a
> : nutrition journal that is NOT a medical journal.
> :
> : Larry E.
>
> Go and educate yourself, Larry. Clinical nutrition is a part
> of nutritional medicine. American Journal of Clinical
> Nutrition is the top rated specialized nutrition journal in
> the world.
>
> In this fresh article Professor Aliya Khan states that
> "ninety seven percent [97%] of people admitted to hospital
> for fractures have inadaquate vitamin
> D."
>
> http://www.therecord.com/pdfs/2006Sep29/F01.PDF
>
> --
> Juhana
>
> : Juhana Harju wrote:
> :
> :: Persons with circulating vitamin D values under 25 nmol/L
> :: had nearly 4 times the risk of being admitted to a
> :: nursing home as did persons with values over 75 nmol/L.
> ::
> :: ---------------------------------------------------------
> :: -----------------------------------
> ::
> :: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Sep;84(3):616-22; quiz 671-2. Low
> :: serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older
> :: persons and the risk of nursing home admission. Visser M,
> :: Deeg DJ, Puts MT, Seidell JC, Lips P. Institute of Health
> :: Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, Vrije
> :: University, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
> ::
> :: BACKGROUND: The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in
> :: nursing home patients is high. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to
> :: ascertain whether lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D
> :: [25(OH)D] concentrations increase the risk of future
> :: nursing home admission and early death. DESIGN: We
> :: included 1260 independent, community-dwelling persons
> :: aged > or =65 y who were participating in the
> :: Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (1995-1996). Study
> :: outcomes were time to nursing home admission during 6 y
> :: of follow-up and time to death until 1 April 2003.
> :: RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 25 nmol/L] and
> :: insufficiency [25(OH)D = 25-49.9 nmol/L] were present in
> :: 127 (10.1%) and 462 (36.7%) subjects, respectively.
> :: During follow-up, 138 subjects (11.0%) were admitted to
> :: nursing homes, and 380 subjects
> :: (30.2%) died. The risk of nursing home admission for
> :: participants with 25(OH)D deficiency was 53 cases per
> :: 1000 person-years higher than that for those with
> :: high 25(OH)D (> or =75 nmol/L) concentrations (58
> :: compared with 5 cases). After adjustment for
> :: potential confounders, the hazard ratio (95% CI) of
> :: nursing home admission was 3.48 (1.39, 8.75) for
> :: vitamin D-deficient,
> :: 2.77 (1.17, 6.55) for vitamin D-insufficient, and 1.92
> :: (0.79, 4.66) for vitamin D-borderline persons as
> :: compared with persons with high 25(OH)D (P for
> :: trend = 0.002). The results remained after
> :: additional adjustment for frailty indicators.
> :: Lower 25(OH)D was associated with higher
> :: mortality risk, but this association was not
> :: significant after adjustment for frailty
> :: indicators. CONCLUSION: Lower serum 25(OH)D
> :: concentrations in older persons are associated
> :: with a greater risk of future nursing home
> :: admission and may be associated with mortality.
> :: PMID: 16960177
> ::
> :: http://tinyurl.com/jnuep
> ::
> :: Editorial comment by vitamin D scholar Robert P. Heaney:
> ::
> :: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/3/471

[Larry]

My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your serum
vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient, your endo
will make recommendation for supplementation ... and at the
proper dosages. Simple as that.

Larry E.

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> : No need. The mere fact that there is absolutely no medical
> : insight at all in your posts demonstrates that nutrition
> : is a field unto itself (certainly a profession) and the
> : fact that you are willing to push vitamins and supplements
> : without medical advice or testing reinforces that.
> :
> : Larry E.
>
> Larry, as you are so clever and you clearly have medical
> insight that I don't have, I would pleased to hear what is
> your solution to the well documented and wide spread
> vitamin D deficiency? It seems that the problem does not
> solve by itself.
>
> --
> Juhana
>

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:
: My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
: deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your serum
: vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient, your
: endo will make recommendation for supplementation ... and at
: the proper dosages. Simple as that.
:
: Larry E.

My vitamin D levels are at adequate level, that is not the
problem. I asked you about the wide spread problem of vitamin
D deficiency as I thought that you are clever and have medical
insight you spoke about.

: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: Larry wrote:
::: No need. The mere fact that there is absolutely no medical
::: insight at all in your posts demonstrates that nutrition
::: is a field unto itself (certainly a profession) and the
::: fact that you are willing to push vitamins and supplements
::: without medical advice or testing reinforces that.
:::
::: Larry E.
::
:: Larry, as you are so clever and you clearly have medical
:: insight that I don't have, I would pleased to hear what is
:: your solution to the well documented and wide spread
:: vitamin D deficiency? It seems that the problem does not
:: solve by itself.
::
:: --
:: Juhana

[Rarmant]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:28:07 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
>deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your serum
>vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient, your endo
>will make recommendation for supplementation ... and at the
>proper dosages. Simple as that.

How much will this cost?

[Jim Chinni]

RArmant <rarmant@sbcglobal.net> wrote in part:

>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:28:07 -0400, Larry
><larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
>>deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your serum
>>vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient, your
>>endo will make recommendation for supplementation ... and at
>>the proper dosages. Simple as that.
>
>How much will this cost?

For the world's population?!
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Larry]

Don't know off the top of my head. But how much will it cost
for you to ingest an overdosed amount of a biochemical
substance into your body?

Larry E.

RArmant wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:28:07 -0400, Larry
> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
>>deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your serum
>>vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient, your
>>endo will make recommendation for supplementation ... and at
>>the proper dosages. Simple as that.
>
>
> How much will this cost?

[Larry]

Juhana Harju wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> : My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
> : deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your
> : serum vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient,
> : your endo will make recommendation for supplementation ...
> : and at the proper dosages. Simple as that.
> :
> : Larry E.
>
> My vitamin D levels are at adequate level, that is not the
> problem. I asked you about the wide spread problem of
> vitamin D deficiency as I thought that you are clever and
> have medical insight you spoke about.

OK. If someone has a vitamin D deficiency borne out by low
serum vitamin D levels, then I suggest vitamin D
supplementation with ongoing monitoring via serum vitamin
D testing.

Larry E.
>
>
> : Juhana Harju wrote:
> :: Larry wrote:
> ::: No need. The mere fact that there is absolutely no
> ::: medical insight at all in your posts demonstrates that
> ::: nutrition is a field unto itself (certainly a
> ::: profession) and the fact that you are willing to push
> ::: vitamins and supplements without medical advice or
> ::: testing reinforces that.
> :::
> ::: Larry E.
> ::
> :: Larry, as you are so clever and you clearly have medical
> :: insight that I don't have, I would pleased to hear what
> :: is your solution to the well documented and wide spread
> :: vitamin D deficiency? It seems that the problem does not
> :: solve by itself.
> ::
> :: --
> :: Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: Larry wrote:
::: My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
::: deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your
::: serum vitamin D levels checked. If they are insufficient,
::: your endo will make recommendation for supplementation ...
::: and at the proper dosages. Simple as that.
:::
::: Larry E.
::
:: My vitamin D levels are at adequate level, that is not the
:: problem. I asked you about the wide spread problem of
:: vitamin D deficiency as I thought that you are clever and
:: have medical insight you spoke about.
:
: OK. If someone has a vitamin D deficiency borne out by low
: serum vitamin D levels, then I suggest vitamin D
: supplementation with ongoing monitoring via serum vitamin D
: testing.
:
: Larry E.

This is exactly what I have done myself and what I am
suggesting.

--
Juhana

[Larry]

Then we are in agreement, terrific!

Larry E.

Juhana Harju wrote:

> Larry wrote:
> : Juhana Harju wrote:
> :: Larry wrote:
> ::: My solution is NOT to assume that you have a vitamin D
> ::: deficiency if you don't know. Go to endo and have your
> ::: serum vitamin D levels checked. If they are
> ::: insufficient, your endo will make recommendation for
> ::: supplementation ... and at the proper dosages. Simple as
> ::: that.
> :::
> ::: Larry E.
> ::
> :: My vitamin D levels are at adequate level, that is not
> :: the problem. I asked you about the wide spread problem of
> :: vitamin D deficiency as I thought that you are clever and
> :: have medical insight you spoke about.
> :
> : OK. If someone has a vitamin D deficiency borne out by low
> : serum vitamin D levels, then I suggest vitamin D
> : supplementation with ongoing monitoring via serum vitamin
> : D testing.
> :
> : Larry E.
>
> This is exactly what I have done myself and what I am
> suggesting.

[Pohaan74]

get $500 now http://black-jack-card-game.prevet.biz

Posted via medical forums at http://medical.gr77.com

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:
: No need. The mere fact that there is absolutely no medical
: insight at all in your posts demonstrates that nutrition is
: a field unto itself (certainly a profession) and the fact
: that you are willing to push vitamins and supplements
: without medical advice or testing reinforces that.
:
: Larry E.

Larry, as you are so clever and you clearly have medical
insight that I don't have, I would pleased to hear what is
your solution to the well documented and wide spread
vitamin D deficiency? It seems that the problem does not
solve by itself.

--
Juhana

[Matti Nark]

On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:33:00 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>Don't know off the top of my head. But how much will it cost
>for you to ingest an overdosed amount of a biochemical
>substance into your body?
>
If you only supplement in the winter and don't exceed 4000
IU/d (or actually 10000 IU/d), the chances for overdosing are
practically nonexistent. But there could be enormous costs for
not supplementing due to increased risks of osteoporosis,
cancer, multiple sclerosis, type 1 and 2 diabetes, arthritis,
congestive heart failure, etc. If in doubt limit your daily
dose to 2000 IU/d, which is regarded absolutely safe by both
American and European authorities.

--
Matti Narkia

[Larry]

Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to
titer up your dosage to the point where you are certain
that you are in the normal range is the lowest risk and
safest way to proceed.

Larry E.

Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:33:00 -0400, Larry
> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't know off the top of my head. But how much will it cost
>>for you to ingest an overdosed amount of a biochemical
>>substance into your body?
>>
>
> If you only supplement in the winter and don't exceed 4000
> IU/d (or actually 10000 IU/d), the chances for overdosing
> are practically nonexistent. But there could be enormous
> costs for not supplementing due to increased risks of
> osteoporosis, cancer, multiple sclerosis, type 1 and 2
> diabetes, arthritis, congestive heart failure, etc. If in
> doubt limit your daily dose to 2000 IU/d, which is regarded
> absolutely safe by both American and European authorities.

[Thorsten S]

Larry schrieb:
> Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to titer
> up your dosage to the point where you are certain that you
> are in the normal range is the lowest risk and safest way to
> proceed.
>

Yes, I suppose it is. However, taking a moderately dosed
supplement (2000-4000 IU/d) without prior testing is still a
lot safer than doing nothing at all, which is what most
people do.

Of course, if you live in Florida and get a lot of sun
througout the year, taking a supplement may not be necessary.
But if you live further north, chances are high that you don't
get enough vitamin D during the winter.

Thorsten

[Larry]

Not saying it's unsafe. Saying that ANY substance ingested
into the body that affects metabolic processes must be
measured, must be monitored, and must be adjusted to an
individual's needs. To dispute this or to blindly recommend
something like this is simply irresponsible.

Larry E.

GMCarter wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 23:03:46 -0400, Larry
> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to titer
>>up your dosage to the point where you are certain that you
>>are in the normal range is the lowest risk and safest way to
>>proceed.
>
>
> Vitamin D is not some new drug that has had a lot of hype
> and advertising and billions spent on marketing.
>
> Its safety profile is well-known. It is also a nutrient the
> body can use and is thus designed for the body, unlike a
> drug. (Not to say too much of a good thing isn't necessarily
> dangerous.)
>
> Nutrition does require a degree of caution--one which I wish
> were applied more rigorously to prescription drugs. Maybe
> we'd have 100,000 fewer deaths from screw-ups annually.
>
> Let alone the outright murder committed by companies that
> oversell COX-2 inhibitors, hormone replacement therapy and
> other toxic medications that have little or no superior
> benefit to older, cheaper medications and may in some cases
> be much more dangerous.
>
> George M. Carter

[Larry]

Exactly. So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying
that taking a dose such as 2000-4000 may not even be
necessary. Doesn't make sense. Know for sure! Have it
monitored by a physician.

LArry E.

Thorsten Schier wrote:

> Larry schrieb:
>
>> Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to
>> titer up your dosage to the point where you are certain
>> that you are in the normal range is the lowest risk and
>> safest way to proceed.
>>
>
> Yes, I suppose it is. However, taking a moderately dosed
> supplement (2000-4000 IU/d) without prior testing is still a
> lot safer than doing nothing at all, which is what most
> people do.
>
> Of course, if you live in Florida and get a lot of sun
> througout the year, taking a supplement may not be
> necessary. But if you live further north, chances are high
> that you don't get enough vitamin D during the winter.
>
> Thorsten

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:17:31 +0200, Thorsten Schier
<usenet@naturfoto-hamburg.de> wrote:

>Larry schrieb:
>> Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to
>> titer up your dosage to the point where you are certain
>> that you are in the normal range is the lowest risk and
>> safest way to proceed.
>>
>
>Yes, I suppose it is. However, taking a moderately dosed
>supplement (2000-4000 IU/d) without prior testing is still a
>lot safer than doing nothing at all, which is what most
>people do.
>
>Of course, if you live in Florida and get a lot of sun
>througout the year, taking a supplement may not be necessary.
>But if you live further north, chances are high that you
>don't get enough vitamin D during the winter.
>
Thorsten, from your email address I figure that you seem to be
from Germany. Do you have 1000 IU (or larger) vitamin D
products in Germany? Here in Finland we have only 200-300 IU
products, and I've sometimes ordered LEF's 1000 IU capsules
from Life Care in Denmark. If you have those 1000 IU
capsules/tablets, do you know any online shops or pharmacies,
which sell these products. I've previously orderd some
medicines by FAX from Frankfurt Airport pharmacy, and I could
order vitamin D from there or other sources in Germany, if I
knew that 1000 IU capsules/tablets are available.

--
Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:29:22 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>Exactly. So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying
>that taking a dose such as 2000-4000 may not even be
>necessary. Doesn't make sense.

It does makes sense. If you live in the area, where the sun's
UVB-radiation is abundant throughout the year (tropical and
subtropical areas), and you go out daily to get your 10-20
minutes of UVB-radiation on a large enough skin area, you
don't need vitamin D supplements, but if you live above 40th
latitude, there is not enough UVB-radiation in the winter to
stimulate cutaneous vitamin D production. So in these areas
you need to take say 2000 - 4000 IU/d in winter to retain
vitamin D-levels not too far below the summer levels, and to
avoid inceased risks of many chronis diseass. That's not so
hard to understand, is it?

--
Matti Narkia

[Thorsten S]

Larry schrieb:
> Exactly. So you are contradicting yourself.

No, not really.

> You are saying that taking a dose such as 2000-4000 may not
> even be necessary.

Even if such a dose may not be necessary for some people, it
is unlikely to do any harm. Vitamin D deficiency, on the other
hand, has been linked to highly increased risk of a number of
diseases. For the prevention of cancer, ensuring an optimal
level of vitamin D is the most important thing you can do
(perhaps except quit smoking).

So even if there is only a remote chance of being deficient
taking a supplement is still safer than doing nothing. For
most people living further north than florida there is more
than remote chance of being deficient.

> Doesn't make sense. Know for sure! Have it monitored by a
> physician.

If you can afford this, this is surely a wise course of
action. Not least because the results more likely than not
will be a strong incentive to increase your vitamin D level.
Either by getting more sun or by taking a supplement or both.

Thorsten

[Thorsten S]

Matti Narkia schrieb: [...]
>
> Thorsten, from your email address I figure that you seem to
> be from Germany.

Yes, I am.

> Do you have 1000 IU (or larger) vitamin D products in
> Germany? Here in Finland we have only 200-300 IU products,
> and I've sometimes ordered LEF's 1000 IU capsules from Life
> Care in Denmark. If you have those 1000 IU capsules/tablets,
> do you know any online shops or pharmacies, which sell these
> products. I've previously orderd some medicines by FAX from
> Frankfurt Airport pharmacy, and I could order vitamin D from
> there or other sources in Germany, if I knew that 1000 IU
> capsules/tablets are available.
>

You could perhaps order products with 1000 IU per tablet from
DocMorris, a Dutch company selling medicines over the internet
to Germany. They offer two such products on their website
(http://www.docmorris.de). The website seems to be in German
only, but if you call them, I am sure there will be people who
can talk English. I'm not sure whether they deliver to
Finland, though.

Thorsten

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:02:49 +0300, Matti Narkia
<mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:29:22 -0400, Larry
><larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Exactly. So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying
>>that taking a dose such as 2000-4000 may not even be
>>necessary. Doesn't make sense.
>
>It does makes sense. If you live in the area, where the sun's
>UVB-radiation is abundant throughout the year (tropical and
>subtropical areas), and you go out daily to get your 10-20
>minutes of UVB-radiation on a large enough skin area, you
>don't need vitamin D supplements, but if you live above 40th
>latitude, there is not enough UVB-radiation in the winter to
>stimulate cutaneous vitamin D production. So in these areas
>you need to take say 2000 - 4000 IU/d in winter to retain
>vitamin D-levels not too far below the summer levels, and to
>avoid inceased risks of many chronis diseass. That's not so
>hard to understand, is it?

Perhaps the first study, which showed the influence of season
and latitude on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D3 was

Webb AR, Kline L, Holick MF. Influence of season and latitude
on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin
D3: exposure to winter sunlight in Boston and Edmonton will
not promote vitamin D3 synthesis in human skin. J Clin
Endocrinol Metab. 1988 Aug;67(2):373-8. PMID: 2839537
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g-
ov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Ret-
rieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=2839537>

Abstract:

"Sunlight has long been recognized as a major provider of
vitamin D for humans; radiation in the UVB (290-315 nm)
portion of the solar spectrum photolyzes
7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin to previtamin D3, which,
in turn, is converted by a thermal process to vitamin D3.
Latitude and season affect both the quantity and quality
of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface,
especially in the UVB region of the spectrum, but little
is known about how these influence the ability of sunlight
to synthesize vitamin D3 in skin. A model has been
developed to evaluate the effect of seasonal and
latitudinal changes on the potential of sunlight to
initiate cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Human skin or
[3 alpha-3H]7- dehydrocholesterol exposed to sunlight on
cloudless days in Boston (42.2 degrees N) from November
through February produced no previtamin D3. In Edmonton
(52 degrees N) this ineffective winter period extended
from October through March. Further south (34 degrees N
and 18 degrees N), sunlight effectively photoconverted
7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3 in the middle of
winter. These results quantify the dramatic influence of
changes in solar UVB radiation on cutaneous vitamin D3
synthesis and indicate the latitudinal increase in the
length of the "vitamin D winter" during which dietary
supplementation of the vitamin may be advisable."

Another useful article about the influence of season and
latitude on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D3 is

Engelsen O, Brustad M, Aksnes L, Lund E. Daily duration of
vitamin D synthesis in human skin with relation to latitude,
total ozone, altitude, ground cover, aerosols and cloud
thickness. Photochem Photobiol. 2005 Nov-Dec;81(6):1287-90.
PMID: 16354110 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://phot.al-
lenpress.com/photonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0031-8655&-
volume=81&page=1287> <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request-
=get-abstract&issn=0031-8655&volume=81&page=1287>

Checl out also the pages

VitD Duration of Vitamin D Synthesis in Human Skin
<http://zardoz.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD.html>

VitD-ez Easy Duration of Vitamin D Synthesis in Human Skin
<http://zardoz.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD-ez.html>

mentioned in the above abstract.

--
Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:40:48 +0300, Matti Narkia
<mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:02:49 +0300, Matti Narkia
><mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:29:22 -0400, Larry
>><larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly. So you are contradicting yourself. You are saying
>>>that taking a dose such as 2000-4000 may not even be
>>>necessary. Doesn't make sense.
>>
>>It does makes sense. If you live in the area, where the
>>sun's UVB-radiation is abundant throughout the year
>>(tropical and subtropical areas), and you go out daily to
>>get your 10-20 minutes of UVB-radiation on a large enough
>>skin area, you don't need vitamin D supplements, but if you
>>live above 40th latitude, there is not enough UVB-radiation
>>in the winter to stimulate cutaneous vitamin D production.
>>So in these areas you need to take say 2000 - 4000 IU/d in
>>winter to retain vitamin D-levels not too far below the
>>summer levels, and to avoid inceased risks of many chronis
>>diseass. That's not so hard to understand, is it?
>
>Perhaps the first study, which showed the influence of season
>and latitude on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D3 was
>
>Webb AR, Kline L, Holick MF. Influence of season and latitude
>on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin
>D3: exposure to winter sunlight in Boston and Edmonton will
> not promote vitamin D3 synthesis in human skin. J Clin
> Endocrinol Metab. 1988 Aug;67(2):373-8. PMID: 2839537
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.-
> gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R-
> etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=2839537>
>
>Abstract:
>
> "Sunlight has long been recognized as a major provider of
> vitamin D for humans; radiation in the UVB (290-315 nm)
> portion of the solar spectrum photolyzes
> 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin to previtamin D3, which,
> in turn, is converted by a thermal process to vitamin D3.
> Latitude and season affect both the quantity and quality
> of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface,
> especially in the UVB region of the spectrum, but little
> is known about how these influence the ability of
> sunlight to synthesize vitamin D3 in skin. A model has
> been developed to evaluate the effect of seasonal and
> latitudinal changes on the potential of sunlight to
> initiate cutaneous production of vitamin D3. Human skin
> or [3 alpha-3H]7- dehydrocholesterol exposed to sunlight
> on cloudless days in Boston (42.2 degrees N) from
> November through February produced no previtamin D3. In
> Edmonton (52 degrees N) this ineffective winter period
> extended from October through March. Further south (34
> degrees N and 18 degrees N), sunlight effectively
> photoconverted 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3 in
> the middle of winter. These results quantify the dramatic
> influence of changes in solar UVB radiation on cutaneous
> vitamin D3 synthesis and indicate the latitudinal
> increase in the length of the "vitamin D winter" during
> which dietary supplementation of the vitamin may be
> advisable."
>
>Another useful article about the influence of season and
>latitude on the cutaneous synthesis of vitamin D3 is
>
>Engelsen O, Brustad M, Aksnes L, Lund E. Daily duration of
>vitamin D synthesis in human skin with relation to latitude,
>total ozone, altitude, ground cover, aerosols and cloud
>thickness. Photochem Photobiol. 2005 Nov-Dec;81(6):1287-90.
>PMID: 16354110 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] <http://phot.a-
>llenpress.com/photonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=0031-865-
>5&volume=81&page=1287> <http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?requ-
>est=get-abstract&issn=0031-8655&volume=81&page=1287>
>
The full text of this article seems also be freely available,
at the url

<http://phot.allenpress.com/photonline/?request=get-document&-
doi=10.1562%2F2004-11-19-RN-375>

--
Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:48:49 GMT, RArmant
<rarmant@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:18:48 +0300, Matti Narkia
><mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:17:31 +0200, Thorsten Schier
>><usenet@naturfoto-hamburg.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Larry schrieb:
>>>> Still ... to have your serum vitamin D measured and to
>>>> titer up your dosage to the point where you are certain
>>>> that you are in the normal range is the lowest risk and
>>>> safest way to proceed.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I suppose it is. However, taking a moderately dosed
>>>supplement (2000-4000 IU/d) without prior testing is still
>>>a lot safer than doing nothing at all, which is what most
>>>people do.
>>>
>>>Of course, if you live in Florida and get a lot of sun
>>>througout the year, taking a supplement may not be
>>>necessary. But if you live further north, chances are high
>>>that you don't get enough vitamin D during the winter.
>>>
>>Thorsten, from your email address I figure that you seem to
>>be from Germany. Do you have 1000 IU (or larger) vitamin D
>>products in Germany? Here in Finland we have only 200-300 IU
>>products, and I've sometimes ordered LEF's 1000 IU capsules
>>from Life Care in Denmark. If you have those 1000 IU
>>capsules/tablets, do you know any online shops or
>>pharmacies, which sell these products. I've previously
>>orderd some medicines by FAX from Frankfurt Airport
>>pharmacy, and I could order vitamin D from there or other
>>sources in Germany, if I knew that 1000 IU capsules/tablets
>>are available.
>
>Here in the US Healthy Origins has a 2,400 IU vitamin D3
>softgel -- http://www.iherb.com/store/ProductDetails.aspx?c=-
>Herbs&pid=HOG-15305
>
>The oil the D3 is suspended in is olive oil. Iherb is located
>in the state of California.

I cannot order from outside EU. I'm looking for EU sources.

--
Matti Narkia

[Gmcarter]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:28:00 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>Not saying it's unsafe. Saying that ANY substance ingested
>into the body that affects metabolic processes must be
>measured, must be monitored, and must be adjusted to an
>individual's needs. To dispute this or to blindly recommend
>something like this is simply irresponsible.

Oh, nonsense, Larry.

Monitoring can make sense, I don't dispute that.

But do you monitor your blood sugar, short of having diabetes,
every time you eat? Or your antioxidant level?

In the ideal world, monitoring blood levels of micronutrients
would be lovely. Most people can't afford that--and 47 million
of us don't have insurance as the US government is too busy
being bought by pharma to shovel FAR more drugs into people
than are needed or advisable. As well as being bought by the
insurance industry.

It's not about health--it's about profit. Period.

So we waste 16% of the GDP on these outrageous, wasteful
costs and things like bloodwork for VItamin D3 level will be
utterly eclipsed. Most physicians won't even know what you're
talking about.

I don't dispute it may be a good idea to do if one thinks
taking 1,000 to 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 is something they want
to do. Most people won't. But it is a hell of a lot safer than
taking a COX-2 inhibitor, say, for minor pain associated with
osteoarthritis of the knee or a statin for primary coronary
heart disease prevention.

George M. Carter

[Matti Nark]

On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:42:35 +0200, Thorsten Schier
<usenet@naturfoto-hamburg.de> wrote:

>Matti Narkia schrieb: [...]
>>
>> Thorsten, from your email address I figure that you seem to
>> be from Germany.
>
>Yes, I am.
>
>> Do you have 1000 IU (or larger) vitamin D products in
>> Germany? Here in Finland we have only 200-300 IU products,
>> and I've sometimes ordered LEF's 1000 IU capsules from Life
>> Care in Denmark. If you have those 1000 IU
>> capsules/tablets, do you know any online shops or
>> pharmacies, which sell these products. I've previously
>> orderd some medicines by FAX from Frankfurt Airport
>> pharmacy, and I could order vitamin D from there or other
>> sources in Germany, if I knew that 1000 IU capsules/tablets
>> are available.
>>
>
>You could perhaps order products with 1000 IU per tablet from
>DocMorris, a Dutch company selling medicines over the
>internet to Germany. They offer two such products on their
>website (http://www.docmorris.de). The website seems to be in
>German only, but if you call them, I am sure there will be
>people who can talk English. I'm not sure whether they
>deliver to Finland, though.
>
Thanks!

--
Matti Narkia

[Larry]

GMCarter wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:28:00 -0400, Larry
> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Not saying it's unsafe. Saying that ANY substance ingested
>>into the body that affects metabolic processes must be
>>measured, must be monitored, and must be adjusted to an
>>individual's needs. To dispute this or to blindly recommend
>>something like this is simply irresponsible.
>
>
> Oh, nonsense, Larry.
>
> Monitoring can make sense, I don't dispute that.
>
> But do you monitor your blood sugar, short of having
> diabetes, every time you eat? Or your antioxidant level?

Speaking of nonsense, even a person with lower than
average intelligence reading this knowns that the
situations are nowhere near comparable. Gimme a break. Do
you take us for fools?

>
> In the ideal world, monitoring blood levels of
> micronutrients would be lovely. Most people can't afford
> that--and 47 million of us don't have insurance as the US
> government is too busy being bought by pharma to shovel FAR
> more drugs into people than are needed or advisable. As well
> as being bought by the insurance industry.
>
> It's not about health--it's about profit. Period.

Again, not even comparable.

>
> So we waste 16% of the GDP on these outrageous, wasteful
> costs and things like bloodwork for VItamin D3 level will be
> utterly eclipsed. Most physicians won't even know what
> you're talking about.

Again, that's why if you're going to fool around with this
stuff, you need an endocrinologist ... and most people with
osteoporosis use one.

>
> I don't dispute it may be a good idea to do if one thinks
> taking 1,000 to 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 is something they
> want to do. Most people won't. But it is a hell of a lot
> safer than taking a COX-2 inhibitor, say, for minor pain
> associated with osteoarthritis of the knee or a statin for
> primary coronary heart disease prevention.
>
> George M. Carter
>
That is your opinion. And you are not a physician. Neither am
I ... only saying that one needs to be consulted in this
situation.

I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng, and
that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain about
his/her position that he/she felt the need to cross-post ...
which is considered to be poor internet etiquette.

If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
Enough already.

Larry E.

[Jim Chinni]

"Juhana Harju" <spamshantigiriorama.removespam@gmail.com>
wrote in part:

>: There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
>: that has been approved and recommended by the FDA.
>
>My task is not to be a gramophone of outdated government
>opinions.

Certainly not restricted to an incompetent agency in one
country!

If we all want to just follow the recommendations of our
government overseers, we should shut down these newsgroups!

The recent findings re vitamin D are important and address
concerns of those in multiple newsgroups.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:

: I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
: singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng, and
: that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain about
: his/her position that he/she felt the need to cross-post ...
: which is considered to be poor internet etiquette.

His would be correct. I did not post to two groups out of
insecurity but because the topic genuinely belongs to the
items discussed in both groups. I don't consider it a bad
netiquette to post this kind of topic to two groups; actually
it is quite common. E.g. many topics discussed in
sci.med.nutrition are posted cross-posted to
sci.med.cardiology and vice versa. Two groups is not that much
after all. I recall some flexibility.

: If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
: kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
: Enough already.

If you don't find these postings and discussions interesting,
why don't you just ignore them? Relax!

--
Juhana

[Juhana Har]

Jim Chinnis wrote:
: "Juhana Harju" <spamshantigiriorama.removespam@gmail.com>
: wrote in part:
:
::: There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
::: that has been approved and recommended by the FDA.
::
:: My task is not to be a gramophone of outdated government
:: opinions.

: Certainly not restricted to an incompetent agency in one
: country!

Indeed. It is unfortunate that other contries are following
blindly the decisions made by FDA. If some drug is approved by
FDA it will be soon approved in EU and other countries, no
matter if there are concerns about safety and other issues.

: If we all want to just follow the recommendations of our
: government overseers, we should shut down these newsgroups!

You couldn't be more correct!

: The recent findings re vitamin D are important and address
: concerns of those in multiple newsgroups.

--
Juhana

[Larry]

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> : I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
> : singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng, and
> : that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain about
> : his/her position that he/she felt the need to cross-post
> : ... which is considered to be poor internet etiquette.
>
> His would be correct. I did not post to two groups out of
> insecurity but because the topic genuinely belongs to the
> items discussed in both groups. I don't consider it a bad
> netiquette to post this kind of topic to two groups;
> actually it is quite common. E.g. many topics discussed in
> sci.med.nutrition are posted cross-posted to
> sci.med.cardiology and vice versa. Two groups is not that
> much after all. I recall some flexibility.
>
Not really. To cross-post midway through an exchange just to
bring in another group is discourteous and demonstrates that
you needed support cause you couldn't defend yourself. If you
really felt the topic was appropriate for both groups, why
didn't you post it originally to both groups? Why did you wait
until you were challenged before cross-posting?

> : If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
> : kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
> : Enough already.
>
> If you don't find these postings and discussions
> interesting, why don't you just ignore them? Relax!
>
Interesting? Yes. As long as you don't mislead people, which
is what you are trying to do. Let's face it, you and your
buddies can flame me if you want, but we all know that the
supplement industry (at least in the US) is a largely
unregulated industry ... which lends itself to much in the way
of scandal. No one knows when someone is just trying to reel
them in and take their money vs. when something is legit.

There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
that has been approved and recommended by the FDA. But I will
stand by my statement that if you ingest a substance or a
larger dosage that has effect on the human body's metabolic
subsystems, it needs to be discussed with a doctor and
monitored. Especially something like this that entirely needs
to be customized depending upon the individual's own
metabolic processes which can differ greatly. You also never
know what else is going on inside that person's body in terms
of a unique condition that could be affected either
positively or negatively by what you are recommending. Are
you so full of yourselves that you can't admit to this and
yield to common sense?

Larry E.

[Juhana Har]

Larry wrote:
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: Larry wrote:
::
::: I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
::: singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng, and
::: that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain about
::: his/her position that he/she felt the need to cross-post
::: ... which is considered to be poor internet etiquette.
::
:: His would be correct. I did not post to two groups out of
:: insecurity but because the topic genuinely belongs to the
:: items discussed in both groups. I don't consider it a bad
:: netiquette to post this kind of topic to two groups;
:: actually it is quite common. E.g. many topics discussed in
:: sci.med.nutrition are posted cross-posted to
:: sci.med.cardiology and vice versa. Two groups is not that
:: much after all. I recall some flexibility.
::
: Not really. To cross-post midway through an exchange just to
: bring in another group is discourteous and demonstrates that
: you needed support cause you couldn't defend yourself. If
: you really felt the topic was appropriate for both groups,
: why didn't you post it originally to both groups? Why did
: you wait until you were challenged before cross-posting?

That is not correct. I did post this originally to both groups
as you can see. Check my first posting.

::: If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
::: kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
::: Enough already.
::
:: If you don't find these postings and discussions
:: interesting, why don't you just ignore them? Relax!
::
: Interesting? Yes. As long as you don't mislead people, which
: is what you are trying to do.

I am not misleading people. That is just your uneducated
opinion.

: There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
: that has been approved and recommended by the FDA.

My task is not to be a gramophone of outdated government
opinions.

I am not going to waste further time in discussing with you.

--
Juhana

[Matti Nark]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:40:21 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
>that has been approved and recommended by the FDA. But I will
>stand by my statement that if you ingest a substance or a
>larger dosage that has effect on the human body's metabolic
>subsystems, it needs to be discussed with a doctor and
>monitored.

Larry have you ever sunbathed in the swimming suit for 20
minutes? If you have, did you discuss it with your doctor and
had your vitamin D level monitored? If not, why not, because
you got 10 000 - 25 000 IU of vitamin D every time you did it?
A bit more than mere 2000 - 4000 IU some people here are
suggesting to be taken in the winter in the areas, where there
is no cutaneous production of vitamin D in the winter.

What about those lifeguards who get this 10 000 to 25 000 IU
of vitamin D from the sun every day, perhaps throughout the
year in some areas. Do you think that they should discusss it
with their doctor and have their vitamin D level monitored? If
not, why not, because they are getting many times more vitamin
D every day from the sun than the mere 2000 - 4000 IU, which
you think should not be taken in the winter without monitoring
vitamin D level?

--
Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:35:01 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:40:21 -0400, Larry
>> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
>>>that has been approved and recommended by the FDA. But I
>>>will stand by my statement that if you ingest a substance
>>>or a larger dosage that has effect on the human body's
>>>metabolic subsystems, it needs to be discussed with a
>>>doctor and monitored.
>>
>> Larry have you ever sunbathed in the swimming suit for 20
>> minutes? If you have, did you discuss it with your doctor
>> and had your vitamin D level monitored? If not, why not,
>> because you got 10 000 - 25 000 IU of vitamin D every time
>> you did it? A bit more than mere 2000 - 4000 IU some people
>> here are suggesting to be taken in the winter in the areas,
>> where there is no cutaneous production of vitamin D in the
>> winter.
>>
>> What about those lifeguards who get this 10 000 to 25 000
>> IU of vitamin D from the sun every day, perhaps throughout
>> the year in some areas. Do you think that they should
>> discusss it with their doctor and have their vitamin D
>> level monitored? If not, why not, because they are getting
>> many times more vitamin D every day from the sun than the
>> mere 2000 - 4000 IU, which you think should not be taken in
>> the winter without monitoring vitamin D level?
>>
>Ingesting it as a supplement is way differnet from getting it
>the natural way.

No it isn't. Whether vitamin D3 is produced in the skin, when
the skin is stimulated by the sun's UVB rays, or ingested as a
supplement, it is exactly the same molecule, which after that
goes to the liver to be converted to 25(OH)D a.k.a calcidiol,
the circulating form of vitamin
D. Our body has no idea where it originates from.

>All I am suggesting is a consult with a physician who knows,
>rather than taking the word of someone who recommends it over
>the internet ... who doesn't even know the patient, their
>history, and their background. Why is that something that is
>so hard for you all to accept? If you are so sure that what
>you preach is correct, what are you afraid of? Are you
>afraid, pray tell, that a qualified physician may not agree
>with you? I don't understand why doing something so sensible
>is so objectionable to an educated group of people ... unless
>you are afraid of something.
>
I'm not against the tests, I just don't see them necessary for
suppplemental doses of 2000 - 4000 IU/d. But if in doubt, go
to the test by all means. But one has to be a bit careful with
the tests, because the current tests can be inaccurate:
Although the scientific vitamin D studies use accurate vitamin
D tests, tests used by commercial laboratories often use
cheaper methodology, and frequently their tests are not
properly standardized and calibrated. There is documented
evidence that there can be upto 30% differences in the results
from different laboratories.

Also, it has been shown that the bodies of healthy men uses
3000 - 5000 IU of vitamin D/d, if it is available. Therefore
to retain the summer levels of vitamin D in the winter in high
latitude areas, one has to consume in average about 4000 IU/d
in the winter. This is only possible with the supplements.

--
Matti Narkia

[Gmcarter]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:40:58 -0400, Larry
<larry@nospam.net> wrote:

>GMCarter wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:28:00 -0400, Larry
>> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Not saying it's unsafe. Saying that ANY substance ingested
>>>into the body that affects metabolic processes must be
>>>measured, must be monitored, and must be adjusted to an
>>>individual's needs. To dispute this or to blindly recommend
>>>something like this is simply irresponsible.
>>
>>
>> Oh, nonsense, Larry.
>>
>> Monitoring can make sense, I don't dispute that.
>>
>> But do you monitor your blood sugar, short of having
>> diabetes, every time you eat? Or your antioxidant level?
>
>Speaking of nonsense, even a person with lower than
>average intelligence reading this knowns that the
>situations are nowhere near comparable. Gimme a break. Do
>you take us for fools?

I'm beginning to.

>>
>> In the ideal world, monitoring blood levels of
>> micronutrients would be lovely. Most people can't afford
>> that--and 47 million of us don't have insurance as the US
>> government is too busy being bought by pharma to shovel FAR
>> more drugs into people than are needed or advisable. As
>> well as being bought by the insurance industry.
>>
>> It's not about health--it's about profit. Period.
>
>Again, not even comparable.

Yes. It is more than comparable.

When we have an entire system bent on selling more drugs of
minimal or no utility rather than making changes in lifestyle
that can improve outcomes, we have a profit-pushed system, not
a health--pushed system.

>>
>> So we waste 16% of the GDP on these outrageous, wasteful
>> costs and things like bloodwork for VItamin D3 level will
>> be utterly eclipsed. Most physicians won't even know what
>> you're talking about.
>
>Again, that's why if you're going to fool around with this
>stuff, you need an endocrinologist ... and most people with
>osteoporosis use one.

LOL...NOW you're talking about osteoporosis. Well, gosh, maybe
we should look at the nasty drugs they use to treat that?

>>
>> I don't dispute it may be a good idea to do if one thinks
>> taking 1,000 to 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 is something they
>> want to do. Most people won't. But it is a hell of a lot
>> safer than taking a COX-2 inhibitor, say, for minor pain
>> associated with osteoarthritis of the knee or a statin for
>> primary coronary heart disease prevention.
>>
>That is your opinion. And you are not a physician. Neither am
>I ... only saying that one needs to be consulted in this
>situation.

That's different from insisting on blood tests. I am certainly
not against blood tests and in the best of situations, people
SHOULD be able to work with their physician about what they
are doing for their health.

Based on good information.

>I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
>singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng, and
>that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain about
>his/her position that he/she felt the need to cross-post ...
>which is considered to be poor internet etiquette.

People do that all the time. Good? Bad? I don't know.

>If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
>kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
>Enough already.

Vitamin D3 is "hocus pocus" kind of stuff?

You want to convince me you're a fool?

George M. Carter

[Larry]

Matti Narkia wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:40:21 -0400, Larry
> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
>>that has been approved and recommended by the FDA. But I
>>will stand by my statement that if you ingest a substance or
>>a larger dosage that has effect on the human body's
>>metabolic subsystems, it needs to be discussed with a doctor
>>and monitored.
>
>
> Larry have you ever sunbathed in the swimming suit for 20
> minutes? If you have, did you discuss it with your doctor
> and had your vitamin D level monitored? If not, why not,
> because you got 10 000 - 25 000 IU of vitamin D every time
> you did it? A bit more than mere 2000 - 4000 IU some
> people here are suggesting to be taken in the winter in
> the areas, where there is no cutaneous production of
> vitamin D in the winter.
>
> What about those lifeguards who get this 10 000 to 25 000 IU
> of vitamin D from the sun every day, perhaps throughout the
> year in some areas. Do you think that they should discusss
> it with their doctor and have their vitamin D level
> monitored? If not, why not, because they are getting many
> times more vitamin D every day from the sun than the mere
> 2000 - 4000 IU, which you think should not be taken in the
> winter without monitoring vitamin D level?
>
>
Ingesting it as a supplement is way differnet from getting it
the natural way. All I am suggesting is a consult with a
physician who knows, rather than taking the word of someone
who recommends it over the internet ... who doesn't even know
the patient, their history, and their background. Why is that
something that is so hard for you all to accept? If you are so
sure that what you preach is correct, what are you afraid of?
Are you afraid, pray tell, that a qualified physician may not
agree with you? I don't understand why doing something so
sensible is so objectionable to an educated group of people
... unless you are afraid of something.

Larry E.

[Larry]

Juhana Harju wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> : Juhana Harju wrote:
> :: Larry wrote:
> ::
> ::: I find it interesting that this whole post started as a
> ::: singular post on the sci.med.diseases.osteoporosis ng,
> ::: and that Juhanna seemed to be so insecure and uncertain
> ::: about his/her position that he/she felt the need to
> ::: cross-post ... which is considered to be poor internet
> ::: etiquette.
> ::
> :: His would be correct. I did not post to two groups out of
> :: insecurity but because the topic genuinely belongs to the
> :: items discussed in both groups. I don't consider it a bad
> :: netiquette to post this kind of topic to two groups;
> :: actually it is quite common. E.g. many topics discussed
> :: in sci.med.nutrition are posted cross-posted to
> :: sci.med.cardiology and vice versa. Two groups is not that
> :: much after all. I recall some flexibility.
> ::
> : Not really. To cross-post midway through an exchange just
> : to bring in another group is discourteous and demonstrates
> : that you needed support cause you couldn't defend
> : yourself. If you really felt the topic was appropriate for
> : both groups, why didn't you post it originally to both
> : groups? Why did you wait until you were challenged before
> : cross-posting?
>
> That is not correct. I did post this originally to both
> groups as you can see. Check my first posting.
>
I did. That's not the case. Recheck it.

> ::: If you guys want to continue to discuss this hokus pokus
> ::: kinda stuff, why don't you keep it on your nutrition ng.
> ::: Enough already.
> ::
> :: If you don't find these postings and discussions
> :: interesting, why don't you just ignore them? Relax!
> ::
> : Interesting? Yes. As long as you don't mislead people,
> : which is what you are trying to do.
>
> I am not misleading people. That is just your uneducated
> opinion.
>
> : There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
> : that has been approved and recommended by the FDA.
>
> My task is not to be a gramophone of outdated government
> opinions.
>
> I am not going to waste further time in discussing with you.

[Thorsten S]

Larry schrieb:
>
>
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:40:21 -0400, Larry
>> <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with basic vitamin supplementation
>>> that has been approved and recommended by the FDA. But I
>>> will stand by my statement that if you ingest a substance
>>> or a larger dosage that has effect on the human body's
>>> metabolic subsystems, it needs to be discussed with a
>>> doctor and monitored.
>>
>>
>>
>> Larry have you ever sunbathed in the swimming suit for 20
>> minutes? If you have, did you discuss it with your doctor
>> and had your vitamin D level monitored? If not, why not,
>> because you got 10 000 - 25 000 IU of vitamin D every time
>> you did it? A bit more than mere 2000 - 4000 IU some people
>> here are suggesting to be taken in the winter in the areas,
>> where there is no cutaneous production of vitamin D in the
>> winter.
>>
>> What about those lifeguards who get this 10 000 to 25 000
>> IU of vitamin D from the sun every day, perhaps throughout
>> the year in some areas. Do you think that they should
>> discusss it with their doctor and have their vitamin D
>> level monitored? If not, why not, because they are getting
>> many times more vitamin D every day from the sun than the
>> mere 2000 - 4000 IU, which you think should not be taken in
>> the winter without monitoring vitamin D level?
>>
>>
> Ingesting it as a supplement is way differnet from getting
> it the natural way. All I am suggesting is a consult with a
> physician who knows, rather than taking the word of someone
> who recommends it over the internet ...

You don't have to take our word for it. There is a lot of peer
reviewed literature available on this topic on the internet.

For example this article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/362#F4

There are a lot of references and links to articles which
referenced this article at the end, so you can delve into this
topic as deep as you like.

> who doesn't even know the patient, their history, and their
> background.

To take a vitamin D supplement is general advice for people
living in areas where there is not much sun during the winter
and not about any patient in particular.

> Why is that something that is so hard for you all to accept?
> If you are so sure that what you preach is correct, what are
> you afraid of? Are you afraid, pray tell, that a qualified
> physician may not agree with you?

Even a qualified physician may not be on top of things when it
comes to current research.

> I don't understand why doing something so sensible is so
> objectionable to an educated group of people ... unless you
> are afraid of something.

I'm not afraid of people asking their physician about vitamin
D. And in fact I do think that people should determine their
vitamin D level if their insurance covers this or they can
afford to pay for it on their own. But not because it might be
dangerous to take a vitamin D supplement without testing, but
because for many people vitamin D deficiency may be one of
their biggest health risks and of course it would be a good
thing to know about this as much as possible.

Thorsten