A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

If short on time start at 8.30

http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=15767

Then please watch this.

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40694

And then bear in mind long chain Omega 3 have been linked with a 70% reduction in risk of lumps being invasive.

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/sho...ght=greek+diet


And "Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency may contribute to musculoskeletal symptoms and bone loss observed in women taking aromatase inhibitors (AIs)."

http://vitamind3.blogspot.com/

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

great post. so how much vitamin D should someone take and what happens if you take too much?
thanks#
sarah

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

thanks RB, I'll check out the links. you always have informative posts.
sarah

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

To understand how much vitamin d someone needs to take you first have to know if they have a cancer diagnosis or are simply trying to reduce the risk of getting cancer. It is one thing to reduce risk is requires more to fight it successfully.

In the paper I discuss here
Effect of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25-hydroxy vitamin
D levels, joint pain, and fatigue in women starting adjuvant
letrozole treatment for breast cancer
They used 50,000 IU per week for 12 weeks and achieved a level between 60~70ng/mL. Which is in the region suggest byDr Cannell of the Vitamin D Council That's approximately 7000iu/daily/D3

For preventing BC a slightly lower level may be fine.
The chart here Showing Chronic Disease incidence prevention by 25(OH)D Level indicates the maximum risk reduction for cancer occurs around the 50~55ng level. and that equates with a daily D3 intake around 5000~6000iu/d.

As far as safety goes Vitamin D adverse events have only been recorded at intakes considerably above those levels. 40,000iu/daily would be needed to push 25(OH)D above `150ng/mL 375 nmol/l It would take some months to achieve that. In trials for MS using megadose amounts even these levels were exceeded without adverse events being recorded however as far as readers here are concerned. Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.

Ideally people will get their 25(OH)D tested so they will know how well they are responding to effective strength supplements. As the first trial I linked to shows it generally takes around 12 weeks to attain and reasonable vitamin d level when taking 50.000iu/week or 7000iu/daily.
This trial provides the cheapest 25(OH)d postal testing for vitamin d that I am aware of.

If anyone knows a cheaper source then do let me know.

It's part of a trial trying to be more precise about what actually is optimum vitamin d status as far as disease prevention is concerned. But the survey they are doing is very simple to complete and as you save about half the cost of the test it's time well spent.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thank you very much Ted for those excellent links and particularly the July !!!! 2009 paper from Mount Sinai.http://www.mshri.on.ca/ on intakes.


That was very well spotted 10/10.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

I have seen that sentiment expressed on a number of occasions but not in such direct terms or by such a well regarded institution.

I have copied it so people can see it for themselves and ask their medical advisers what they think.

Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;19(7):441-5. Epub 2009 Apr 11.Click here to read Links
Vitamin D and cancer mini-symposium: the risk of additional vitamin D.
Vieth R.

Department of Nutritional Sciences, University of Toronto, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. rvieth@mtsinai.on.ca

Any benefit of vitamin D needs to be balanced against the risk of toxicity, which is characterized by hypercalcemia. Daily brief, suberythemal exposure of a substantial area of the skin to ultraviolet light, climate allowing, provides adults with a safe, physiologic amount of vitamin D, equivalent to an oral intake of about 10,000 IU vitamin D(3) per day, with the plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration potentially reaching 220 nmol/L (88 ng/mL). The incremental consumption of 40 IU/d of vitamin D(3) raises plasma 25(OH)D by about 1 nmol/L (0.4 ng/mL). High doses of vitamin D may cause hypercalcemia once the 25(OH)D concentration is well above the top of the physiologic range. The physiological buffer for vitamin D safety is the capacity of plasma vitamin D-binding protein to bind the total of circulating 25(OH)D, vitamin D, and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D]. Hypercalcemia occurs when the free concentration is inappropriately high because vitamin D and its other metabolites have displaced 1,25(OH)2D from vitamin D-binding protein. Evidence from clinical trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of 10,000 IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

RB, thanks for reminding us about the value of vitamin D!

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/...stractID=31397

A link about how important vit. D3 is for prevention of cancer and for cancer relapse. I take at least 2000 IU per day, as recommended by Dr. Norton from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Dr T a nephrologist (a link form Ted's site) says

http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20d

Please discuss supplementation and dietary change with your doctor. I simply try to bring you what is being discussed.


Dr T says on his blog site

"Why an optimal level of 50-70 ng/ml? There are more than 30 organs in the body that contain Vitamin D receptors - not just the bone but heart, white blood cells, brain, breast tissue, parathyroid glands, etc. The Disease Incidence Prevention chart (click) by Grassroots Health says it all.

* Breast Cancer: At a level of 32 ng/ml, breast cancer risk is reduced by 30%. At a level of 50 ng/ml, risk decreases by 83%!

* Multiple Sclerosis: A level at 42 ng/ml - risk decreases by 33%. A level at 54 ng/ml, risk decreases by 54%

* Type I Diabetes: At level of 34 ng/ml, there is a 25% decreased risk. A level of 53 ng/ml, gives a 66% reduction.

. . .

If it is true that there is an 83% reduced risk of breast cancer at a level of 50 ng/ml, then at least 83% of women should not be getting breast cancer. Since this information is public, it is insane not to do anything about it.

The current RDA value for daily Vitamin D supplementation requirement is 400 IU. This recommendation is horribly low. Most of my patients in the office require 2000 IU to 6000 IU daily of Vitamin D3. Some are at 8000-10000 IU daily.

To read more about Vitamin D go to Vitamin D Council or Grassroots Health."

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Interesting links, RB, thanks. Just got in from a summer vacation in sunny, hot Baltimore, MD, and probably got a good dose of vitamin D while tanning. Was 110 degree there the last few days!

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

For a long time it was thought that 2000iu/daily was the safe upper limit, so doctors were reluctant to suggest amounts higher than the "official" safe upper limit, even though common sense should have informed them that as giving infants in their first year of life 2000iu/daily only resulted in an 80% reduction in Type 1 diabetes over the next 30yrs that if newborn babies can safely take 2000iu/d it is probable that adult sized bodies may safely consume more.

We now know that Vitamin D is a lot safer than previously thought.
In fact here is a report of
a 56-year-old woman who received supratherapeutic doses of ergocalciferol (150,000 IU orally daily) for 28 years without toxicity Given ergocalciferol is the form of vitamin D usually prescribed by health professionals and is (as that example shows) not utilized at all by many individuals, one cannot always rely on the accuracy of information about supplements from health professionals.
Dr Davis of the Heartscanblog discusses The case against vitamin D2 and questions the ethics prescribing the more expensive but least effective form of the vitamin. Dr Davis finds at Wisconsin his heart disease patients generally require 5000iu/daily females and 6000iu/daily males to attain what he considers the safest level for heart disease patients 60~70ng/mL.

Each individual responds differently to oral vitamin D3 supplementation in the same way each person will be respond differently to sun exposure. Some people will find 10~20 minutes full body midday sun exposure is sufficient while others will require 20~30 minutes daily.

The only way you can be sure your body has attained and is maintaining a safe 25(OH)D status is by having a regular 25(OH)D blood test.

However, in the mean time, given the consequences of low vitamin d status are far worse than a slightly higher level than average, and taking into consideration the scientific evidence showing the average adult can safely consume up to 10,000iu/daily while also getting regular sun exposure, the safest option is to use a 5000iu/daily oil-based gel D3 capsule or one recommended from The Vitamin D Council website. It will then be a simple matter to reduce intake by 1000iu/daily for each 10ng/mL you have overshot the 70ng/mL level for people with a cancer diagnosis. or be in a better position to understand how your body requires more perhaps more like 2000iu to raise status by 10ng/mL to reach 55ng/mL ( the minimum safe level for good BC prognosis)
As a basic guide to the latest research in Vitamin D3 this video explains what vitamin D deficiency is.
What's a Vitamin d Deficiency?

there are more similar evidence based videos at Grassrootshealth.net

Link to older related post- some may find helpful.
 

http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=37448


PS. I doubt that vitamin D is a cure-all for any one ailment, including bc. Therefore, I really do think moderation in supplementation is what I personally favor, especially considering possible toxicities that may be associated with long-term mega-dosing.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: Link to older related post- some may find helpful.
 

But a Possible 75% cancer mortality reduction with Vitamin D is not to be ignored.

http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/s...ervitamind.jpg
this chart plots the incidence of metastases over several years in relation to 25(OH)D status.
Vitamin D deficiency may be associated with poor outcomes in breast cancer.

The sensible thing to do therefore is to take sufficient vitamin d to ensure you are never in the lowest quartile where the incidence of metastases is greater.

There is absolutely no danger in taking sufficient vitamin d to restore your 25(OH)D to the NATURAL level our recent ancestors would have naturally achieved prior to the introduction of inflammatory foods to our diet.

The lecture from Vieth in this series on Vitamin D about the absence of risk makes the scientific evidence easier to understand but bear in mind that was 2006 and much work has been done since then and he is even more confident of his stance now see
Vitamin D and cancer mini-symposium: the risk of additional vitamin D.

For more information see
The Vitamin D Council Breast Cancer

But remember our skin naturally will make up to 20,000iu/daily given full body prone NON BURNING sun exposure. It does that for a purpose. So that surplus vitamin d3 can be stored in muscle and fat cells for use in winter or when the body is challenged and needs to draw on it's reserves of anti inflammatory agents.

The only people who have adequate stored D3 available for emergencies are those with 25(OH)D levels above 50ng/mL You can achieve a store with regular full body prone midday sun exposure or by taking @5000iu/daily/d3 or as Vieth has made clear by doing both.
But getting a 25(OH)D test is the only way you will discover what your current vitamin d3 status is and only by regularly monitoring that level will be be able to find out what intake of supplemental Vitamin D3 is sufficient to keep your body around the level associated with best prognosis.

In order to have some cost perspective the testing is around $40 £24 for UK readers and 5000iu/daily supplements work out around 7cents daily or 5p in UK money.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thank you, Ted.
My Oncologist has me on 20,000 ius a day and my levels are now at 65. They started out at 35. I totally agree with you, through all the research being done that toxicity would be difficult to attain, even with mega dosing. This same Oncologist has some of her patients on 50,000 ius. Protecting oneself from a relapse is well worth the higher dosing and is quite safe.
Vickie

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

vickie h
Thank you for telling me that.
You've made my day.
It's worried me that although there is good evidence that people with BC have better prognosis if 25(OH)D is higher rather than lower, I haven't seen much evidence that this knowledge is being applied as widely as it should.
I hope someone from the UK soon reports a similar response from UK health professionals.
It's a pity when the information is freely available in the public domain as at Pubmed nobody appears to be applying that knowledge to the patients advantage.

I am very pleased to see that you have moved from 35 to 65ng.

35mg/mL is just, but barely adequate to meet daily needs.
It's a bit like living on welfare benefits, from hand to mouth financially, sure with a bit of crafty financial management people can make do, but at 65 it's more like having a reasonable amount of spare cash available in an instant access savings account.
If there is a threat or crisis, the funds are there to respond as needed.

While 50,000iu/daily is a substantial amount it's not totally out of order.
Some people have such a high pro inflammatory status that they seem to use up vitamin d3 faster than most.

What matters isn't the quantity you take, but the 25(OH)D it produces.
Some people with inflammatory conditions require large amounts initially but as the cause of the trouble is brought under control, a lower maintenance amount will be adequate.
Providing these large amounts are taken under medical supervision and 25(OH)D tests performed regularly the chance of getting anywhere near the 150ng/mL level above which adverse events have been recorded.

But those without the advantage of a vitamin d aware Oncologist can be absolutely confident that natural amounts, equivalent to those our skin would NATURALLY make, given the chance of full body non burning, midday sun exposure are providing the biologically equivalent form is used, will be totally safe.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thanks Ted for taking the trouble to post the links and explain so clearly.

This is another Must Watch video.

This time the lecture is by a women who has had breast cancer chemo a mastectomy etc, so is a view from the sharp end.



http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16940

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thanks for posting this RB and Ted, I'll check out the links.
A friend of mine who is a 22 year survivor of bc was found recently to be depletive of VIT D and started on 50,000 IU perday for six weeks but developed disturbing side effects which she attributed to the vit d. I think as mentioned it's a very personal decision as to where you live and how much sun you get as mentioned.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Dr Davis The case against Vitamin D2 Ergocalciferol This blog post explains some of the reasons why the usually prescribed 50,000iu form is NOT the best option for most people.
Biotech are the cheapest source of D3 Cholecalciferol 50,000 I have absolutely no financial or other connection with this company. I offer the link as I think it's wrong to claim D2 has problems without providing a link to the cheaper and more effective more reliable alternative.

Vitamin D3 is an ENABLING substance, it is involved in signaling and control mechanisms. I can't begin to explain how complicated some of these control systems are but for those who Want to go into the detail Mark R. Haussler, Ph.D.makes a good attempt here in Session 1: Assessment of Vitamin D Status Monday, December 4, 2006 This is a presentation for a Vitamin d expert conference. You will see from the date that we now are better informed but it was the state of knowledge then. For those wanting an easier introduction than Haussler, Try the talks from Heaney, Hollis, Vieth Bess Dawson Hughes & Edward Giovannucci first.

The point of mentioning this control mechanism here is that one of the main enabiling roles Vit d does is to enable a higher uptake of calcium. ONLY when our 25(OH)D is above 32ng/mL or 80nmol/l can most people be sure they are getting sufficient calcium from diet/supplements.
Calcium is important for muscle, bone, brain function but the actions of calcium need to be balanced by an appropriate amount of magnesium.
For muscle fibres calcium contracts and magnesium relaxes the fibre
For brain neurons calcium excites and magnesium calms.
In the bone calcium is needed for structure but magnesium and vitamin K2 are involved in ensuring the calcium goes and stays where it is required.

So what happens when you raise calcium intake quickly (by raising 25(OH)D fast with 50,000iu) but there is insufficient magnesium in the diet?

You may get adverse side effects, muscle cramps, feeling tense but it is NOT the vitamin D that is the cause of the problem, really it is the magnesium deficiency that is exposed by the newly increased availability of much needed calcium but without the presence of sufficient counterbalancing magnesium.

Krispin here has some sensible thoughts on magnesium supplementation Dr Davis Heartscanblog on Magnesium Stephan Whole Health Source explains some of how magnesium deficiency has come about. But the obvious reason is the modern grain varieties simply don't have as much as older slower growing varieties.

The take home message is that it's worth Checking your magnesium food sources and taking some magnesium with your vitamin d. You will see from The vitamin d council source of vitamin d3 that Dr Cannell is now supporting the use of a formulation containing a SMALL amount of vitamin A, 5000iu/D3, 100mcg K2, 100mg magnesium, zinc 5mg and boron&genisten.
While I haven't used the Vitamin D Council formulation myself I understand the reasons behind the inclusion of those minerals. I personally take separate magnesium and vitamin K2 supplements. I suspect that buying them individually may work out cheaper but I haven't done the sums yet.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Indeed that is why this decision needs to be taken in the light of the evidence.

Only when you have had a 25(OH)D test will you know how far from ideal your current vitamin d level is.

I can show you the chart of average UK adult vitamin D status.
http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/s...0743810001.jpg
Remember this chart is in nmol/l and the Grassrootshealth D Action result comes in ng/mL to convert take the ng/mL number and multiply by 2.5 so 40ng/mL mulitplied by 2.5 = 100nmol/l
or take the nmol/l number 75nmol/l (I will be surprised if many UK adults reach that this year) and DIVIDE by 2.5 so 75nmol/l divided by 2.5=30ng/mL

I can show you evidence that Vitamin D deficiency is much the same in Ireland as the UK.

But the only way you will know if this also applies to you is if you get yourself tested. and then use either 1000~2000iu/daily for each 10ng/mL you need to raise to reach the level you decide is your target. 55ng/mL ~ 66ng/mL
or if you live somewhere where sun exposure is viable you may like to use this online calculator to be more confident you are getting sufficient though you have to remember vitamin d synthesis is a HEAT driven process and if your skin is freezing cold you it won't be synthesizing vitamin d3 whatever the calculator may say is theoretically possible.

Bear in mind that you are trying to mimic the NATURAL vitamin D level that would have occurred if you lived wearing the clothes you were born with and which it now appears our DNA works best with.

This new paper from Vieth
How to optimize vitamin D supplementation to prevent cancer, based on cellular adaptation and hydroxylase enzymology.
Explain a question that has bothered me for some time and needs to be understood by everyone who likes to rely on winter sun holidays to top up their vitamin d status in the winter.

The paper explains why higher 25(OH)D concentrations are not good if they fluctuate and that desirable 25(OH)D concentrations are ones that are both high and stable.

It's bothered me for some time that people from the UK who take short breaks to the tropics midwinter to try to boost their vitamin D status appear more vulnerable to picking up bugs from the recycled air in aircraft cabin on the flight home. We know that people who generally have higher levels of 25(OH)D are generally more resistant to upper respiratory tract infections so one might expect people who have just spent 5~7 days sunbathing would be less vulnerable to infection.

However this immune system vulnerable "lag time" created by a sudden change in vitamin d status could be avoided by supplementing BEFORE going for your winter break and on your return from the tropics so the rise before is more gradual and the decline after the holiday is reduced.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

I'd like to draw attention to this new paper
Fish oil enhances the antiproliferative effect of 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 on liver cancer cells. partly to dismiss any idea that because I tend to go on about vitamin D3 that I must therefore think this is the answer to everything.
In a way it's true deficiency of Vitamin d does underlie many chronic conditions but so does an imbalance in the ratio of omega 3<>omega 6 and also a deficiency in magnesium will disrupt the proper functioning of over 300different enzymes.

So there are just 3 fundamental anti-inflammatory agents which many readers here will probably have a low or deficient status, and it's no good anyone saying I take the "official" RDA of all three and therefore cannot be deficient. I'm afraid just the "official" RDA for vitamin D is so low it inevitably leads to deficiency status.

I'm sure everyone here is aware that the main dietary source of vitamin d is oily fish and also that oily fish is the main dietary source of omega 3 and this research, albeit on liver cancer, shows that when omega 3 intake is higher the anti proliverative effect of calcitriol 1.25 (the active hormone derived from vitamin d3) is much more pronounced and lower amounts can be used with lower risk of adverse events.

It isn't a case of do I use omega 3 or vitamin d or magnesium?
We know these substances work synergistally>
So rather than put all your eggs in one basket it makes sense to attack on all fronts where possible.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

I just read this thread through, having watched the lst post's videos a few days ago. Man, what an interesting dialog! Absolutely fascinating! Many thanks to all who have shared their knowledge. Ted, hope to hear more from you in the future.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Well if you really don't mind perhaps I could comment on Mary Jo's post
This is a fairly typical response and 62 is a reasonable level for someone with a chronic condition or a previous BC diagnosis to aim for.

Sheboygan, is around latitude 43 and will have a vitamin D3 low winter so while 4000iu is fine for summer maybe Mary Jo could think about raising intake to 6000iu from Oct through to the end of Feb.

I mentioned Vieth's new paper a couple of posts back and he raises the idea that fluctuations in Vitamin D status may allow periods for an imbalance to occur
When 25(OH)D declines, the ratio of 1-hydroxylase/24-hydroxylase [CYP24] must increase to maintain tissue 1,25(OH)2D at its set-point level. The mechanisms that regulate this paracrine metabolism are poorly understood. I propose that delay in cellular adaptation, or lag time, in response to fluctuating 25(OH)D concentrations can explain why higher 25(OH)D in regions at high latitude or with low environmental ultraviolet light can be associated with the greater risks reported for prostate and pancreatic cancers.

What happens in prostate cancer also often occurs in BC and We see here Vitamin D-24-hydroxylase[CYP24] in benign and malignant breast tissue and cell lines.

Nothing is ever simple and there that other factors are also concerned in the regulation of CYP24 Human CYP24 catalyzing the inactivation of calcitriol is post-transcriptionally regulated by miR-125b.

So bear in mind this is very recent information, Vieth's work is only at the HYPOTHESIS stage, but most here don't have the luxury of waiting xx years for it to be confirmed.

If Vieth is right that falling levels of 25(OH)D can lead to a temporary excess of CYP24 the simple answer is to keep 25(OH)D levels high and stable. There isn't a great deal of cost involved nor is there any risk as we know 10,000iu/daily is safe even where ample sun exposure is also present.
However Dr Davis working in Wisconsin find his female patients generally require 5000iu/daily to stay around the 60ng level so if Mary Jo took 4000iu summer and 6000iu winter she would average 5000iu/d over the year and has a greater chance of preventing the winter 25(OH)D dip which you see is typical for UK adults.

This new information should encourage people to take moderate (equivalent to daily full body sun exposure) amounts of Vitamin D DAILY rather than larger amounts monthly or even larger amounts 2/3 monthly.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_anQ81dzOVX...-D2+vs.+D3.gifThe graph Dr Davis reproduces here shows using Vitamin D2 produces a greater swing in 25(OH)D (deeper falls in level) so to achieve a steady state ONLY CHOLECALCIFEROL Vitamin D3 should ever be used, even if you can get D2 prescribed from your doctor it's not worth using it.

Rembering that to prevent an excess of CYP24 the aim is to prevent sudden changes in 25(OH)d those booking a winter holiday in the tropics may want to to plan ahead. Consider possibly increasing vitamin D3 (+2000iu) intake over a couple of the weeks prior to departure, NOT taking D3 while you are in the tropics sunbathing on the beach, BUT restarting D3 supplementation before the flight home and also using an effective amount (5000~8000iu) in the weeks after your winter break.

Fish oil was mentioned earlier and although fish oil works synergisticly with D3 it's only cod liver oil that comes with SOME (usually just 200~400iu) vitamin d3. Cod liver oil also contains vitamin A and a little NATURAL vitamin A works in conjunction with D3 but too much synthetic vitamin A is antagonistic to the action of D3 so you have to be certain that the Vit A in your CLO hasn't been standardised.

UK readers may need reminding we live 600miles further North than Mary Jo. Our UK/EU milk is NOT vitamin d fortified, Most of our breakfast cereals are NOT vit d fortified. So because we don't have the same background level from UVB or even from diet our daily intakes need to be higher to achieve the same response that Mary Jo has achieved also the additional amount required to prevent levels dipping overwinter will need to be started September and go through to March rather than Oct~Feb.

Only regular 25(OH)D testing though will provide the certainty that you have got your 25(OH)D around 60ng 150nmol/l and understand what your summer/winter intakes need to be to keep steady around that level.

Other possible factors
 

One of the effects of chemotherapy is a reduction in testosterone level in both sexes. The loss happens with aging, even without cancer and cancer treatment. So the need for vitamin D is all the greater for those who have been through treatment, because we have even lower testosterone levels than those who never had cancer and chemotherapy.

Testosterone supplementation may be important for more than just beneficial effects on libido, but my point is primarily just to explain why it is that our need for additional vitamin D is so important.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=2680613

AlaskaAngel

P.S. I do use a low-dose testosterone supplement .

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Is it possible that one may not absorb vit. D? I live in South Florida, worked many years outside without sunscreen and still diagnosed w/breast cancer. My grandfather was a farmer, exposed to sunshine out in the fields most of his life, he dies of brian cancer, my mom, spent most of her days at the beach without sunscreen and diagnosed w/breast cancer at age 51. My family and myself, exposed to plenty of sunshine in South Florida without sunscreens and yet so much cancer! I was Brac-1 negative. Her-2 very positive and at time of diagnosis was declared deficiant in vitiman d levels. My Conclusion: Vitamin D levels meant nothing to me in terms of getting cancer, unless, there is a proven reason why I didn't absorb it, however, I'm now supplementing just to insure a reaccurance doesn't manifest itself but, we can speculate and support facts all we want, there's still nothing solid about vitamin d and cancer prevention.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Hi Ted
I note that you asked if the vit d message is getting through in the UK. I can only report my own experience of being treated at a major British oncology centre. The resounding answer is NO. Another difficulty is getting vit d levels checked here as most oncologists don't see any benefit.
Do you reside in England?
I found your posts and RB's post very interesting. I think you are right about synergistic action, after all our bodies are eco-systems. It amazes me that oncs are not generally more enthusiastic as they are convined about synergy between drugs but not natural substances( though a number of drugs originate from plant sources originally.)
Ellie

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thanks R.B., could you provide the blog you have mentioned about the studies showing vit.d deficiencies in people who live in sunny South Florida?

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Vitamin D Deficiency and Seasonal Variation in an Adult South Florida Population

Low Vitamin D Status despite Abundant Sun Exposure

Not just in USA though
Vitamin D deficiency in rural girls and pregnant women despite abundant sunshine in northern India.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Which is why I like to post links to the postal 25(OH)D service offered by the charity Grassrootshealth D Action
$40 is around £24.50 at the moment so it's not that excessive

The other difficulty is obtaining effective strength D3 a years supply of oilbased gel caps $14.98 £9.20 +2.5p/daily so it's not going to prove an expensive exercise. If you haven't used IHERB before here's a $5 discount code WAB666 there are other codes online if you search. but the best oil based gel cap vitamin d 3 you can find in the UK is Vitamin D3 2,500iu - 100 Soft Gelatin Capsules - Jarrow Formulas® Ref: HI-D2500 Price: £16.80 33.6p/daily for 5000iu

If you really don't want to import from the USA then these are probably the cheapest UK source as far as I am aware. If anyone knows better then please let me know as I am aware some people dislike buying from the USA although I don't know why, takes about the same time and costs only a fraction of UK prices. I do live in the UK but find Iherb just as good but generally cheaper. than our online providers such as Heatlhspan/Zipvit/Simply Supplements.

Based on these results, we hypothesize that dietary components, such as omega3PUFAs and Vitamin D, have the potential to delay the progression of prostate cancer cells to an aggressive and un-treatable state. If it works for prostate cancer it may also work for breast and there are plenty of good reasons for improving your omega 3<> omega 6 ratio anyway.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thanks Ted
I will certainly get my level checked by post now.
I find importing from America very straightforward and have done this on many occasions. Generally it arrives as quickly as when I order fro the UK.
Ellie

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Sure I've put some links on another post showing this happens. If you can stand MERCOLA then watch Shocking Update -- Sunshine Can Actually Decrease Your Vitamin D Levels for one explanation. But it's not entirely that simple. Our inflammatory status may not only affect the rate of use of D3, it's absorption from the surface of the skin but also it's actual metabolism on the skin. So it's only by regular25(OH)D testing that you can be sure how your body actually responds to either UVB, supplements or both.

No one is suggesting that raising vitamin d status to @55ng/mL will prevent all cases of BC. Only that those with higher levels have a lower rate of incidence and those diagnosed/treated when levels are high generally have a better prognosis.

Remember Vitamin D synthesis on the skin is a heat driven self limiting process.Good description of what happens here
Previtamin D3 is produced very rapidly and accumulates in the skin. Its conversion to vitamin D3 is a much slower, heat dependent process. One might expect huge quantities of preD3 to build up, but this does not happen. This is because preD3 is also sensitive to ultraviolet light up to 325nm; a proportion is converted quite rapidly into two biologically inactive products, lumisterol3 and tachysterol3. These also accumulate in the skin.......However, should excess vitamin D3 build up in the skin - if, for example, more is produced than the binding protein can remove - ultraviolet light breaks this down, as well, into three new substances: two suprasterols and 5,6 trans-vitamin D. This latter product does have some biological activity; the others are believed to be inert

These sound very much like people spending too much time under the sun. At your latitude the skin color of the Indigenous people would have provided adequate protection from long exposures but for Caucasian skins they need short unprotected full body sun
exposure then cover up or go indoors.
This calculator will enable you to work out a safe time however be aware that awareness of the need for higher vitamin d intakes has moved on since 2005 and you may have to adjust the calculator to ensure you are getting 5000iu/daily not just 1000iu.

I think cancer specialists will be the last to acknowledge the proven link. It's human nature not to want to accept your role in perpetuating dangerously misguided information. Cancer UK have in my opinion been responsible for bad advice leading to the rises in cancer incidence over the years particularly with their advice against UVB exposure. They are shifting their ground somewhat but still have way to go.

It's a bit like the bankers and the bonus culture leading to financial meltdown. Do we see a banking industry that has accepted they made mistakes and have changed their ways, or are they still trying to perpetuate a culture that provides huge financial rewards for themselves?

There is absolutely no money to be made from vitamin D3 usage. No one can patent it, no one can make major profits from it's use.
If spending 2.5p daily on 5000iu/daily vitamin D3 prevents cancer it's going to cost a lot of financial consequences to the drug industry that will seriously impact on health professionals careers and financial rewards.

We are as likely to see the cancer industry embracing vitamin d3 as we are seeing the banking industry embrace a bonus free culture.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

For newbies the only problem is order value.
Above £18 order value UK customs charges 15% duty.
That would not be major problem as 15% of £20 is only £3
but our UK post office imposes a handling charge of £8 to collect the £3

So you need to check your order value is under £18 if possible before you confirm the order. I've only been caught out a few times but it is irritating when it happens.

The alternative is to try to increase the order singificantly so the customs duty + handling charge are outweighed by the savings on the supplements you have bought.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Unregistered

Re Florida link. I read it in Dr Ts blog

http://nephropal.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20d

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Apparently Ted Hutchinson DOES have a financial link to iHerb. He was banned from the board at the link below.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/diabetes-f...php?f=1&t=5290

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Thank you, Ted, even if you may be trying to make a profit. I appeciate any and all information and process it like I wish. I am unregistered because that's the only way I can post. Last year, when I joined and thereafter, this site will not recognize my e-mail, so I've been content just lurking. I am the unregistered lurker from South Florida, not the unregistered from the post above who obviously doesn't want to be known. I do find your information interesting as well as R.B's.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

I woke up with this thread on my mind this morning. I am not endorsing Ted's lack of disclosure if true, and sadly it appears that it is. I have just searched the code WAB666 and it appears Ted has been very busy indeed. There are pages and pages of his posts to sites looking at the vitamin D issue. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

I suppose he is a microcosm of the way our market driven world works, but that does not make me feel any better.

He has brought valuable information but his lack of disclosure has unjustifiably tainted information from quality institutions.


This is a link to UCTV in case anybody is beginning to wonder if they are a whacky fringe broadcaster.


http://www.uctv.tv/about/


Launched in January 2000, University of California Television (UCTV) is a non-commercial channel featuring 24/7 programming from throughout the University of California, the nation’s premier research university made up of ten campuses, three national labs and affiliated institutions.

UCTV embraces the core missions of the University of California – teaching, research, and public service -- through quality, in-depth television that brings to life the tremendous range of knowledge, culture and dialogue generated on UC’s diverse campuses. Through its powerful reach on satellite, cable and the web, UCTV transports this knowledge far beyond the campus borders and into the homes and lives of millions of viewers around the globe.

Re: A must watch - Risk Breast cancer and vitamin D 50-80% risk reduction
 

Everyone who uses IHERB gets a reward code.
Sharing your reward code with others means not only do they get a $5 discount but also there is a small discount applied to your future orders.

My aim in posting information about vitamin D is to ensure people are aware of the latest scientific evidence.

It seems to me immoral to suggest to people in the UK that they need to use around 5000iu/daily D3 but not explain where the cheapest/easiest/most reliable place to purchase is, particularly as 5000iu are not available in the UK.

Not only is the service IHERB provides excellent but generally speaking their postal charges are cheaper than the competition. However over the long term they work out cheaper because of the extra discounts that come from bulk buying or those that accrue as you share your rewards code with friends and workmates or online.

The amount of discount the IHERB rewards scheme provides is trivial.
As far as I am concerned it is totally irrelevant and plays absolutely no part in my decision making.

You have got to get your priorities right.

What is the aim of this forum, or indeed forums for Diabetes, Pakinson's, Alzheimer's or Celiac?

Is it to provide accurate up to date scientific information that enables people to better understand their condition and be better placed to make evidence based decisions about diet/supplement use that MAY help control that condition?

I am perfectly happy to provide the scientific sources for all the information I supply.
If anyone wants to debate that information further then that's fine providing they go to the trouble of providing equivalent sources of information so I can then explain why I think the information I provide is to be preferred.

In these recessionary times we have to take into account the best interests of all readers and that includes our readers best financial interests.

Does RB's link to vitacost provide a cheaper source of 5000iu D3 than the link I provided to IHERB?
Check it out
What do you find?

Why should I be ashamed of providing people with a link to the cheapest source of D3?

Everyone who uses IHERB and who spreads their rewards code around as much as I do will know just how insignificant the discounts are.
I ONLY provide the link to IHERB where they offer the cheapest source I am aware of.
As you know I link to Biotech for 50,000iu and provide links to the cheapest UK source for those who dislike importing. Neither of these sources provide rewards codes or any rebate in kind to me But that doesn't stop me suggesting them.

I hope people choose IHERB because it pleases me to think other people are also getting a bargain. I hate to think people are being ripped off.
I hope other people are smart enough to share their IHERB rewards code so they also can benefit from ongoing discounts to further orders.
I take the view that the lower the cost of using Vitamin D3 the more likely it is that people will use it and this extends also to the future discounts they will get if they follow my suggestion to share their rewards code with others.

I'm sure everyone who does so will soon become aware of the trivial nature of these rewards. However a trivial discount off your next order is better than no discount. Who better to explain where the cheapest place to get your supplements from than the person who sometimes, if he's very lucky, only has to pay the postage charge.

I cannot understand the mentality of people who choose to cut their nose to spite their face. Similarly I find it hard to comprehend why anyone takes exception to being shown the cheapest source of a particular supplement.

R.B. when posting on other forums regularly links to his book. No one makes snide remarks about the profit this may bring to him. I wouldn't dream of doing so because it is absolutely clear his motive is not his own personal profit but the fact that people need to be made aware of the importance of the information he provides and whatever the income R.B.derives from the sale of his book is truly insignificant when taken into account the time and effort RB spends in explaining carefully and thoroughly the evidence he has considered. It would be insulting to suggest RB is only posting to obtain free publicity to obtain further profit from his book sales. Personal profit isn't his motive, any more it is mine. In the same way that RB provides accurate science based information to help others improve their health, so do I.

In exactly the same way the income (if one calls discount on supplement purchases an income) I derive from suggesting people use the cheapest reputable source of vitamin D3 I am aware of is utterly trivial, in comparison with the time I spend explaining, researching and sharing the valuable information I provide.
Make no mistake about it I get absolutely no reward for providing links to D Action

I do get a small discount off my next IHERB order if you use my code.
My motives for providing that link are to help you get the cheapest deal possible. If you are smart enough you will spread your code around and you will also get future discounts off your next order.

I believe it is morally wrong not to explain where the cheapest source is if I know it.

I think it is morally wrong to prevent people having access to the cheapest source.

I think when people are under stress with a chronic condition the last thing they need is to be ripped off by people taking advantage of their ignorance and therefore by providing a link to the cheapest source I'm aware of this saves them time, money and stress.

I think trying to smear the accuracy of the information I provide with the implication that I am promoting it for my own financial profit is not only insulting but so far from the truth it is laughable.