http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/200805...da-0b0437e.html

Vitamin D deficiency linked to breast cancer in new study

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Women deficient in vitamin D at the time of a breast cancer diagnosis are more likely to die or see the tumor spread, a Canadian study published in the United States has shown.

Patients low in vitamin D were 94 percent more likely to see their cancer metastasize and 73 percent more likely to die from it, compared to women with normal levels of vitamin D in their blood, researchers found.

And many of the 512 breast cancer patients participating in the research, published Thursday in the American Society of Clinical Oncology, had inadequate vitamin D to begin with.

Some 37.5 percent of the women were "deficient" in vitamin D and 38.5 percent had "insufficient" levels of the vitamin, which is considered key to bone health.

But investigators stopped short of recommending taking vitamin D supplements to reduce the risk of developing breast cancer or dying from it, saying more research needs to be done.

"We were concerned to find that vitamin D deficiency was so common in women diagnosed with breast cancer and that very low vitamin D levels adversely affected patient outcome," said Pamela Goodwin of the University of Toronto, lead author of the study.

"Our results need to be replicated in other clinical studies," she cautioned. "These data indicate an association between vitamin D and breast cancer outcome, but we can't say at this time if it is causal."

Researchers studied 512 women with a median age of 50 diagnosed with breast cancer in Toronto between 1989 and 1995. The women were followed until 2006, over a median period of 11.6 years.

Just 24 percent had adequate blood levels of vitamin D at the time of their diagnosis.

According to Goodwin, a normal level of vitamin D is 80 to 120 nanomoles per liter (nmol/L) of blood. Less than 50 nmol/L is considered deficient.

In the group studied, 83 percent of those with adequate levels of vitamin D had not experienced metastases 10 years on, and 85 percent were still alive.

By contrast, 69 percent of women with low levels of vitamin D had not seen their cancer recur, and 74 percent were still alive, 10 years later.

Women deficient in vitamin D were more likely to develop breast cancer before the onset of menopause, to be overweight and to have high levels of insulin in their blood, the researchers said.

Their cancers were also more likely to be aggressive, they said.

Previous studies have shown a link between vitamin D and other types of cancer, notably prostate and colon cancer, as well as cardiovascular disease, Goodwin noted.

The chief source for vitamin D is sun exposure, since the ultraviolet rays of the sun trigger vitamin D synthesis within the human body.

Considered key to bone health, it is naturally present in very few foods, fish, beef liver and egg yolks among them.

But it is added to many foods in the United States, including milk and breakfast cereals, according to the National Institutes of Health.

American Society of Clinical Oncology

As vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, adding it to the heavily marketed fat-free and low-fat milk and cereals does not get any vitamin D into the end user.

In my region there is no brand of milk with vitamin D added. I realized this a few years ago when I began carefully reading labels.

This isn't "new" news---I read about this several years ago, when they first reported that Vit D helped the calcium supplements work for us.

Interesting. I haven't bought milk for quite a few years but I remember all the cartons saying 'Vitamin D Milk' or words to that effect.

There have been several papers showing Season of Diagnosis and Treatment affects the prognosis for breast/prostate cancers such as Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. and Vitamin D3 from sunlight may improve the prognosis of breast-, colon- and prostate cancer

Keeping 25(OH)D above 125nmol/l 50ng is related to the lowest Breast Cancer incidence. But to attain and maintain your status at that level requires 4000-5000iu/daily D3 for a woman and 5000-6000iu/daily D3 for a man.

The average vitamin d FORTIFIED milk contains about 100iu and so thinking drinking fortified milk is going to do much good is simply unrealistic. No one is going to drink 40 glasses of milk daily. Anyway when fortified milk has been tested independently it was found most samples contained significanly less than stated on the label so it is unreliable and insignificant.

If you want to ensure your vitamin d status remains at the natural level your body would sustain if you lived as our bodies evolved. (naked or only partially clothes) then you need to be using an effective strength supplement.
Biotech do 5000iu I am told Vitalady.com sell an own brand 5000iu (made by Biotech) for a tad less than Biotech themselves charge. If anyone uses them can they post back the delivery charge so we can compare total cost.

UK readers should be aware our milk is NOT fortified and contains NO vitamin d whatsoever.

Vitalady is a tad cheaper, 15.19 vs 15.70 from Biotech.

I've been taking 5,000iu daily for a couple months now, and wonder if my blood levels are good. I was most likely deficient beforehand.

I don't get the logic of putting it in breakfast cereal, but then again, manufacturers put loads of "enriching" materials into their cereal so that Mom picks "that one". Useless.

According to Dr Pamela Goodwin there is no proof yet that Vitamin D helps cancer. Here is what she says in the article:



I also read another article on breast cancer today in another thread here which actually stated that women with too much vitamin d in their blood actually suffered more from cancer!

But you did not I suspect read the full text of the research paper. If you did I would be pleased if you could post a link to the reference, or perhaps even the abstract.

I also read a Vitamin D research paper today. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in erythropoietic protoporphyria. reading the abstract tells you so much, such as "Thirty-four patients (17%) were deficient in vitamin D and 126 (63%) had insufficient vitamin D." But when you read the full text you find out a different story.

In fact they were using 50nmol/l as the marker for insufficiency.

In order to optimise the uptake of calcium from your diet you need at least 80nmol/l So if they use 30ng or 75nmol/l we find rather than 63% being insufficient 91% were.

Bear in mind also that the lowest incidence of cancer occurs amongst those whose 25(OH)D stays above 125nmol/l 50ng.

In order to understand medical scientific research you need to be able to read between the lines and that means having a basic understanding of what they are talking about.

May I suggest people read Gary Taubes book Good Calories Bad Calories (The Diet Delusion in the UK.) irrespective of whether or not you agree with his thesis you will understand, if you follow his references that you simply cannot trust peer reviewed papers to accurately report what their data actually says. You cannot either assume that what the researchers conclude has any relevance to the data they have collected.

You have to think for yourself and apply a reasonable amount of common sense.

There is a lot of money to be made out of treating sick people. There is no money to be made in supplying a non patentable vitamin made cheaply from a byproduct of the wool industry and also available free from sunlight.

There is therefore a lot of mileage in keeping the current inadequate Vitamin D status of the population as low as possible for as long as possible and big pharma are experts in disease mongering.

For those who want to learn more about the use of Vitamin D for those with cancer may I suggest you start with this newsletter.

If you want to learn more about Vitamin D for cancer prevention then start here.

If you are referring to the article that I saw in another thread on lowcarber then here is the original link to the washington post article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...8051600749.html


Here is my abstract from it which I posted in another thread on this site:



So now you you are saying that the actual study(which I admit I did not read and still have not) will contradict the washington post article? And will it also contradict my excerpts here?

The main points I have gleaned from this article are these:

* Do not go overdosing on Vitamin D thinking it is some magic pill. Stick to about 800 IU per day and stay under 2000 IU per day.

* Doctors have absolutely no clue if correcting a Vitamin D deficiency will make a person less likely to get cancer

* With regards to women, the ones at the very top of the curve with the most vitamin D in their blood the more likely they are to not survive

If you read the article this is pretty much what they are saying in plain and simple English. And these are direct quotes from doctors, not just the opinion or interpretation of a journalist.

So are you telling me the actual study will show something different?

This might actually finally get me to take my damn supplements.

So what's the cause of this vitamin D deficiency? Could it be the lack of dietary fats? Or the excess carbs? What if the cause of cancer also causes this vitamin D deficiency? What if vitamin D is a healing agent and during an illness it naturally goes lower? In other words, what if a vitamin D deficiency is a sign of illness in and of itself?

I'm not saying it will or will not. I'm saying it may. It is always worth trying to get the full text of papers you comment on because there is a lot of misreporting. Reporters are lazy and generally take the press release and cobble together an article based just on that. If you set up a few Google alerts you will see what I mean. Lots of different articles on the same topic, based on the same research, appearing from different parts of the globe, almost all of them rehashes of the research paper's press release and nothing else, no one actually checks to see what the data from the research actually stated and if the conclusions drawn from that data are valid or not.
Now do you understand how much 800iu will raise 25(OH)D status.?
Do you know what the average adult 25(OH)D status is where you live?
Can you do basic maths?
I can.

I know that using 800 - 2000iu/daily D3 will not and can not raise the average UK adult from their current status to one that will ensure their body reaches the level at which D3 stores increase.

I don't care what people say. It's what makes sense that matters. If the sums don't add up, then someone isn't using common sense. If we can see that in practice it takes 4000 -6000iu to actually raise status to levels that are natural and at which breast milk flows replete with vitamin d (surely a natural marker) then those people who suggest lower amounts are all that is necessary should be able to show that their suggestions work out in practice.

Show me the research proving Vitamin d status of Breast Milk is optimised with 800-2000iu daily supplementation and I may be interested but until then I'll stick with Hollis and Wagner. People who actually know what they are talking about and have done the practical research that proves their point.

Perhaps it would help if you spent some time getting relatively up to date with Vitamin D research.

Ouch. Hutchinson eat some chocolate or something! They were just asking!

It makes me wonder if Vitamin D could be depleted or 'made more necessary' by the presence of carbs in the way that Taubes described for Vitamin C.

I think it's environmental mostly. We evolved out of living in Africa with not much in the way of clothing to living in climates that are colder and the sunshine is less strong. When we do go outside, we're usually covered up pretty good.

I've run into some folks with vitamin D3 levels at 17 or even less. They had gluten intolerance and/or celiac disease. Maybe they absorb even less or perhaps D3 gets used up in some diseases more quickly. But perhaps it is diet related too.

But why not accept the obvious fact that we spend in general less time in the sun than in previous generations?
Surely everyone knows that exposure to UVB from sunshine raises vitamin D status.

Surely we all know that people who spend less time outside have lower vitamin d status.

Why not just accept the obvious. Why go for complex answers when simple ones suffice?

I can't see the point of researchers doing research and everyone ignoring it.

Heaney has shown how much vitamin d the body uses daily.

Why do we have to create mysteries when no mysteries are needed?

I understand reporters are lazy, and besides being lazy reporters usually did not excell in science when they were going through school and on top of that many times they are just putting their own spin on articles and in fact are better at twisting facts around for the purpose of manipulating the minds of their readers than they are of even understanding the subject matter themselves. Having said that, when a reporter does directly quote a medical professional then I no longer need to rely on the ability of the reporter. Such is the case here.




Yes, yes and yes. A year ago I started supplementing with D and tested my 25OHD levels at three separate intervals. I found out that my D levels shot up from an undetectible <2 nmol/l to 115 nmol/l in about 8 weeks time when I was just taking an average of about 1600 IU of D3 per day. Have you done any such tests on yourself? Probably not. So your math skills can only go so far.




There is no such thing as an "average UK male" since everyone probably has a different metabolism and processes nutrients differently. However I am not you so I cannot predict anything. All I can tell you is I did not leave anything to chance nor statistics and managed as much as I could myself and my conclusion was that my own D stores shot up dramatically on less than 2000 IU per day. In my opinion it would have been dangerous for me to take more than 2000 IU per day on a regular basis so I decided a safe dose would be 800 IU per day for me on a regular basis.




Also, consider this. People have been living in the UK for tens of thousands of years almost. Don't you think by now the population would have adapted to not needing tropical sunshine 4 hours a day during the afternoon? Go back 1000 years and tell me what do you think the 25OHD blood concentration was of a male farmer living in the UK during summer and winter? My guess is it would be lower than that of a greek male in the year 1008 AD. Also how do we actually know that the body is not capable of manufacturing it's own 1,25OHD from cholesterol when there is no sunshine? Nocturnal mammals do that, right? So who is to say that humans living in northern climates have not adapted to either getting by on very little D(perhaps by recycling it in the body) or by manufacturing part of their needs directly from cholesterol? 25OHD is an inert precursor as far as I know, it is 1,25OHD that is the real hormone the body needs. None of this "up to date Vitamin D research" even addresses 1,25OHD in the body and the problems associated with it being to high or too low.


Now as far as Vitamin D reserves, nobody is quite sure of what the optimal levels of D are in the blood. There is much disagreement . But consider this...if you are going to be supplementing with D3 all winter, why on earth do you need to shoot up your reserves sky high during summertime? See in northern climates there was a need for the body to store massive amounts of vitamin D in the fatty tissue, liver etc during summer bacause the almost total lack of UVB rays in wintertime made it necessary to have a big store. But in the modern era of vitamin D pills that need is not there because a person can just gobble 400 IU to 800 IU per day. Depending on the person that may be enough.

We don't. What we have to do is recognize you are talking to a forum of laymen who have not necessarily read every Vitamin D research paper in the modern world, and so ask questions of people like you who might know, rather than simply already-knowing themselves -- not because they are debating any given point but because they honestly don't know and are thinking via "discussion" (aka... a discussion board).

I agree -- probably humans are vastly less in the sun, which has less vitamin D generation as a result, and that seems like something of a no-brainer.

However, I really don't know how much humans were in the sun in an evolutionary sense. I assume "lots" but what do I know? Probably my ancestors of the Cherokee were in the sun more than my various ancestors of the Celts given the difference in skin pigment, OR maybe they were in the sun the same amount but the sun-intensity different, who knows which.

Even in places with the same amount of sun, the heat might matter to that question. Maybe mostly-naked vs. covered with turbans and robes, or under tree canopies, or in caves, or other 'cooling' approaches that'd be less common in very sunny but less-hot regions.

I don't disagree (it seems intuitively obvious) I'm just saying I don't know if I've ever seen it implied that we have any evidence of time-in-sun per day for humans prior to the agricultural age -- at which point definitely working the fields all day probably brought it about, if hunting/gathering hadn't (much of which could be done at night, as some of the Aussie Aboriginals are said to have done, as long as the prey is not nocturnal, since humans aren't and would be at a disadvantage).

Seems to me that even in geographical areas where the weather is fairly uniform, the 'shades' of pigmentation vary quite a bit--and this might be due to racial crossbreeding/immigration of course. But for example I've met blood (meaning 'full-blood') native americans of various tribes who ranged from fairly dark skinned to quite literally black (though a different under-tone color than the black of africa); there is really quite a skin tone range. Again, this is more an anthropological question and maybe it's all perfectly trackable to precisely how much sun a human group got at some point in time (I'm a little hazy on the precise quantity of time we're talking that it assumedly took humans to develop the degree of pigmentation that they have). It just seems like even within similar areas there are differences in pigment difficult to explain. For example one of my best old friends is of the Ebu tribe from Nigeria, but he told me about tribes that interacted with his and others that were very different in skin tone (some so dark that one of the local names for them basically means 'blue' - like the picture of Grace Jones on that old album if you know the one I mean).

What I'm saying is that it seems to me that if skin pigmentation reflects sun exposure in a people, and sun exposure is linked to vitamin D3, then even in regions with about the SAME amount of sun and exposure, maybe different people (in the modern world) have different levels of need for genetic reasons. Has this been researched? Maybe how much Vitamin D or sun a person needs really does depend on genetic factors, maybe even how much their body can hold depends on that; is there research on that point, do you know?

I think it's relevant because genetically (I am 14 different nationalities) if I need to be in the sun as much as my cherokee, then I'm just friggin doomed without a major supplement, but if I only need to be in the sun as much as my Northern Irish or Scot or North English genes, then probably less would do me. So to speak.

The reason I think of this is because the research paper you linked was specifically questioning assumptions that went into the research for a prior paper, regarding what was the "normal" amount of D3 in a human body (where they postulate that the lifeguard group was not a high reading but true 'normal' for humans and that the so-called normals in the original study were in fact varying degrees of D3 deficient).

Aside from waiting for someone to develop breast cancer, is there any way to actually KNOW what a given human body NEEDS in terms of D3 -- and to know and/or see if this varies from individual to individual? (Given that biochemical individuality is a pretty big subject of its own, but I haven't yet read anything related to vitamin D on that subject.) Because it seems to me that we have these old study(s) and experts saying "you need X amount," and then we have these new study(s) and the experts saying "no you need Y amount which is waaaaaaay more," and I'm not totally clear on what criteria is determining this "need"; how is this measured?

I apologize for my ignorance; I literally know ZERO about this subject, but I'm interested, if you can put up with me.

PJ





However, since one vitamin has already found to be affected by food intake, it is not really asking for "complex mysteries" to simply wonder if such a situation might be an additional causal factor as well.

Here's a study on the evolution of race/color:

http://www.bgsu.edu/departments/che..._color_2000.pdf

I think I posted it or something like it before.

Thank you!! That was educational. So basically although pigmentation directly relates to UV (historically), it's subject to change over time, females tend to be lighter (assumed for greater D3), and current pigmentation comparisons really doesn't tell us much of anything. I didn't see that link wherever you posted it previously.

PJ

Indeed that is why I continue to take 5000iu every day and continue to try to obtain the maximum amount of Vitamin D3 by full body sun exposure whenever my shadow is shorter than my height. (there is a calculator here that enables you to work out how long you need to expose your skin)
During both regular full body sun exposure AND taking 5000iu I keep my 25(OH)D at 147.5nmol/l or around 60ng.

You obviously know now that each 400iu of vitamin D3 raises status between 7-12nmol/l so your 800iu will raise status between 14 and 24 nmol/l usually.

For the average UK adult whose status is generally around 40nmol/l in winter and up to 70nmol/l in summer such a rise in status will not enable them to benefit from the lower rates of cancer/heart disease enjoyed by those with higher status.

Perhaps if you read Risk Assessment for Vitamin D and also listened to Veith explaining his paper here you may use the arrows by the slide preview to fast forward to Vieth I think the critical slide is 76 but it's a while since I last watched this presentation. The slide I want you to study plots all known cases of Vitamin D toxicity and the research (to that date there has been lots more since) using higher amounts of Vitamin D3 than 2000iu/daily.
You will see from this (if I remember correctly) that adverse events may be expected to occur above 350nmol/l and to obtain that status usually takes the administration of 40,000iu/daily for many months.

How are people checking their Vit D status? Do you have to go to a doctor or is there another, at-home test?

Thanks

Direct Labs
Uk readers, if your doctor won't do one on the NHS, can ask him to collect the sample and send it to The Doctors Laboratory who charge £40 You'll have to pay your GP for the drawing the blood and telling you the result.

OR
NEW! Test for Vitamin D Measure Your Vitamin D Levels $129.00

It has been known for a long time that nightshift workers have higher incidence of breast cancer. Seldom do they see the light of day..... As a northern latitude night shift worker, AND a nursing mom, I think I will keep taking my D3 thank you.

Vitamin D May Play Role in Breast Cancer Survival.

Pamela Goodwin, M.D., of the University of Toronto, said her study of 512 consecutive patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer found that only 24% of the women had the recommended level of vitamin D, and low vitamin D was associated with a higher risk of distant metastases and worse survival. But the study did not prove causality.[/I]

If you click the link there is an audio summary of the research.

Maybe so. But that's when it becomes important to question the possible bias (and perhaps the credentials) of the medical professional.

Bad + Bad = Worse.

All the "fat causes heart disease", "low carb is unhealthy", "food pyramid is good" for you research always includes quotes from medical professionals when reported in the news. I can see where a quote from a medical professional relieves me of the necessity to question what I read.

Not everything works for everybody. My wife drinks gallons of VitD fortified milk and spends most summer days outside. It didn't prevent her developing herc2-pos breast cancer.

I'm sorry to hear about your wife.

However, drinking milk is not the best way to obtain vitamin D. Upon testing, very few samples contained the stated, 400 IU/quart. And considering that fortificaition, someone would have to dring 10 quarts of milk a day to obtain the amount of vitamin D a healthy body uses/day.

Also, spending time in the sun and using sunscreen, you may as well stay inside. Sunscreen with a SPF as low as 8 reduces the ability to generate vitamin D by 95%.

I think it's also possible that vit. D deficiency isn't necessarily the cause of all cancers.