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
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #106   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 08:53
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Exclamation Bread and rickets, Vitamin D - leave it be.


Last edited by Lere : Mon, Jun-29-09 at 09:13. Reason: bad link
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #107   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 08:59
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Vitamin D could have helped. So could a change of diet. We are pretty sure she was type 2 diabetic...she just never had a dx.
Reply With Quote
  #108   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 09:40
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
See post 94In practice during this research period those people with 25(OH)D below 50nmol/l 20ng died at double the rate of those with 25(OH)D above 100nmol/l 40ng.

That seems to me a very good reason why supplementing or getting sufficient full body sun exposure to achieve at least 40ng 100nmol/l is a good idea.

Look at the chart here and you find the lowest incidence of chronic conditions occurs when a minimum level of 137.5nmol/l is attained and maintained through the year.

We are now living with a higher inflammatory content to our diets. Omega 6 industrial vegetable oils, high fructose corn syrup, modern nutritionally deprived flours place an increased burden on our natural anti inflammatory system and those with higher vitamin D omega 3 status are best place to survive the challenge of those chronic diseases that thrive on a western diet.
Reply With Quote
  #109   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 09:42
Wifezilla's Avatar
Wifezilla Wifezilla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,367
 
Plan: I'm a Barry Girl
Stats: 250/208/190 Female 72
BF:
Progress: 70%
Location: Colorado
Default

Call me suspicious...but a new member with 1 post and out of all the threads on this board, finds the ongoing vitamin D thread just to post anti-D links???
Reply With Quote
  #110   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 09:54
TejanaCJ's Avatar
TejanaCJ TejanaCJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 273
 
Plan: High fat LC
Stats: 437/349/134 Female 5 ft. 5 in.
BF:Next/Goal/350
Progress: 29%
Location: Live Oak, Texas
Default Let us hope

Quote:
Originally Posted by black57
My doctor is sick...very sick. One of his illnesses is a break down in his immune system. I plan to call him today to coax him to have his vitamin D tested. I have to figure out a way to "prescribe" this treatment so that he'll listen to me.


I hope you are successful. Some of the most eloquent movers on alternatives to what is mainstream medicine are the doctors who found their colleagues and their mainstream "wisdom" could not help them when they fat, sick, or whatever their condition. Self-cures with credentials who publish or talk extensively about it get others to listen.
Reply With Quote
  #111   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 11:09
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

Meta–analysis of all trials showed that use of vitamin D supplements decreased the risk for all-cause mortality. (http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/13/2/47)

There are a lot of studies like this around which can be interpreted to support you, but I am of the opinion that such an interpretation is a mistake, one that has been made before.

Scientific enthusiasm for vitamin D supplements matches that for antioxidants a few years ago. The rational was the same; healthier people having higher levels just raise levels with a pill. Some of these trials were halted due to excess mortality like the one with beta carotene. Now they're not so keen on antioxidant pills and are reduced to arguing how harmful antioxidants are.

'The questionable association of vitamin E supplementation and mortality--inconsistent results of different meta-analytic approaches'. (Gerss J, Köpcke W,09)


The claims for vitamin D will go the same way.
Reply With Quote
  #112   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 12:01
Hutchinson's Avatar
Hutchinson Hutchinson is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 2,886
 
Plan: Dr Dahlqvist's
Stats: 205/152/160 Male 69
BF:
Progress: 118%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
Meta–analysis of all trials showed that use of vitamin D supplements decreased the risk for all-cause mortality. (http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/13/2/47)

There are a lot of studies like this around which can be interpreted to support you, but I am of the opinion that such an interpretation is a mistake, one that has been made before.
Indeed but it is a pity that you cannot come up with any scientific evidence to dispute the fact that in practice
In practice when you measure the 25(OH)D of people with Cardiovascular disease the ones with a low vitamin D status die at a faster rate than those with a vitamin D status above 40ng 100nmol/l.

What kind of idiot chooses the be the high risk group when increased risk of death is the issue?

Quote:
Scientific enthusiasm for vitamin D supplements matches that for antioxidants a few years ago. The rational was the same; healthier people having higher levels just raise levels with a pill. Some of these trials were halted due to excess mortality like the one with beta carotene. Now they're not so keen on antioxidant pills and are reduced to arguing how harmful antioxidants are.

'The questionable association of vitamin E supplementation and mortality--inconsistent results of different meta-analytic approaches'. (Gerss J, Köpcke W,09)
I agree with you that the value of meta analysis are dependent selection criteria applied to the rubbish that is put into them.

The difference between the Vitamin E and D3 stories is that we are now better able to understand the difference between effective natural vitamins and synthetic substitutes.
Any vitamin D scientist who presents studies using the synthetic D2 form of the vitamin is likely to be ridiculed.
We must also look carefully at the study and check that the form of vitamin supplement used and the amounts used are likely to be effective.
Big pharma have a lot invested in keeping populations sufficiently unhealthy to require ongoing medical treatments. But we can now, by using the internet and find out what actually works and what doesn't.
here is an example but there are many others.
Cooling Inflammation
Whole Health Source
Heartscanblog

We can see that correcting insufficiency states in certain areas produces measurable reductions in risk factors.

If it wasn't the case that people not only felt better, had fewer symptoms, felt less pain, suffered less depression, after correcting vitamin D insufficiency then they wouldn't continue to take the supplements and they would not be able to point to improved figures when blood tests are taken.

Last edited by Hutchinson : Mon, Jun-29-09 at 15:12.
Reply With Quote
  #113   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 12:01
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
Meta–analysis of all trials showed that use of vitamin D supplements decreased the risk for all-cause mortality. (http://ebm.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/13/2/47)

There are a lot of studies like this around which can be interpreted to support you, but I am of the opinion that such an interpretation is a mistake, one that has been made before.

Scientific enthusiasm for vitamin D supplements matches that for antioxidants a few years ago. The rational was the same; healthier people having higher levels just raise levels with a pill. Some of these trials were halted due to excess mortality like the one with beta carotene. Now they're not so keen on antioxidant pills and are reduced to arguing how harmful antioxidants are.

'The questionable association of vitamin E supplementation and mortality--inconsistent results of different meta-analytic approaches'. (Gerss J, Köpcke W,09)


The claims for vitamin D will go the same way.
How odd. We certainly see things differently. I wouldn't have said the scientific enthusiasm for Vitamin D was high! The enthusiasm I see is among the peons. Like me.
Reply With Quote
  #114   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 12:22
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 I'm Leery Lere

I agree, PS.

This individual is clearly of the common 'vacuum' mindset, citing papers and analysis that focuses on a single nutrient or supplement being tested, where he is not considerate of the synergistic value of other nutrients in protecting against the harm that excessive levels of other nutrients have the potential to cause. It is all about a balance, and when you tip the scales, you're always going to get less than favorable results - that is obvious.

To talk of D and only D is a mistake, IMO. You must discuss D in the context of a nutrient dense diet that contains adequate amounts of all other protective and synergistic elements to allow the others to function properly and protect from potential harm when excesses of others are consumed.

In reviewing those blog posts, I see what appears to be more analysis of vitamin D working in a vacuum (as expected). Review of these blog posts that call into question the benefit and potential harm caused by higher substrate D levels makes me wonder whether the author has reviewed any of the papers by Masterjohn that cite studies that show protection and synergy between the other fat soluble nutrients. Until I start seeing people's skeptical analysis incorporate these points regarding synergistic nutrient balance, it will remain difficult for me to look at such arguments and analysis with much interest.

The whole idea of calcification alone is not as simplistic as 'high vitamin D', which I found peppered in one of those posts (the comments at least). Even Zuleikka herself is proof positive that high D (I mean high D) does not equate to hypercalcemia. Her level would surely knock the socks off this author and certainly leave him scratching his head.

Quote:
Scientific enthusiasm for vitamin D supplements matches that for antioxidants a few years ago. The rational was the same; healthier people having higher levels just raise levels with a pill. Some of these trials were halted due to excess mortality like the one with beta carotene. Now they're not so keen on antioxidant pills and are reduced to arguing how harmful antioxidants are.
Indeed, the concept is the same on the surface, but you're really comparing apples to oranges here. Like the heart disease study Hutchinson cited, the opposite of excessive mortality is created with higher D levels, contrary to your analogy to the antioxidant trials.

Last edited by Jayppers : Mon, Jun-29-09 at 12:28.
Reply With Quote
  #115   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 13:01
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

Quote:
The rational was the same; healthier people having higher levels just raise levels with a pill. Some of these trials were halted due to excess mortality like the one with beta carotene.
The beta carotene study was also a study with SMOKERS. The same conclusions were not drawn for non-smokers.
Reply With Quote
  #116   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 13:09
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

Agreed... I was thinking the same thing while writing my previous post, but wasn't sure if I was recalling correctly or not.
Reply With Quote
  #117   ^
Old Mon, Jun-29-09, 15:38
Lere Lere is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 60
 
Plan: Paleo
Stats: 232/219/200 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default Beware: evolution isn't stupid

Low Vitamin D levels are indeed associated with higher all cause mortality.

My point was that low levels of antioxidants were and are associated with higher all cause mortality. Scientists did studies of people who took pills (these were cocktails of them in many cases) and the results showed no benefit. If anything they were deleterious. Michael Ristow's recent study showed that antioxidants prevent exercise from improving insulin resistance.

In the same way studies of those who raised their vitamin D levels with pills will not find any reduction in all cause mortality. If vitamin D improved health at the higher levels evolution by natural selection would have taken care of business by now. The links I have posted contain no information that is new to you?
Reply With Quote
  #118   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 03:49
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default Antioxidants and vitamin D

I actually bought the Lester Packer book called "The antioxidant miracle" a while back.

What struck me as I read it was how often his claims are based on test-tube experiments, the so-called "in vitro" experiments done in labs, rather than the so-called "in vivo" experiments done on rats, mice and monkeys. Occasionally, these tests are actually performed on humans. But, more often than not, they aren't.

The second "dodgy" thing about all these wild claims for the value of antioxidants is that the mindset of the scientists who came up with the whole idea of antioxidants as the next big thing is totally tainted by the anti-fat dogma.

They all go on and on about how great fruit and veg are, and spout the usual nonsense about keeping your intake of saturated fats and animal protein low. They all swallowed the "Big Fat Lie" about cholesterol, sat fats and red meat. As a result, they were simply unable to believe that saturated fats could actually have a protective effect against disease; it had to be something else: why not fruit and veg!!!

And, finally, as far as I remember, the whole theory that oxidization itself is a dangerous thing seems a little wobbly, if you ask me. It is usually distilled to something like this for the lay reader: "You know how metal rusts when exposed to oxygen, well, the same happens in your body if there aren't enough anti-oxidants around to neutralize the oxygen".

To me, this seems somewhat akin to the idea that "cholesterol clogs the pipes" in our body, which is also a gross oversimplification of what is currently perceived to be the actual reality (which in itself is only a guess - nobody has yet got inside a living body to chart the progress of arteriosclerosis).

I am not surprised that many of these studies which intended to show the benefits of antioxidants (usually vitamins A, C and E) in supplement form have produced dismal results.

However, the development of research on vitamin D deficiency has followed a completely different path. Firstly, the recurrence of deficiency-related disease was noted (such as the re-emergence of rickets in the USA); secondly, many populations have had their vitamin D levels tested; thirdly, populations with various diseases have had their vitamin D levels tested. The conclusions drawn have been that people with low vitamin D levels tend to be at greater risk of disease than those with higher levels.

Scientists are now embarking on the next step, which is to carry out testing on real people to see if various risk factors are reduced when vitamin D levels are normalized. So far, all the evidence speaks in favour of the value of raising vitamin D levels.

My personal observation is that it is also necessary to ensure that magnesium levels are also optimal before beginnning with vitamin D supplementation.

In my opinion, many "scientists" jumped on the antioxidant bandwagon due to the fact that they were totally blinkered by the nonsense started by Ancel Keys and the ensuing anti-cholesterol/sat fat dogma.

My two cents,

amanda
Reply With Quote
  #119   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 03:55
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by black57
I told my kids the day of his death, that if MJ were taking vitamin D, he'd still be alive and he would be a lot happier. I really feel that regardless of the autopsy says caused his death vitamin D deficiency was at the root. I would also wager, that he had osteoporosis. Imagine how "bad" he'd be if he had his health. My goes out to him and his family.



You know what I read? That he had very very low magnesium levels!!! And that this can cause sudden cardiac arrest!!!

My current hobby-horse (in case you haven't noticed) is that it seems to be very important to have good magnesium levels as well as good vitamin D levels. If he was low in both, then that would explain a lot.

I couldn't say where I saw this, just whilst I was surfing...

But I might see if I can find something again...

amanda
Reply With Quote
  #120   ^
Old Tue, Jun-30-09, 03:57
amandawald amandawald is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,737
 
Plan: Ray Peat (not low-carb)
Stats: 00/00/00 Female 164cm
BF:
Progress: 51%
Location: Brit in Europe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere


Are we supposed to all go and throw our vit D supplements down the toilet just on the basis of one blog???
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 11:45.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.