During the 1960s, a large number of studies began to point to the idea that estrogen therapy might ease the pangs of menopause. In a best selling book called Feminine Forever, a Brooklyn gynecologist named Robert Wilson argued that menopause was an illness rather than a natural state associated with aging. Soon, an increasing number of older women began to take supplemental estrogen in an effort to replace the hormones that their own bodies had stopped secreting. The treatment, known as hormone replacement therapy or HRT, became one of the most popular medical treatments in America.

The American Heart Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all agreed that a sufficient number of studies had been done to prove that HRT was unequivocally helpful in helping older women ward off heart disease and osteoporosis. By 2001, 15 million


women were taking HRT, including 5 million elderly

women.

OK that dose this mean ??? thanks Ron*
http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/#4

I didn't wade though this entire article, but it doesn't mention D3 which is what they now tell you to take. Could it be that just Vit D isn't the one we need, but rather Vit

What is the difference between D3 and just D?

Hi Atrsy I found this : 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D (1,25 D) is frequently used to refer to both 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 (1,25 dihydroxycholecalciferol) and 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D2 (1,25 dihydroxyergocalciferol). Since they appear to undergo the same hydroxylation pathway (firstly hydroxylated to 25 hydroxy vitamin D in the liver then 1,25 D in the kidney) in the body and have the same physiological roles in calcium homoeostasis. At http://www.waichung.demon.co.uk/webanim/125DWeb.htm
Thanks for the reply ...... Ron*

I recommend exploring this thread for studies and the experiements that are being done.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=396439

Also this : form bacteria tell their doctors that supplementation with vitamin D and increased exposure to the sun make them feel better. As Joyce Waterhouse, PhD, a researcher affiliated with Autoimmunity Research Foundation stated in a discussion of vitamin D in diseases caused by L-form bacteria, “If you think about it, it seems little wonder that vitamin D has become so popular. It’s basically an over-the-counter steroid.”[22] Even the Vitamin D Council, a California non-profit agency who promote the use of vitamin D, say on their website that “vitamin” D is a steroid. Yet this group fails to question the full implications of their own statement. And I just got more D-3 ... It's going to take a bit for me to read it all , but so far it is saying D-3 is a no no ! Ron*

That website is the only one I've seen that talks about this sort of thing. It seems like they're trying to scare people into buying their health plan.

I see Hutchinson is in there , He may comment on this , And will look at the links , Thanks Ron*

Mercola has done reasonable job of explaining why the Marshall Protocol doesn't work.

Mark London's refutation of the Marshall protocol.
the study
a 2009 study has shown just the opposite, that 25(OH)D has agonistic activities similar to that of 1,25(OH)2D:

Marshall claims Vitamin D blocks the Vitamin D receptor, in fact the above paper shows calcidiol works in synergy with Calcitriol.

We see the same effect with curcumin
Curcumin: a novel nutritionally derived ligand of the vitamin D receptor with implications for colon cancer chemoprevention. there's other research I can list that supports similar action in other conditions. (cancer Alzheimer's)

What matters ultimately is what happens in practice.
People with higher 25(OH)D levels live longest.
If Marshall was right all the evidence would prove that those with lowest D3 levels were the healthiest. As they aren't it's not worth wasting time on his theory.

Hutchinson, Thank you ! As always you come on and make so understanding (-:
Ron*

Hutchinson : People with higher 25(OH)D levels live longest.

question- do the people that live the longest have the highest vit D naturally? I guess what I am asking, does supplementation really help or is there some reason that unhealthy people use up their natural vit D and healthy people don't? I don't think I am wording this right. Is low vit D a reflection of the illness rather than the intake?

I think that you will find that this is sort of a "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" question. That is, vitamin D gets "used up" fighting things that make us unhealthy. But also if your vitamin D levels are up then it is unlikely you will get sick so you will be healthy.

However, since the body constantly used vitamin D, there must be something that replenishes the vitamin D otherwise you would become deficient. Since most of us are not outside (nkid, ) in the sun enough, we have to supplement to have the required levels.

Of course, I defer to Hutchinson for the final word on this.

Here is a typical example.

There is a higher rate of vitamin D deficiency in people with darker skin tone. The colour of your skin determines to some extent the amount of vitamin d that skin produces. Even getting a tan will reduce the amount of vitamin D synthesised, Tanning like natural skin tone helps protect the skin when prolonged outdoor sun exposure is unavoidable. However there are many other factors involved. Vitamin D3 is made by the conversion of cholesterol by UVB and so low cholesterol in skin inevitably means reduced D3 production. As skin ages the amount of cholesterol it contains reduces and so the potential for 25(OH)D synthesis is lower. So it's difficult to say that the reduced vitamin D level that is associated with longer life is the ultimate cause of that extended life or if we should give the credit for that to having a higher cholesterol level. The way one thing relates to another regarding diet/lifestyle/genes is so complex and interwoven that it's almost impossible to unravel cause and effect.


If you take people with obesity or virtually any inflammatory condition it seems to be the case that these are associated with low vitamin D status.
If you look at this study [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2551670/?tool=pubmed]you see that low 25(OH)D predicts metabolic syndrome[/quote] (which may lead to diabetes)

The question is will raising 25(OH)D to the level the human body naturally attains and maintains given regular full body sun exposure prevent, delay, reduce the onset of Metabolic Syndrome or reduce Diabetes incidence?

Until researchers start using EFFECTIVE amounts of D3 (and NOT D2) AND they MEASURE 25(OH)D status and demonstrate 25(OH)D levels above 55ng/ml have been attained and maintained for sufficient time for the body to adjust to having a reserve of D3 stored in tissue, we won't know for certain.

We are learning lots more about the mechanisms by which 25(OH)D is used in the body to have a reasonable expectation that in practice in human bodies, having a reserve of D3 will help fight inflammation and infection, but because so much of the research is being done with too little and still too often with the less effective form of Vitamin D and the levels being regarded as adequate are unrealistically low there is still a lot of confusing information.


YES People with chronic illnesses appear to use more D3 than healthy people.
If we take obese people Vitamin D3 is fat soluble, it's carried round the body by fat molecules so while blood glucose levels glucose burning takes place and fat is stored, taking with it the D3 that should be available for use. Ideally fat storage in Autumn provides a reserve of D3 to be released during winter but if people stay fat 12months of the year that D3 simply depletes in storage and is wasted.

NO that is too simplistic. As I explained thinner older people with lower cholesterol and lower capacity to make D3 fare worse than their slightly chubbier (higher reserves of cholesterol and greater D3 potential) peers. But as LarryAJ says it's chicken and egg, which comes first but we don't HAVE to know for certain. The cost of 5000iu/d is so trivial that everyone can afford it. If you ensure your daily basic needs are met from an effective strength supplement you can then rely on skin to homeostatic potential to adjust further D3 production to keep reserves of D3 at the natural primitive level our DNA evolved to function with.

It is thought atmospheric pollution led to the elimination of dinasaurs so it's possible current upper atmospheric dust pollution is reflecting back or absorbing the UVB that should be reaching the ground and thus lowering global 25(OH)D levels year on year. So those relying on casual face and hands UVB exposure only, simply aren't getting sufficient.

Hi - quick question.

Is the combination of high LDL cholesterol and low Vitamin D level typical?

I think we don't really know yet whether disease states give people low vitamin D3 or whether the low Vitamin D3 causes the disease in the first place.

I'm betting on the latter because even if disease states do lower D3 it's probably better to raise it anyway.