Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Hi R B

Have just been reading the 3 books listed below:-

Defend your life - Susan Rex Ryan

The Vitamin D Solution - Dr Michael Holick

&

The Miraculous Results of High Doses of Vitamin D3 - Jeff T Bowles

Interesting reading!!

Just confirms how important Vit D3 is.
Think we should all be looking at getting "optimal" level not just "normal""

Julie

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

There's a new study which says that vitamin D deficiency can lead to depression.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Hi Cheryl
Just read this article and saw your post!
Juls

http://universityhealthnews.com/dail...tify-yourself/

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Another study supporting the general contention that low vitamin D factors in breast cancer development and progression.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29031688

J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2017 Oct 11. pii: S0960-0760(17)30278-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.10.009. [Epub ahead of print]
Vitamin D deficiency is associated with poor breast cancer prognostic features in postmenopausal women.
de Sousa Almeida-Filho B1, De Luca Vespoli H1, Pessoa EC1, Machado M1, Nahas-Neto J1, Nahas EAP2.
Author information
Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the association between pretreatment vitamin D (VD) deficiency with breast cancer prognostic features in Brazilian postmenopausal women. An analytical cross sectional study was conducted with 192 women, aged 45-75 years, attended at University Hospital. Women with recent diagnosis of breast cancer, in amenorrhea >12months and age ≥45 years, without medication use or clinical conditions that interfere with VD values were included. Clinical and anthropometric data were collected. Serum level of 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] was measured in all patients until 20days after breast cancer diagnosis, and was classified as normal (≥30ng/mL), insufficiency (20-29ng/mL) and deficiency (<20ng/mL).Data on breast cancer (histopathological type, grade, tumor stage, lymph node status), hormone status (estrogen receptor, ER, progesterone receptor, PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) and epithelial proliferative activity (Ki-67) were collected. For statistical analysis, the t-student test, the Gamma Distribution (asymmetric variables), the chi-square test and the logistic regression (OR-odds ratio) were used. The median 25(OH)D level was 25.8ng/ml (range 12.0-59.2ng/ml). Sufficient vitamin D levels were detected in 65 patients (33.9%), whereas insufficient levels in 92 patients (47.9%), and deficient levels in 35 patients (18.2%). Participants with insufficient and deficient 25(OH)D levels had a higher proportion of tumors with a high grade and locally advanced and metastatic disease, more positive lymph node, a lower proportion of ER, PR positives tumors and higher Ki-67(p <0.05). Patients with normal vitamin D had a higher frequency of luminal A (47.7%) and luminal B (32.2%) tumors when compared to patients with vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency. Furthermore, all cases of triple negative were detected in women with low VD levels. Multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, time since menopause and BMI, showed that insufficient and deficient level of vitamin D were significantly associated with negative estrogen receptor (OR 3.77 CI 95% 1.76-8.09 and OR 3.99 CI 95% 1.83-8.68), high Ki-67 (OR 2.50, CI 95% 1.35-4.63, and OR 2.62, CI 95% 1.40-4.98), and positive axillary lymph node status (OR 1.59, CI 95% 1.03-2.33, and OR 1.58, CI 95% 1.02-2.92) respectively. In Brazilian postmenopausal women with breast cancer, there was an association between vitamin D insufficiency or deficiency and tumors with worse prognostic features. Low vitamin D levels were shown to be a risk factor for ER negative tumors, with positive axilla and a higher rate of cell proliferation.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Vitamin D insufficiency is widespread even in areas you would not expect it.

A recent headline in the United Arab Emirates . . .

in common with low levels in much of the world

"90% of UAE population Vitamin D deficient, says DHA official"

http://gulfnews.com/news/uae/society...cial-1.2113556

"Dubai: Over 90 per cent of the UAE population is Vitamin D-deficient and the food industry is now being asked to fortify juices, milk and other dairy products with the vitamin, said Wafa Ayesh, director of Clinical Nutrition at the Dubai Health Authority (DHA) and chairperson of the third edition of Dubai Nutrition Conference which started on Thursday.

She spoke to Gulf News on the sidelines of the three-day conference.

Following the two-year ongoing Vitamin D study being conducted in collaboration with Professor Michael Holick, an American endocrinologist and celebrated authority on Vitamin D deficiency, the DHA has now started a 22-week food education programme in nurseries to train parents on how to provide balanced nutrition to their children."

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

I am supposing that a contributory factor may be the common Arabic dress off long tunics that cover most of the body excepting the face and hands. Some women even traditionally cover all or a large portion of their faces. Little of the sun's rays can reach their skin. Another interesting study, R.B. Thanks!

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Low vitamin D in women is a global problem, including importantly in pregnant women, which is exacerbated by lifestyle changes and choices, avoidance of sensible sun exposure, and daily use of skin products including on hands and legs, many of which contain UVB blockers.

Modes of dress may exacerbate that problem. Below a thought provoking UK study. It is somewhat perplexing that solutions are simple and cheap yet still only marginally on public health agendas. . . anybody feel like screaming (quietly to themselves) :(

"Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in adolescent Muslim girls attending a school in the UK, which adheres to a conservative dress code"
http://www.bone-abstracts.org/ba/0002/ba0002p39.htm

Conclusions: All subjects (98%) bar one had vitamin D deficiency (91%) and vitamin D insufficiency (7%).


“Of 56 participants from 180 girls at a UK Muslim High School 51 were vitamin D deficient (91%) and 4 vitamin D insufficient (7%)” (total 98%). Median Vit.D level 12.8 nmol/l. Median Vit. D intake was 69 IU/day.
Bone Abstracts (2013) 2 P39 DOI:10.1530/boneabs.2.P39 (sufficient 50-75 nmol/l; insufficient 25-50nmol/l; deficient less that 25 nmol/l)

A study on pregnant women in the UK
Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency in pregnant women: A longitudinal study. Br. J. Nutr. 2009, 102, 876–881
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19331703

“Of the UK pregnant women, 35, 44 and 16 % were classified as vitamin D deficient (25(OH)D < 25 nmol/l), and 96, 96 and 75 % were classified as vitamin D insufficient (25(OH)D < 50 nmol/l) at 12, 20 and 35 weeks”

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

R.B.

I wonder what constitutes "sensible" sun exposure these days? It seems that the pundits urge little or no exposure whatsoever! This I have resisted despite the dire predictions of eminent melanoma! I tend to get some morning sun of up to an hour depending on whether I am popping in and out of shady areas or late afternoon exposure. Typically I wear a big brimmed hat and do apply sunscreen to my face, neck and ears. Yes, my arms and legs get a bit brown by the end of summer, but I do not burn and think it helps to bank some Vit D. If I listen to the talking heads, though, I begin to fear skin cancer if I so much as walk to and from my car sans sunscreen!

It is easy to see why so many people today have low Vit D levels. Thanks for the interesting post.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Hi Laurel :)

Thank you for making me laugh. Indeed there is much confusion and differing of opinion. The Holick and Grass Roots videos (see previous pages) are worth watching if you have not done so - Professor Holick has his own particular tongue in cheek view on the restricted wider health outlook of dermatologist as he would see it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiGBVDcbFVk

You will note that UVB only reaches the earths surface in significant amount in the center of the day in more northern latitudes. Thus getting sun exposure at the beginning and end of day in these latitudes may simply mean you get UVA exposure with little UVB (so very low capacity to make vitamin D and that is before the application of moisturizer that often contains UVB blockers.)

UVB comprises 5-10%, and UVA the balance of UV, 90-95% that can reach the earths surface. UVA penetrates deeper in the skin damaging DNA and enzymes, and papers suggest is probably equally capable of factoring in cancers as UVB.

UVB promotes vitamin D precursor production. Vitamin D is put back in the skin as an antioxidant so protective.

Skin product producers have begun to talk about acknowledge the role of UVA in cancer now there are UVA blockers in the market, but blocking UVA is not as easy as blocking UVB.

The face apparently (I have not read any papers on this) produced less vitamin D than other skin, and gets more exposure, so logically would be a good area to protect whilst allowing non-burning sun exposure of other areas, but it needs to contain a UVA blocker too - and then there are the wider issues as to chemicals etc etc.

Things get even more complicated because of the siloed nature of skin cancer / suncream research - they just focus cancer rates and sun creams

But the increase in skin cancers could also be, and likely is also due to other dietary factors; lack of important nutrients in the diet, but nobody ever talks about that. For example to pick one nutrient we tend to get too much of, mice on a low Omega 6 diet required double exposure and were more resistant to skin cancer.

It could even be that risk was increased by historic use of UVB only blocking creams, and the consequent over exposure to sun as the burning messaging to get out of the sun was blocked, with consequent excess UVA exposure leading to increased risk of cancer initiation. Consistent with this builders and farmers, not know for rigorous sun cream application, have been noted to possibly have lower comparative skin cancer rates (limited research).

Further Vitamin D does so many things; low vitamin D is associated with a whole range of other health risks. Visit this site, pick your condition and scan the research paper summaries - https://www.vitamindwiki.com/VitaminDWiki

The Swedish study linked below neatly sums things up concluding that your risk of melanoma may be reduced if you avoid the sun, but your risk of dying early of other things is increased.

Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality: results from the Melanoma in Southern Sweden cohort.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24697969

The results of this study provide observational evidence that avoiding sun exposure is a risk factor for all-cause mortality. Following sun exposure advice that is very restrictive in countries with low solar intensity might in fact be harmful to women's health.

Medscape commented on the paper with the headline

Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805

They are now beginning to make creams that block UVA but not the bits of UVB that make vitamin D.!

New Approach to Develop Optimized Sunscreens that Enable Cutaneous Vitamin D Formation with Minimal Erythema Risk
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0145509

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

This forthright video provides a range of useful information including highly thought provoking data, particularity if watched in combination with the Holick lecture. As ever trying to compress meaningful information in short intervals is difficult, and it is necessary to read widely round a subject to get the nuances, but hours in life are limited for all of us and the amount of information out there vast so sometimes a forthright approach is a better way of getting focus on a topic.

I as a lay person share his puzzlement as to why there is not greater public health focus on the issue of low vitamin D, and greater regard for the wider picture including biology and likely evolutionary importance as against basing conclusions and advice just on RCTs (randomized controlled trials). There are RCTs for rickets, but not for a whole range of other western diseases, largely because it is impossible to do them given they develop over years. Ultimately as with smoking a more common sense approach will have to be taken; there has never been an RCT smoking study in humans both for ethical and practical reasons, yet it is widely and rightly accepted that smoking is not a health promoting activity.





D is for Debacle - The Crucial Story of Vitamin D and Human Health

Ivor Cummings

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3pK0dccQ38

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Glad I gave you a chuckle, R.B.! I remain confused on the sun vs Vit D, vs skin cancer, vs other cancer risk, bla and bla! Sometimes it just seems like one big crapshoot, doesn't it? Oatmeal lowers cholesterol this week, increases our risk of cancer the next due to the pesticide glyphosate (round up) present in oats!
Learned something new about UVB rays vs UVA however, so thanks for that!

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Another excellent resource;

https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/


Hi Laurel

You just need to be be aware adequate vitamin D levels are an important health factor ;) be that by sensible non-burning sun exposure (see at appropriate time of day time of year where there is not too much air pollution which blocks UV etc Holick videos) or supplementation. . .

and as suggested by Confucius put knowledge into practice.

Supplementation may not entirely mimic nature but is way better than deficiency - and a way to meet out evolutionary needs in a modern world. . .

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

More evidence that just because people live where the sun shines does not mean they are not D deficient

(helpfully referenced in Vitamin D council news page)

ABSTRACT

Eur J Nutr. 2017 Oct 31. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1564-2. [Epub ahead of print]
A systematic review of vitamin D status in southern European countries.
Manios Y1, Moschonis G2, Lambrinou CP3, Tsoutsoulopoulou K3, Binou P3, Karachaliou A3, Breidenassel C4, Gonzalez-Gross M4, Kiely M5,6, Cashman KD5,7.
Author information
Abstract
PURPOSE:

Despite an acknowledged dearth of data on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentrations from Southern European countries, inter-country comparison is hampered by inconsistent data reporting. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a systematic literature review of available data on serum 25(OH)D concentrations and estimate vitamin D status in Southern European and Eastern Mediterranean countries, both at a population level and within key population subgroups, stratified by age, sex, season and country.
METHODS:

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify and retrieve scientific articles reporting data on serum 25(OH)D concentration and/or vitamin D status following standard procedures.
RESULTS:

Data were extracted from 107 studies, stratified by sex and age group, representing 630,093 individuals. More than one-third of the studies reported mean 25(OH)D concentrations below 50 nmol/L and ~ 10% reported mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations below 25 nmol/L. Overall, females, neonates/ infants and adolescents had the higher prevalence of poor vitamin D status. As expected, there was considerable variability between studies. Specifically, mean 25(OH)D ranged from 6.0 (in Italian centenarians) to 158 nmol/L (in elderly Turkish men); the prevalence of serum 25(OH)D < 50 nmol/L ranged from 6.8 to 97.9% (in Italian neonates).
CONCLUSIONS:

Contrary to expectations, there was a high prevalence of low vitamin D status in the Southern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean regions, despite abundant sunshine. These data further emphasize the need for strategies, such as fortification of foods with vitamin D and/or vitamin D supplementation, which will be tailored to the needs of specific population groups with higher risk of insufficiency or deficiency, to efficiently tackle the pandemic of hypovitaminosis D in Europe.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Vitamin D and magnesium.

Low magnesium is quite commonplace globally (see next post).

It is suggested low magnesium may inhibit the ability of the body to utilize Vitamin D.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0226122548.htm

"Low magnesium levels make vitamin D ineffective
Up to 50 percent of US population is magnesium deficient

Date:
February 26, 2018
Source:
American Osteopathic Association
Summary:
Vitamin D can't be metabolized without sufficient magnesium levels, meaning Vitamin D remains stored and inactive for as many as 50 percent of Americans. In addition, Vitamin D supplements can increase a person's calcium and phosphate levels even while they remain Vitamin D deficient. People may suffer from vascular calcification if their magnesium levels aren't high enough to prevent the complication. "

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

See post above re vitamin D

A paper containing lots of thought provoking information as to the issue of low magnesium intakes globally.



'Subclinical magnesium deficiency: a principal driver of cardiovascular disease and a public health crisis'

https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/1/e000668

Of particular interest to females . . . a small part of the total data summarized on the wider issue

"Magnesium deficiency has been found in 84% of postmenopausal women with osteoporosis diagnosed by low magnesium trabecular bone content and Thoren’s magnesium load test."

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Effect of Vitamin D3 Supplements on Development of Advanced Cancer
A Secondary Analysis of the VITAL Randomized Clinical Trial

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2773074

"Question Does vitamin D3 supplementation reduce the risk of developing advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancer among adults without a diagnosis of cancer at baseline?

Findings In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial with 25 871 patients, supplementation with vitamin D3 reduced the incidence of advanced (metastatic or fatal) cancer in the overall cohort, with strongest risk reduction in individuals with normal weight and no reduction among individuals with overweight or obesity.

Meaning These findings suggest that vitamin D3 may reduce the risk of developing advanced cancer among adults without a diagnosis of cancer at baseline; this protective effect is apparent for those who have normal but not elevated body mass index."

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

A while ago, I read that the blood/immune system entity that transports Vitamin D around the body and delivers it where it is needed also is involved in consuming seed malignant cells/telomer failures etc ie destroys the very initial forming cancers before they can become a problem. If we have low Vitamin D in our system, we do not have many of these entities transporting it around, so these tiny malignancies do not get nipped in the bud.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

Pretty sure like, every published article regarding vitamin D concludes that it is likely only beneficial to infection if you have a deficiency, taking more of vitamin D if you have enough isn’t going to magically make your immune system work better.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

The vitamin D deficiency isn’t a result of COVID infection, they are saying if you have an existing deficiency you may be more likely to be symptomatic and have worse symptoms. Since the COVID hit, I was taking elderberry with zinc on a daily routine.

Re: Vitamin D thread -Please use this for your Vit D info.
 

https://www.healthline.com/health-ne...ou-should-know

" Researchers say higher vitamin D levels may help improve a person’s odds of surviving breast cancer.
Experts say most people in the United States don’t have sufficient vitamin D levels because only a few foods contain the nutrient naturally.

They add that vitamin D supplementation is necessary for only certain groups of people, including post-menopausal people.

Having enough vitamin D at the time of diagnosis is associated with better breast cancer outcomes.

That’s according to a new study highlighted at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 virtual annual meeting. "

Also see

https://www.newswise.com/articles/re...ncer-patients2