Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Countdowns, Buddies & Challenges
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Wed, May-27-09, 10:22
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Posts: 16,562
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/350.4/160 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 7%
Location: Maryland, US
Default The Great Vitamin D Experiment; Ongoing II

Here we go again!!!

Continued from: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=332508

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
Well it’s that time of year again!!! I’d like to invite you all to join me in another Vitamin D (D3) experiment. I’ve been doing a lot of research of the benefits of vitamin D supplementation and have been taking it now since August 04 and have great results (I have severe SAD). I'm not taking any other meds for SAD though I was before. We did the experiment 2004-2005 also and members had positive results. You can read about it here and didn't feel this good. I’m curious if others would have positive results also. Therefore I’m inviting you to join me in the great vitamin D experiment and report on your results here.

The Experiment

You stay on whatever plan you're currently on.
Take in in 1 dose or 2-3 divided doses/day any time until 4 pm. Taking vitamin D past 4 pm (or whatever your equivalent day’s schedule is) can result in sleeplessness.

The range of supplementation is based upon severity of underlying symptoms and/or vitamin D test results. The starting dose is 4,000-10,000 IU/day. Increase the dose gradually, as needed, up to 50,000 IU depending on the progress of deficiency symptoms subsiding.

Once symptoms have subsided/disappeared, stay on that highest dose for thee months to correct all past deficiencies.

Once the three month high dose period is past you can reduce your vitamin D dose gradually to find your maintenance dose. This maintenance dose of vitamin D will change seasonally.

Any time any deficiency symptoms reappear, dry skin is a common signal, you need to up your vitamin D until symptoms disappear again.

Vitamin D should be supplemented more during winter and less during summer. You need to supplement during summer as well as winter unless you live in the deep south or the tropics and spend a lot of time under the midday sun.


The optimum dose of vitamin D varies greatly with the individual (sex, age, weight, skin color, ethnicity, ancestry, duration of deficiency, number and severity of deficiency diseases, culture, season, and resident location of residence). Vitamin D levels should be gradually increased over a couple of weeks from a lower to a higher target dose.

Take with vitamin D
GTF Chromium 400-600 mcg
http://www.anma.com/mon81.html#ARTICLE2

Calcium 1500 – 2000 mg
(It's recommended that calcium carbonate be taken with food and that calcium citrate be taken without food and at least 1 hour before food for best absorbtion rates)

Magnesium ½ calcium dose up to equal calcium dose
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...9&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ctds.info/5_13_magnesium.html
http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn..._29_98/food.htm

Vitamin A only from fish liver
20,000-60,000 IU
http://www.hpakids.org/holistic-hea...About-Vitamin-D
http://intl.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/2/358
http://www.greenpasture.org/content/VitaminA.pdf
http://www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_...sSynthetic.html

Signs your body hasn’t yet adjusted to the amount are edginess, irritability, and increased hunger/nibbles.

Signs you're getting enough are better, deeper sleep but alertness upon awakening, dry skin spots and rough patches smooth out, cracked skin heals, better energy, clearer mind, better moods, bone and muscle pain disappears, more strength, less tiredness, better health or health issues no colds/flu.

Some info on vitamin D dose/needs:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204
http://www.bioticsresearch.com/PDF/...4%20Vasquez.pdf
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/326/7387/469
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/326/7387/469
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/6/1752S
http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/8

Vitamin D safety:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/288
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues...ia10054_fm.html
http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/toxicity.pdf
http://www.bioticsresearch.com/PDF/...4%20Vasquez.pdf

Take whatever supplements you regularly take in addition to the above. Levels of the above vitamins are in addition to whatever is in the multi you are taking. Only adjust if you take any of the above vitamins separately.

Vitamin D, without fillers--Some people react to filers used.
Suppliers


US
Drops
2,000 IU, dcnutrition.com
2,000 IU, www.bayho.com

Gels
1,000 IU, Carlson brand
1,000 IU, NOW brand
2,000 IU, Carlson brand

Capsules
5,000 IU, bio-tech-pharm.com
50,000 IU, bio-tech-pharm.com

Recommendations
Ingest at least 90 ounces of water/day.
Use only the following fat sources where possible: butter, tallow, coconut, olive, canola, peanut, omega 3s, flax, and fish oils.

CAUTIONS
--Do not join the experiment if you have damaged liver or kidneys without your doctor’s permission/supervision.
--Do join the experiment if you have one or more of the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency. These are obesity, SAD, depression, anxiety, obsessive behaviors, epilepsy, PCOS, infertility, fibromyalgia, CFS, chronic pain, arthritis, musculoskeletal pain, osteoporosis, lack of balance/muscle strength, autoimmune diseases, intestinal diseases, Crohns, heart disease, impaired thyroid, hyperparathyroid, high blood pressure, high blood calcium levels, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, chronic dry skin, tuberculosis, inflammatory bowel disease, diabetes, or any cancer.

--If you can afford to get tested before starting the experiment, please do so. The correct test to order is 25(OH)D, also called 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Make sure this is the test you get. Labs often give the test for 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, the active hormone. This test is the wrong test as it offers no meaningful data regarding D status. Optimal values of 25(OH)D are above 70 ng/ml.
--Only natural vitamin D (D3) should be used. Natural vitamin D has been found to be non toxic at levels of 50k/day. Manmade vitamin D (D2) has been found toxic at 20,000 IU/day. Natural vitamin D (D3) is better utilized by the body. Vitamin D (D3) comes in both a gel cap with fish oil and a dry form. Some people find the dry form is better tolerated.
--Cod liver oil, up to 8 tablespoons/day, can be used for part of your vitamin D requirement.

Reactions you Might Have
--For those with pain due to injury, pain can recur at the previously injured site as corrective healing occurs due to supplementation.
--More energy
--Less Depression
--Less Anxiety
--More even disposition
--Easier and more regular bowel movements
--Fewer digestive problems
--Less Pain
--Weight Loss
--Less Edema and swelling
--Clearer skin
--Regular menses
--Fewer PMS symptoms

Please keep track of symptoms/improvements in your journal and here as time passes. I am really interested in what the range of reactions might be.

Here's some more information on D:

Here's some information on D:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041009/bob8.asp

http://extension.oregonstate.edu/fc...us/vitamind.pdf

http://www.bioticsresearch.com/PDF/...4%20Vasquez.pdf

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature...deficiency.html

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2000/vitamind.html

http://www.icmedicine.co.uk/journal/oct03/002.htm

http://www.spinegroup.com/Back%20Is...tD&porosis.html

http://web.mit.edu/london/www/magnesium.html

http://www.endocrine-abstracts.org/.../ea0011p107.htm

http://www.immunesupport.com/librar...D%20deficiency/

Last edited by doreen T : Wed, May-27-09 at 11:08. Reason: updated information from previous thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, May-27-09, 14:05
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,751
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

Posting these links to some great Vitamin D info here on the front page for future reference:


Vitamin D Council:
http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/index.html

The Vitamin D Council videos on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/vitamindcouncil

Vitamin D Action, GrassrootsHealth:
http://www.grassrootshealth.net/

The UV Advantage – Dr Holick:
http://www.uvadvantage.org/

A CONVERSATION WITH: MICHAEL HOLICK; Shining a Light on the Health Benefits of Vitamin D:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/28/h...html?sec=health

Health Research Forum:
http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/index.html

SUNARC Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center:
http://www.sunarc.org/

Vitamin D: Is the Need and Evidence for Supplementation Being Ignored?:
http://www.yourhealthbase.com/D_vitamin.htm

The Antibiotic Vitamin:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/...0/ai_n16865477/
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...1&postcount=763

The vitamin D miracle: Is it for real?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...=all&print=true

An Oldie Vies for Nutrient of the Decade
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/h...ion&oref=slogin

What’s the Real Story on Vitamin D?
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/269033.aspx

Heal Yourself with Sunlight
http://www.newstarget.com/022315.html

Vitamin D – The Miracle Cure?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/m.../14/hsun114.xml

The virtues of Vitamin D: It's time we saw the light
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2974479.ece

The sunshine superstar: study reveals Vitamin D as 'wonder vitamin'
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2447662.ece

Bottled sunshine: The value of vitamin D
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article1525348.ece

Vitamin D – The Sunshine cure
http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article1220947.ece

We all need a little dose of sunshine
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li...icle3149273.ece

Vitamin D: It's Not Just Another Vitamin :
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.c...er-vitamin.html

“How much vitamin D should I take?”:
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2...uld-i-take.html

Get some sun (or die):
http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2008/0...ome-sun-or-die/

Dr Briffa's Sunlight Archives:
http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/category/sunlight/




Books:

The UV Advantage: The Medical Breakthrough that Shows How to Harness the Power of the Sun for Your Health – Dr Michael Holick
Quote:
Sunshine is good for you! While too much sun causes wrinkles and raises other health concerns, a lack of sun exposure, our primary source of vitamin D can cause serious health problems, such as osteoporosis, certain cancers, and diabetes. Dr Holick, the discoverer of the active form of vitamin D, has pulled together an impressive body of evidence in support that no one should be - as he puts it - a "sunphobe", nor, for that matter, a sun worshipper. His conclusion: relatively brief, but unfettered exposure to sunshine and its equivalent can help to ward off a host of debilitating and sometimes deadly diseases, including osteoporosis, cancers of the colon, prostate and breast, hypertension, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and depression. Dr. Holick's arguments that controlled exposure to sunshine can have powerful health benefits stems from decades of research into the myriad roles played by vitamin D in the body. The main source of this essential nutrient is neither foods nor supplements. It is sunshine. "The UV Advantage" is the only book that presents long-term impeccable research into the subject by a prominent and respected doctor.

http://www.amazon.com/UV-Advantage-...77487998&sr=8-2


The Healing Sun: Sunlight and Health in the 21st Century – Richard Hobday
Quote:
Explaining how and why we should get sunlight back into our lives - safely - this book shows how sunlight was used to prevent and cure diseases in the past, and how it can heal and help us in the future. Over the last 40 years, there has been a complete reversal in medical thinking on sunlight. Sunbathing is regarded by the experts to be a dangerous pastime which should be actively discouraged, yet little more than 50 years ago doctors in Europe and North America were using sunlight to treat potentially fatal diseases on a routine basis, and a number of hospitals were built specifically for sunlight treatment. The human race evolved under the sun and for thousands of years lived in close harmony with its heat and light. Many of us have lost this close contact with the sun and its healing powers.

http://www.amazon.com/Healing-Sun-S...77487874&sr=8-1
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, May-27-09, 14:07
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,751
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

From Dr Briffa's blog:


Quote:
More evidence links vitamin D with body weight

Posted By Dr John Briffa On May 28, 2009

Back in March I wrote a blog which explored the concept that low levels of vitamin D may predispose the body the fatty accumulation. Part of the evidence for this comes from a couple of studies [1,2] cited in the blog which found this association in female teenagers and women aged 16-22 respectively. More recently, further research has emerged that appears to support this potential link.

In a study published in the journal Obesity last month, Spanish women aged 20-35 were divided into two groups according to their vitamin D levels [3]. Women with a vitamin D level of less than 90 nmol/l (36 ng/ml) were classified as ‘low D’ (LD), while women with a level of 90 nmol/l or more were classified as ‘high D’ (HD). Certain body measurements were then compared between the two groups.

The results of this study showed that body weight, body mass index and waist circumference were all higher in the LD group.

The average of each of these measures for LD and HD groups were:

Body weight: 76.2 and 68.6 kg
BMI: 28.6 and 26.0 kg/m2
Waist circumference: 86.2 and 79.4 cm


The first two of these measurements are, to my mind, pretty useless as they tell us nothing about the body’s composition or the distribution of any excess fat. The waist circumference is more useful, though, in that it is a proxy for excess weight congregating around the midriff (the form of excess weight most strongly associated with chronic diseases such as heart disease and type 2 diabetes).

The vitamin D intakes were similar between the two groups. The authors concluded that “overweight/obese women are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, largely due to excess adiposity rather than inadequate intake.” It is possible that being overweight increases the risk of vitamin D deficiency. For example, overweight and obese individuals may, for instance, get less sun exposure. Maybe they tend to go out less. Maybe they tend to wear more clothes when they do go out too.

However, the converse may be true too: vitamin D deficiency may cause individuals to put on weight.

A third possibility is that the association between vitamin D and body is just that – an association – and there is no ‘causality’ going on here one way or the other.

I am not aware of any science that demonstrates for certain that vitamin D deficiency can cause fatty accumulation in the body. However, what is becoming clear is that vitamin D has a role in many key body processes, also appears to have an influence in the development of and protection from a myriad of conditions. If it turns out that vitamin D does indeed influence body fatness, I won’t be surprised.

References:

1. Richard Kremer, et al. Vitamin D Status and Its Relationship to Body Fat Final Height, and Peak Bone Mass in Young Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2009;94:67–73

2. Foss YJ. Vitamin D deficiency is the cause of common obesity. Medical Hypotheses 2009; 72(3):314-321

3. Rodríguez-Rodríguez E, et al. Vitamin D in Overweight/Obese Women and Its Relationship With Dietetic and Anthropometric Variables. Obesity 2009;17(4):778–782

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/0...th-body-weight/
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, May-27-09, 16:22
FancyKat FancyKat is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 99
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 270/270/175 Female 5'
BF:
Progress:
Default

Thanks for the info.

I will buy some as well as walking in the sun.

Barb
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, May-27-09, 19:37
Jayppers's Avatar
Jayppers Jayppers is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 651
 
Plan: Mostly carnivory
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 5'11'' (feet and inches)
BF:
Progress: -20%
Location: Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deb34
I always thought something bad happens to the D3 when you burn your skin even only slightly. I have no idea where I got that understanding from but that's why I've been very careful to not even burn slightly- D3 turns on you if you get burned even slighty- maybe one of the experts here could comment on my theory?
I believe that burning is mostly a condition of D deficiency to begin with (as well as A, perhaps, as well). In one of the D council's newsletters, they mention that part of the activity that the D metabolites carry out is protection of the skin from UV damage, and I believe even Zuleikaa has mentioned before that inability to tolerate sun is an additional deficiency symptom. And I know Demi has also posted testament previously that obtaining adequate D resulted in protection from burning while tanning. I experience the same results when obtaining enough substrate D3.

Quote:
Being in the sun helps protect you from being in the sun. True or False?

True. Dr. Dixon at the University of Sydney, working with Professor Rebecca Mason's group, has presented additional evidence that vitamin D metabolites protect the skin from sun damage, and do so via rapid acting pathways that do not involve genetic transcription. As anyone who has ever taken 5,000 IU a day for several months can tell you, your skin is much less likely to burn when you are no longer vitamin D deficient.
Quote:
In vivo relevance for photoprotection by the vitamin D rapid response pathway

Skh:hr1 mice exposed to three times the minimal erythemal dose of solar-simulated UVR and treated topically with 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) or JN immediately after UVR showed reduction in UVR-induced UVR-induced sunburn cells (p<0.01 and <0.05, respectively), CPD (p<0.01 for both) and immunosuppression (p<0.001 for both) compared with vehicle-treated mice. These results show for the first time an in vivo biological response mediated by a rapid-acting analog of the vitamin D system. The data support the hypothesis that 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) exerts its photoprotective effects via the rapid pathway and raise the possibility that other D compounds produced in skin may contribute to the photoprotective effects.
Quote:
The Vitamin D Newsletter August 2006 | Dr. Cannell Answers More Readers' Questions

If you are scientific, try a little experiment. Take someone you know with fair skin who burns easily and who doesn't go in the sun. Take him or her into a sun tan booth and find out exactly how many minutes it takes for their skin to just begin to turn pink, called one minimal erythemal dose (MED). Then, keep them out of the sun but give them 10,000 units of vitamin D a day for a month. Then take them into the sun tan booth again and see how long it takes for them to get one MED. What you will discover is that their time for one MED is longer. High vitamin D blood levels help prevent burning and facilitate tanning.

My teenage daughter, who used to burn easily, discovered this. Against my advice, she took 5,000 units of vitamin D every day and regularly went into a sun tan booth as well. Now all her friends are begging her to tell them why she never burned and got so incredibly tan, tanner than she ever got before. Furthermore, burning in vitamin D deficient people actually may have an evolutionary benefit. Burning heats the skin and the final step in the production of vitamin D is driven by high skin temperatures. It also makes evolutionary and physiological sense that high vitamin D blood levels would facilitate rapid tanning and thus protect against vitamin D toxicity. Just remember, burning is dangerous and should always be avoided.
I'm actually back up to 20K IUs per day right now and the improvement is pretty pleasing. Even 10K IUs wasn't enough to flip the switch for me and get me where I was feeling 'normal' or even close to normal and not burn and feel poisoned by UV light. Now at my higher dose, my gums are doing much better, my skin is improved, and I can get all the sun I want practically without fear of getting burned or crispy. Even Holick believes that an optimal full body exposure to mid-day sun will produce upwards of 20K IUs after a single exposure of adequate time (30 minutes or so). The D council also mentions studies where upwards of 50K IUs have been observed after sun exposure.

I applaud the D council and scientists alike for the push to break down these walls of woefully inadequate intakes/exposures, but even their more liberal recommendations still don't seem to be hitting the mark for me. When combined with all the synergistic nutrients (A, E, K2, calcium, magnesium, minerals in general, iodine, etc.), one can avoid any concerns of toxicity even at remarkably higher doses and the results can be greatly amplified.

Zuleikaa, I have a document where I collected many a posts that I found interesting from this thread to keep for my personal collection. One of them had a post from you that mentioned that there was evidence that it was being understood that the D wasn't being destroyed to the extent once believed when getting continual sun exposure, justifying the fact that we are designed for higher D production/intake than is commonly believed. Might you be able to cite more specific resources as to where you come to this conclusion and posted the following in a previous D experiment thread of the past (on 02/09/2006)? No worries if not, just interested in looking into that further.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
The higher hurdle for vitamin D deficiency makes more sense to me in light of the vitamin D status of people native to the tropics; they have vitamin D levels ranging from 125 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L. Further, they've now discovered that the body doesn't just shut down vitamin D production but can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day. I know of that 50k+ some is stored for winter but, in that case, to me, a higher level RDA makes even more sense.

To me having a FDA mandated "safe" level of 2,000 IUs when your own skin can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day during the summer from prolonged or repeated exposure is ridiculous.
Amen to the last part! Thanks!

Edited to include this that I found in one of the original threads:
Quote:
Post #60 from Nov. 2005
Vieth (4) estimates that the physiologic limit for daily vitamin D intake is 250–500 µg (10 000–20 000 IU/d). This amount also makes sense from a physiologic standpoint because this daily vitamin D load (10 000–20 000 IU) would be easily achieved from ultraviolet (UV) light–induced cutaneous synthesis in subjects of all races who work outside in sun-rich environments (22-25).
Edited to include this from the same post, which pretty much answers my question:
Quote:
Humans have evolved at exposures of > 20 000 IU (500 µg) vitamin D/d from the sun. In fact, a 0.5-h exposure to the summer sun between 1000 and 1400 in a bathing suit (3 times the minimal erythemal dose) will initiate the release of 50 000 IU (1.25 mg) vitamin D into the circulation within 24 h of exposure in white persons (25). African Americans require up to 5 times this solar exposure to achieve the same response (26, 27). In whites who have a deep tan because of melanin deposition in the skin, the response is 50% of that stated above, ie, only 20 000–30 000 IU (500–750 µg) vitamin D will be liberated (28). Finally, if wearing clothing or total body sunscreen, the cutaneous release of vitamin D is completely blunted (24, 29-31). So, in light of the above facts, a DRI of 400 IU/d (10 µg/d) in adults seems woefully inadequate to maintain normal circulating concentrations of vitamin D in adults with minimal solar exposure.

Last edited by Jayppers : Fri, May-29-09 at 05:42.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, May-28-09, 06:14
PS Diva's Avatar
PS Diva PS Diva is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,102
 
Plan: Low GI
Stats: 220/214/145 Female 67
BF:yes, I admit it
Progress: 8%
Location: Western New York
Default Vitamin D: Why You Need This Vitamin Now

By Julie Upton
From Health magazine
You may already know that vitamin D can help build strong teeth and bones, but wait until you hear what else it can do for the rest of your body. D can keep you trim, boost your mood, ward off sniffles, drastically cut your risk of cancer, and more.

“We could prevent 150,000 cases of cancer annually if we could just increase vitamin D to optimal levels,” says Cedric Garland, a doctor of public health, a leading vitamin D researcher, and a professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego.

That’s great news, right? Yes, except for one huge problem: A startling report found that more than a third of all women fail to get enough D for healthy bones—and more than 75% of us lack the higher amounts needed for the vitamin to do its disease-fighting best.

Downing a daily glass of milk is a smart way to get more D. But the most significant source is sunlight, and that’s where the trouble lies. Our bodies produce D with exposure to ultraviolet radiation, but as we’ve gotten smarter about dodging skin cancer—staying out of the sun and slathering ourselves with mega-SPF sunblock—our vitamin D levels have plummeted. Fortunately, there are smart and safe ways to boost your intake while you enjoy all the benefits that vitamin D can deliver.

Lower your risk of cancer
Vitamin D may substantially cut the risk of breast, colon, prostate, and ovarian cancers, according to a growing body of research. In fact, Dr. Garland found that women with D blood levels that were more than double the current national average of 25 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) had a 50% lower risk of breast cancer than those with the lowest blood levels. Scientists believe that D helps regulate genes in a way that protects healthy cells and stops the growth of cancerous ones.

There are receptors for vitamin D in virtually all of the body’s cells, and to “feed” them you need an adequate blood level of the vitamin. That depends not only on how much time you spend outside and what you eat but also on where you live. People living at higher latitudes, for example, soak up fewer UVB rays from November through March, which means they’re more likely to have low blood levels of vitamin D and a higher risk of cancer. In fact, studies have shown twice as many colon cancer deaths and 50% more breast cancer deaths in the far North compared with the sunnier South, Dr. Garland says. So how much sun is enough (link) to lower the risk of cancer without upping your risk of skin damage?

Fight off winter weight gain
Cold weather may seem a long way off right now, but more indoor time and fewer hours of sunlight can lead to a decrease in D production for many women. Researchers think that may explain why some women bulk
up a bit when the temps fall: Low levels of D can cause a dip in leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite. When this happens, your brain may not send the signal that you’re full and should stop eating. Overweight women are especially at risk because excess fat can absorb vitamin D, making it unavailable to the body.

Safeguard your healthy heart
Vitamin D is thought to help lower blood pressure and regulate hormones that affect blood vessels and the muscles of the heart. Studies suggest that people with the highest D levels may have up to a 50% lower risk of heart disease. And researchers from Harvard Medical School reported a 62% increased risk of heart attacks or strokes among adults with the lowest blood levels of vitamin D, compared with those who have the highest levels of D. “We’ve also noticed that deaths from cardiovascular events are highest in the winter months, when vitamin D is generally at its lowest,” Dr. Garland says.

Say good-bye to seasonal blues
Low vitamin D levels may be linked to yet another winter bummer: seasonal affective disorder, a type of depression that is more common in northern states. Researchers believe that vitamin D helps keep the brain flush with the “happy hormone,” serotonin, which plays a critical role in regulating mood.

The nutrient also seems to offer a lifetime of brain-health benefits, from aiding development in infants to keeping adults sharp in their later years. “Vitamin D receptors in the brain seem to turn on several genes that are important for normal neurological function,” says Bruce Hollis, PhD, a vitamin D researcher and professor of molecular biology at the Medical University of South Carolina.

Boost your defenses against colds and flu
Research shows that colds and the flu are worst when vitamin D levels decline, and they tend to hit hardest in countries at higher latitudes, where D levels tend to be lowest. So should we pitch out the C and hail the “sunshine vitamin” as the cure for the common cold? Experts aren’t making that claim just yet, but there’s compelling evidence that keeping your D level high may slash your chances of picking up the bug that’s going around the office. In one study, women who took 800 IU of vitamin D daily were three times less likely to develop colds or the flu—and those who popped 2,000 IU reported even fewer symptoms. Small wonder some scientists have started calling D the “antibiotic vitamin.”

Prevent autoimmune disorders
Vitamin D seems to interact in a protective way with genes that raise the risk for diseases like multiple sclerosis (MS), a debilitating nerve illness that strikes mostly young women. In one Harvard University study, researchers found a 40% lower risk of MS in women who took a daily supplement of at least 400 IU of vitamin D. In fact, some studies suggest that vitamin D may help prevent many other autoimmune disorders—including rheumatoid arthritis, type 1 diabetes, and Crohn’s disease. Even in healthy women, low levels of vitamin D may lead to increased inflammation, a negative response of the immune system.

Build stronger bones
The work that D does with calcium to keep bones healthy may be old news, but it’s no less important, especially for women. Osteoporosis and fractures due to bone weakness strike up to half of all females, according to the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and loading up on calcium-rich foods may not help much if you’re D-deficient. The nutrient helps your body absorb calcium and phosphorus, minerals that enhance bone strength. A supplement can help: A recent study found that, regardless of their calcium intake, women who added 482 to 770 IU of vitamn D slashed their risk of fractures by up to 20%.

http://eating.health.com/2009/05/19/vitamin-d-you-need/
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Fri, May-29-09, 04:35
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,751
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

From Dr Briffa's blog:


Quote:
Sunlight found to bring big benefits for psoriasis sufferers

Posted By Dr John Briffa On May 30, 2009

Some of you will have noticed that there has been some focus, of late, on the beneficial properties of vitamin D within the body. For example, recently on this blog I have written pieces exploring the potential for sunlight/vitamin D to help moderate body weight and enhance muscle strength, fitness, balance and reaction time. And of course it should not be forgotten that vitamin D appears also to help ward off several conditions including osteoporosis, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis.

Vitamin D is made in the skin in response to sunlight, so one question we might ask is whether vitamin D might also somehow promote health here. One piece of indirect evidence which supports this concept relates to the experience that many sufferers of the skin condition psoriasis have in the sun. Psoriasis is characterised by raised, red, usually scaly skin ‘plaques’ (often on the knees, elbows and scalp). Quite often, these can improve considerably and may even disappear when exposed to sunlight, say when on holiday.

Psoriasis is thought to be caused by the excessive proliferation of cells in the out layer of skin known as keratinocytes. Vitamin D regulates a large number of genes in the keratinocytes, which means that vitamin D might have a role to play in the regulation of the division of these cells. In fact, compounds related to vitamin D (vitamin D ‘analogues’, such as something known as calcipotriol) are sometimes used in the treatment of psoriasis.

Light therapy is also sometimes used to treat psoriasis. This can be provided by ‘sun lamps’ giving off ultraviolet B (UVB) light. But of course this might just come directly from the sun.

I was interested to read a recent study where the effect of sunlight on psoriasis was tested. 20 Swedish men and women (average age 47) were taken off for a 3-week break in Gran Canaria (an island in the Atlantic sea about 130 miles/210 km off the northwest coast of Africa) [1].

The severity of psoriasis in this group was measured using something known as the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI). Over the course of their time on Gran Canaria, PASI scores declined an average of about 73 per cent. There was no control group (a similar group not sunning themselves in Gran Canaria to compares these results too), but nevertheless, my feeling is that these results are impressive, and add at least some scientific support for the anecdotal experiences of many psoriasis sufferers.

However, this study did not look only at individuals’ responses to sunlight. The researchers also measured vitamin D levels. I was particularly interested in this, seeing as I recently discovered my own vitamin D levels were crashingly low, and one thing I am doing to remedy this situation is to get as much sun exposure as I can without burning. At the beginning of the study, the average vitamin D was 57.2 nmol/l (22.9 ng/ml). At the end of the study, levels had risen to an average of 104.5 nmol/l (41.8 ng/ml) – a rise of almost 83 per cent.

The researchers also measured blood fat levels and the level of a substance known as HbA1c (also known as glycosylated haemoglobin) which gives a measure of blood sugar control over the preceding 2-3 months. Over the course of the study, there was improvement in the ratio of supposedly ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol to supposedly ‘good’ HDL cholesterol. This would traditionally be regarded as a sign of reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Levels of HbA1c fell too. All changes were statistically significant.

Of course, some of these changes might have been down, at least in part, due to changes in factors others than sunlight/vitamin D levels (such as diet). Though dietary change tends not to change these parameters very quickly. The speed of the changes suggests that non-dietary factors (e.g. sunlight) were more likely to be responsible for these positive changes.

This study demonstrates, I think, sun exposure really does have the capacity to improve skin psoriasis. Sufferers will be generally glad of this relief, not just because the condition can be unsightly, but because it can be uncomfortable too (the plaques can crack and bleed for instance). The study also shows that sunlight exposure can dramatically enhance vitamin D levels. It should be borne in mind that the study subjects were from Sweden, and are likely to have had fair skin (more vitamin D is made in fair skin in response to a given amount of sunlight than in darker skin).

Finally, sunlight (and maybe other factors) appeared to lead to positive changes in the biochemistry of these individuals with regard to blood fat and blood sugar levels.

People who go off on holiday to sunnier climes very often report feeling better at the end of it. For many, getting away from one’s routine and perhaps hectic and stressful life at home has a part to play here. However, it does seem that, through the action of sunlight, one of the reasons that people feel healthier at the end of a holiday is because they are healthier. It seems to me that there is really is such a thing as a healthy tan.

References:

1. Osmancevic A, et l. Effect of climate therapy at Gran Canaria on vitamin D production, blood glucose and lipids in patients with psoriasis. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 24th April 2009 [Epub ahead of print publication]


http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/0...asis-sufferers/



PubMed abstract:
Quote:
Effect of climate therapy at Gran Canaria on vitamin D production, blood glucose and lipids in patients with psoriasis.

Osmancevic A, Nilsen LT, Landin-Wilhelmsen K, Søyland E, Abusdal Torjesen P, Hagve TA, Nenseter MS, Krogstad AL.


Department of Dermatology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sahlgrenska Academy, Göteborg, Sweden.

Abstract Background Climate therapy (heliotherapy) of psoriasis is an effective and natural treatment. Ultraviolet radiation (UVB) from the sun improves psoriasis and induces vitamin D(3) synthesis. Objective The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of climate therapy on vitamin D(3) synthesis, blood glucose, lipids and vitamin B12 in psoriasis patients. Methods Twenty Caucasian patients (6 women and 14 men; mean age, 47.2 years; range, 24-65) with moderate to severe psoriasis [mean Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score 9.8; range, 3.8-18.8] received climate therapy at the Gran Canarias for 3 weeks. Blood samples were drawn before and after 15 days of sun exposure. In addition, the patients' individual skin UV doses based on UV measurements were estimated. Results Sun exposure for 15 days lead to a 72.8% (+/- 18.0 SD) reduction in the PASI score in psoriasis patients. Although no direct correlation was observed between PASI score improvement and UVB dose, the sun exposure improved the vitamin D, lipid and carbohydrate status of the patients. The serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] increased from 57.2 +/- 14.9 nmol/L before therapy to 104.5 +/- 15.8 nmol/L (P < 0.0001) after 15 days of sun exposure; the serum levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D] increased from 146.5 +/- 42.0 to 182.7 +/- 59.1 pmol/L (P = 0.01); the ratio of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased from 2.4 to 1.9 (P < 0.001); and the haemoglobin A(1)c (HbA(1)c) levels decreased from 5.6 +/- 1.7% to 5.1 +/- 0.3% (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Climate therapy with sun exposure had a positive effect on psoriasis, vitamin D production, lipid and carbohydrate status. Conflicts of interest None declared.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19453805
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Fri, May-29-09, 05:56
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Posts: 16,562
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/350.4/160 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 7%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayppers
Zuleikaa, I have a document where I collected many a posts that I found interesting from this thread to keep for my personal collection. One of them had a post from you that mentioned that there was evidence that it was being understood that the D wasn't being destroyed to the extent once believed when getting continual sun exposure, justifying the fact that we are designed for higher D production/intake than is commonly believed. Might you be able to cite more specific resources as to where you come to this conclusion and posted the following in a previous D experiment thread of the past (on 02/09/2006)? No worries if not, just interested in looking into that further.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
The higher hurdle for vitamin D deficiency makes more sense to me in light of the vitamin D status of people native to the tropics; they have vitamin D levels ranging from 125 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L. Further, they've now discovered that the body doesn't just shut down vitamin D production but can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day. I know of that 50k+ some is stored for winter but, in that case, to me, a higher level RDA makes even more sense.

To me having a FDA mandated "safe" level of 2,000 IUs when your own skin can produce in excess of 50,000 IUs of vitamin D per day during the summer from prolonged or repeated exposure is ridiculous.


Jason
I can't remember where I read that but it made a definite impact on me. I think it's why a level of <200 ng/ml. has become the safe standard.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, May-29-09, 16:16
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,751
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

From The Times
London, UK
30 May, 2009


Quote:
Is vitamin D the new wonder supplement?

Most of us don’t get enough of it. But the solution — spending more time in the sun — is also the problem


The dramatic news this week that cases of the deadliest form of skin cancer have reached a record high drove home the message that we all know: protect your skin as much as possible from the sun’s damaging ultraviolet rays. But there is a problem behind the urgent simplicity of this warning. There is increasing evidence that if we do just that our health may suffer in other ways.

The reason is vitamin D, an essential nutrient almost wholly provided to the body by dint of a chemical reaction that occurs when ultraviolet rays hit the skin. A swath of recent research shows how beneficial vitamin D is to our health and wellbeing, and how harmful deficiency can be. Results from an international study on ageing, published last week, showed that high vitamin D levels are associated with greater mental agility in men aged 40 to 79.

Vitamin D, a product of sun exposure, is rapidly taking up the status of wonder nutrient. But having been primed for decades about the importance of covering up, what are we to do?

For years scientists have known that vitamin D deficiency raises the risk of bone problems such as osteoporosis and rickets. But, recently, a firm link has been made with bowel cancer, and, in the past five years, with breast cancer, diabetes, heart disease, joint disease, multiple sclerosis, dementia, birth difficulties and autism.

Given that some research indicates that 60 per cent of us are vitamin D-deficient — 90 per cent in winter — this could be important. In the past few weeks papers have come out in reputable journals suggesting that low levels are linked with severe asthma and that a daily dose of the vitamin may slow prostate cancer.

Now, with a potential flu pandemic on our doorsteps, the belief of an American doctor and psychiatrist, John Cannell, that vitamin D deficiency makes us more vulnerable to influenza is certain to grab the limelight. His theory, published recently in the reputable journal Epidemiology and Infection, hinges on the mysterious seasonality of flu, which hits us mainly in colder months.

The reason, Cannell says, is that lack of sun deprives us of vitamin D, which has been shown to stimulate the production of antimicrobial chemicals that kill flu viruses. Less sun equals more viral infection.

Not only that, but there is also evidence that vitamin D can damp down our immune response so that it doesn’t get out of control. This is important as far as flu is concerned because in the 1918 flu pandemic many young and healthy people died as a result of an overreaction by their immune system, not the infection itself.

How much of this new research should we believe? The case for vitamin D as a wonder nutrient is on a spectrum of credibility with Cannell’s work at one end of the scale: fascinating, but a plausible theory lacking research evidence to back it up. At the other end is strengthening evidence of a firm link with specific illnesses.

Take multiple sclerosis. Five years ago, scientists who pointed out a link between vitamin D and MS — because, looking globally, hours of sunlight exposure (and therefore vitamin D production) tallied almost exactly with distribution of the disease — were regarded as maverick.

But in February The Times reported that George Ebers, Professor of Clinical Neurology at the University of Oxford, had discovered that vitamin D affects a particular genetic variant, which increases the risk of developing multiple sclerosis. This, he says, suggests that lack of sunlight and vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy and early childhood increases the risk of developing MS. The MS Society welcomed the findings as “remarkable”.

A World Health Organisation report published late last year said that there was “strong evidence that increased daily intake of vitamin D could significantly improve health”. The problem is that the strength of evidence varies from condition to condition (see panel overleaf), which is why it also calls for more large research studies.

Why should vitamin D have such a beneficial effect? We know that it is needed by the body to help it to absorb calcium and phosphorous, which are essential for bone and tooth growth. Now there is some understanding that it can affect the way that genes express themselves.

And in a new paper published in a specialist mineral metabolism journal recently, researchers from the University of California propose that vitamin D is essential in preventing cancer because it holds layers of cells together, preventing their multiplication from getting out of control.

If evidence that vitamin D improves your health is good, and if studies show that most of us are deficient, why aren’t we all being given official advice to take vitamin D supplements? Or to eat foods rich in vitamin D, such as oily fish, eggs and breakfast cereals? There is a problem.

At least 90 per cent of the vitamin D in the body comes from sunlight exposure. Scientists agree that by far the best way of boosting the nutrient is to expose your body to sunlight, without sunscreen, at times when ultraviolet radiation is at its strongest: noon and early afternoon in spring and summer. This also builds up a reserve for winter.

Research has indicated that the skin produces about 10,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D in response to 20-30 minutes of summer sun exposure. In comparison, the recommended daily dose of a vitamin D supplement is 400 IU (10 micrograms); any more of this synthetic (as opposed to skin-manufactured) version is considered risky by authorities because too much can, in theory, cause kidney damage. One portion of oily fish contains 320 IU (8 micrograms).

In other words, the amount you can eat in your diet, or is judged safe for a daily supplement tablet, is unlikely to dent the problem of deficiency. Even conservative estimates about deficiency, from the Government’s National Diet and Nutrition Survey, say that 30-40 per cent of people in some groups, such as older people, 19-24-year-olds and those with dark skins, are consistently low on vitamin D. But the alternative — encouraging people to sun themselves — is fraught with danger given concerns about skin cancer.

Cancer organisations understandably tread a cautious line on the issue. They do, however, acknowledge the importance of not covering up all the time. And everyone agrees that burning is bad.

“Obviously vitamin D is important for health, but the amount you need from the Sun is always less than for tanning or burning,” says Ed Yong, the health information manager at Cancer Research UK. “We know that casual exposure is enough for vitamin D production and recommend 10 to 15 minutes a day.”

Meanwhile, the Human Nutrition Research Centre (of the Medical Research Council), which informs the Government on diet and nutrients, acknowledges that vitamin D deficiency is a policy poser. Dr Inez Schoenmakers, the senior scientist leading work on vitamin D metabolism, says that it is possible, but difficult, to get all our vitamin D requirement from food. Fortifying foods is another option that has been pursued in the US and other countries, but not in the UK, where only cereals, margarine and some flours have added vitamin D.

The problem with this broad approach is that it does not target those who need vitamin D most, Dr Schoenmakers says. She also recommends careful and limited unprotected sun exposure in the middle of the day. But for elderly, teenage or dark-skinned people who can’t do this she advises taking a vitamin D supplement. Her research has indicated that it is circulated and used by the body more effectively than has previously been acknowledged.

In other words, getting the right levels of vitamin D without damaging our bodies at the same time requires us to eat, take supplements or seek the sun sensibly; to behave responsibly. Governments are not renowned for putting out public health messages that trust us to do that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li...icle6373802.ece
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, May-29-09, 17:02
Jayppers's Avatar
Jayppers Jayppers is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 651
 
Plan: Mostly carnivory
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 5'11'' (feet and inches)
BF:
Progress: -20%
Location: Ohio
Default

Thanks for your continued posting of articles & information as you stumble across them, Demi.

Quote:
Research has indicated that the skin produces about 10,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D in response to 20-30 minutes of summer sun exposure.
Is this accurate? I've come across sources that say it is higher recently. I read recently on the D council web-site that Holick (the D guru) now believes it's more like 20K IUs.

Quote:
Vitamin D and Mental Illness

Holick now believes that a full body minimal erythemal dose of summer sunlight at noontime produces 20,000 IU of vitamin D.
Holick M. Personal communication. August 2003.
Quote:
Obviously vitamin D is important for health, but the amount you need from the Sun is always less than for tanning or burning,” says Ed Yong, the health information manager at Cancer Research UK. “We know that casual exposure is enough for vitamin D production and recommend 10 to 15 minutes a day.
If only they knew the secret that D deficiency itself is part of the burning vs. tanning conundrum. It's the whole chicken or the egg scenario.

Quote:
Meanwhile, the Human Nutrition Research Centre (of the Medical Research Council), which informs the Government on diet and nutrients, acknowledges that vitamin D deficiency is a policy poser. Dr Inez Schoenmakers, the senior scientist leading work on vitamin D metabolism, says that it is possible, but difficult, to get all our vitamin D requirement from food.
At least she said difficult, but still ... "You know what I mean?" If we're talking adequacy in terms that Vieth discusses, we're nowhere close to meeting the daily requirement with food alone.

Last edited by Jayppers : Fri, May-29-09 at 17:16.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Fri, May-29-09, 17:18
Jayppers's Avatar
Jayppers Jayppers is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 651
 
Plan: Mostly carnivory
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 5'11'' (feet and inches)
BF:
Progress: -20%
Location: Ohio
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zuleikaa
Jason, I can't remember where I read that but it made a definite impact on me. I think it's why a level of <200 ng/ml. has become the safe standard.
Thanks, Z
I edited my previous post to include citation from a piece I stumbled across in the old thread that satisfied my appetite (for now).
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Sat, May-30-09, 03:53
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 21,751
 
Plan: LCHF
Stats: 215/170/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 82%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayppers
Thanks for your continued posting of articles & information as you stumble across them, Demi.
Thanks. I do think it's both interesting to those of us who participate in this thread, and also important to highlight what info is out there and any articles that are published on the subject.

And with that in mind, here's another article on Vitamin D in the British media this morning:


Quote:
Revealed: the best protection against cancer

Global study discovers astonishing power of vitamin made by the sun

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor


Saturday, 30 May 2009

Boosting levels of vitamin D could cut the incidence of breast cancer by a quarter, bowel cancer by a third and it should be offered to the population as part of a public health drive, scientists say.

The finding is based on a review of 2,750 research studies involving vitamin D, sometimes called "bottled sunshine", which show that taking daily supplements of the vitamin could do more for cancer prevention than a library full of lifestyle advice.

Vitamin D is made by the action of sunlight on the skin but the gloomy weather and long winter in countries north of 30 degrees latitude, such as the UK, means that a large part of the earth's population is deficient between October and March.

Vitamin D has attracted increasing attention in recent years as its role in preventing cancer and other conditions including heart disease, diabetes and multiple sclerosis, has been revealed. The weight of evidence has grown so dramatically that governments around the world are reviewing their recommendations. The US and Canadian governments have set up a taskforce on vitamin D, and the Scottish government is taking expert advice. The pressure is now on the Department of Health in England to respond.

Scotland's chief medical officer, Harry Burns, attended a conference last November convened by the Scottish government at which international experts recommended randomised trials be established in the wake of strong evidence that increased intake could improve health.

High rates of heart disease, cancer and multiple sclerosis in Scotland have been blamed on the weak sunlight and short summers. Some experts believe the benefits of the Mediterranean diet have as much to do with the sun as with the regional food. However, too much sun exposure leading to sunburn is damaging to the skin and a cause of malignant melanoma, one of the most rapidly growing – and deadly – cancers. Figures published this month show cases of melanoma have topped 10,000 annually for the first time.

Now scientists at the University of Edinburgh have been awarded a £225,000 grant to investigate the link between low levels of vitamin D in Scotland and bowel cancer.

The US and Canadian government taskforce is examining whether the current recommendation for people to achieve a blood level of vitamin D equivalent to taking 200-600 international units (IU) a day, depending on their age, should be increased. The recommended level was set in 1997 and is based on what was necessary for bone health, not cancer prevention.

The same level is recommended in the UK, where official policy is that sun exposure and diet (oily fish and eggs contain vitamin D) are sufficient to achieve it, without supplements, for most adults. But an increasing body of cancer and other medical experts say a healthy intake of vitamin D should be five to 10 times higher.

Writing in the Annals of Epidemiology, Professor Cedric Garland and colleagues from the University of California, San Diego, say if everyone took 2,000 IUs of vitamin D a day, the current maximum recommended in Canada, it would save an estimated 200,000 cases of breast cancer and 250,000 cases of bowel cancer worldwide.

Professor Garland first recognised the link when, as a young doctor in the late 1970s, he used to drive with his brother Frank Garland across the US from sunny California to John Hopkins University on the snowy east coast. Bowel cancer was more common in the north and east of the country than in the south and west and while cancer specialists at the time looked for an explanation in the amount of fibre in the diet or the way meat cooked on a barbecue, the Garland brothers suspected a link with climate.

Twenty-five years later, after a series of papers establishing the link between breast and bowel cancer and vitamin D, their ideas are being taken seriously. The Canadian Cancer Society was the first to recommend a daily vitamin D supplement (of 1,000 IUs) in 2007, for the whole country in winter and for northern parts that get little sun in summer as well.

However, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyons, France, called last year for a major trial to prove the safety and efficacy of vitamin D before supplements are recommended for populations.

IARC scientists have warned that high levels of vitamin D in blood samples may not prevent cancer but instead be a sign of a healthy lifestyle. Supplements have in the past failed to deliver the benefits expected from their naturally occurring versions, and have in some cases been found to be harmful. Beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, which early research suggested would prevent lung cancer was shown to increase it in smokers.

But Oliver Gillie, of the Health Research Forum said vitamin D has also been shown to play a vital role in heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis. "It is like the trick question whether it was Shakespeare who wrote the sonnets or someone else with the same name," he said. "We know what vitamin D does, and there is a very plausible biological hypothesis for how it works. There might be something else that is having the effect, but why would we look for it when it is there under our noses? The amount of research on other supplements is nothing like as great as that on vitamin D."

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...er-1693138.html
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Sat, May-30-09, 11:25
Jayppers's Avatar
Jayppers Jayppers is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 651
 
Plan: Mostly carnivory
Stats: 145/145/145 Male 5'11'' (feet and inches)
BF:
Progress: -20%
Location: Ohio
Default Today's D thought (among many)

If one of the MP's arguments is correct, that exogenous 25(OH)D (from food and supplements) deactivates the VDR (which of course I disagree with due to scientific explanations I've come across to the contrary), then why is it that now that I'm taking mega-doses of exogenous D3 my skin is much more resilient against the exposure to UV rays from the sun? If the exogenous D were deactivating my VDRs, then I would logically expect to be seeing the opposite reaction given that there is evidence (presented previously) that D metabolites play a role in protecting the skin from UV radiation, resulting in less burning and damage and more tanning.

I just got inside from laying out in the noon-time sun and not even a trace of pink or redness. I'm tanning beautifully and can tolerate being outdoors much better now and my skin is looking and feeling its best now that I am feeling more 'D replete' (and also A replete, as it is essential for the full functioning of D). The cholecalciferol-phobia about going to high is rampant and unfortunate. It truly is all about balance. "Life in its fullest is Mother Nature obeyed."

Quote:
Thanks. I do think it's both interesting to those of us who participate in this thread, and also important to highlight what info is out there and any articles that are published on the subject.
Yes, I totally agree. It is also beneficial so that we as a group have the chance to dispel inaccuracies presented in such articles so that misinformation doesn't prevail to those who are serious about getting to the bottom of the subjects. Well done and keep up the good work!

Do you guys notice how I'm more upbeat and posting more frequently when I'm obtaining adequate, or optimal, fat soluble nutrients (especially D)?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Sat, May-30-09, 15:38
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Posts: 16,562
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/350.4/160 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 7%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayppers
Do you guys notice how I'm more upbeat and posting more frequently when I'm obtaining adequate, or optimal, fat soluble nutrients (especially D)?
Yes, I do notice. You were very depressed before and had a lot of anxiety.

Last edited by Zuleikaa : Sat, May-30-09 at 16:18.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Sat, May-30-09, 16:20
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Posts: 16,562
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/350.4/160 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 7%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

Vitamin D, Proteinuria, Diabetic Nephropathy, and Progression of CKD.Agarwal R.
Indiana University School of Medicine and Richard L Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Although the endocrine effects of vitamin D are widely recognized, somewhat less appreciated is that vitamin D may serve paracrine functions through local activation by 1-alpha-hydroxylase and thus maintain immunity, vascular function, cardiomyocyte health, and abrogate inflammation and insulin resistance. In the kidney, vitamin D may be important for maintaining podocyte health, preventing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transformation, and suppressing renin gene expression and inflammation. Replacement with pharmacologic dosages of vitamin D receptor agonists (VDRA) in animal models of kidney disease consistently show reduction in albuminuria, abrogation of glomerulosclerosis, glomerulomegaly, and glomerular inflammation, effects that may be independent of BP and parathyroid hormone, but the effects of VDRA in preventing tubulointerstitial fibrosis and preventing the progression of kidney failure in these animal models are less clear. Emerging evidence in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) show that vitamin D can reduce proteinuria or albuminuria even in the presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. In addition to reducing proteinuria, VDRA may reduce insulin resistance, BP, and inflammation and preserve podocyte loss providing biologic plausibility to the notion that the use of VDRA may be associated with salubrious outcomes in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Patients with CKD have a very high prevalence of deficiency of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Whether pharmacologic dosages of vitamin D instead of VDRA in patients with CKD can overcome the paracrine and endocrine functions of this vitamin remains unknown. To demonstrate the putative benefits of native vitamin D and VDRA among patients with CKD, randomized, controlled trials are needed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...Pubmed_RVDocSum
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:36.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.