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

[R.B.]

To convert nmol/l to ng/ml - divide by 2.5 (approx)

or 2.5nmol/l = 1ng/ml

Here is a link where they do it for you.

http://www.endmemo.com/medical/unitc...Vitamin__D.php

[Becky]

Upping your circulating D will improve your odds. D helps cells that aren't right go thru cell death as they are supposed to. Some cells that are not right won't and stay alive to further reproduce and mutate more. They can eventually become cancer. This process is called cell apoptosis.

[rhondalea]

My endo had me on 50,000 IU ergocalciferol (D2) several years ago. I think I stayed the course for three or four months, and then I switched to cholecalciferol (D3), which is what I currently take (10,000 IU/3 days + 6,000 IU/4 days for a total of 54,000 IU/week). Most people don't need that much forever, but I have a couple of wonks in my VDR gene.

I didn't notice much improvement on the D2, but my levels were pretty low at the start, and they didn't get high enough to help me even after several months. For a long time, I took just 5,000 IU/day, and that wasn't enough. An increase to 6000 IU/day didn't do it either. On my current dose, I no longer suffer from seasonal affective disorder. I have never had a deleterious side effect on any dose.

IMO, there are two advantages to ergocalciferol: 1) insurance pays for it, and 2) you only have to remember it once a week. Vitamin D3 is pretty cheap, though--probably not much more than the co-pay, and you can take it weekly in the higher dose if that works better for you.

[Jackie07]

Hi Sharon,

Thanks for asking. I am pretty sure my number (of Vit D) has been normalized in recent years as the doctors have not said anything about it since then.

I think the cause of it was that I had had a very busy schedule from 2003 to 2008 and rarely had time to go outside to absorb the sunlight. That's why even though I live in the sunny South, I still developed the deficiency. Once I realized it, I made sure that I would spend time outdoors and take my daily vitamin.

I also remind myself to 'tap' my feet whenever I'm at the computer. Due to the problems caused by the brain tumors (unrelated to breast cancer), I don't 'exercise' or even walk very much these days. So tapping my feet while sitting has become a second nature.

[R.B.]

I just watched this video again

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

This excellent lecture by Dr Holick is A definitive must watch

[R.B.]

Truly a quantum leap forward in terms of possible public policy changes . . .


http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1...D_supplements/

"Scots told to take vitamin D supplements

ALL Scots should take vitamin D supplements because of the health implications of a lack of bright sunshine, according to experts.

An advisory body set up by the UK Government said the bleak British weather is stopping much of the population from receiving healthy amounts of the essential vitamin from sunlight - and natural food sources alone are not enough to boost levels.

The independent Scientific Advisory Body on Nutrition (SACN) made the recommendation after studying the links between vitamin D levels and a range of health problems, including musculoskeletal health, heart disease, type 1 diabetes, cancer and multiple sclerosis.

Current government advice is that at-risk groups, including pregnant women, children up to the age of five, adults over 65, and people with darker skin as well those who do not expose their skin to sunlight, should take a daily vitamin D supplement.

However, if SACN's draft recommendations are adopted it could lead to new guidance affecting the whole population. " . . . MORE

[R.B.]

Fat has an under appreciated role as a potential major storage site for fat soluble nutrients including vitamin D.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC291976/

Abstract

Deposition in and release of vitamin D3 from body fat: evidence for a storage site in the rat
Saul J. Rosenstreich, Clayton Rich, and Wade Volwiler
Author information ► Copyright and License information ►
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Abstract

Vitamin D in all body tissues was radio-labeled by supplementing completely vitamin D-deficient weanling rats with oral vitamin D3-4-14C for 2 wk. All vitamin D was then withheld, and radioactivity and vitamin D content in a variety of organs and tissues were measured. Adipose tissue was found to contain by far the greatest quantity of radioactivity throughout the 3 month experimental period. Immediately after supplementation, half of the total radioactivity in adipose tissue corresponded to unaltered vitamin D3, and the other half to polar metabolites and esters of vitamin D3 and unidentified peak II. 1 month later there was approximately the same proportion but a decrease in the total quantity of each form. We conclude that adipose tissue is the major storage site for vitamin D3 in its several forms. Unaltered vitamin D3 was the principal storage form observed and presumably a source available for conversion to other metabolites during deprivation.

[hopingmind]

I appreciate the information above. Actually, I have read about recent studies reveal the relation of Vitamin D and the risk of breast cancer. It has been said that women with higher levels of vitamin D are more capable to survive breast cancer. Others have shown that this vitamin may help in protecting against such cancer because it makes the cells in the breast stronger.

[R.B.]

HI Hopingmind,

Thank you for your thoughts and observations which lead me to revisit NCBI which I have not done for a while. There are heaps of papers which can be found including here.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?ter...reast%20cancer

Is one of those you were referring to - clear benefits against recurrence - marginal benefits in terms of prevention

In respect of the occurrence risk conclusions the high intakes of vitamin D considered were 500IU which will not make a significant difference to plasma vitamin D and is well below the levels suggested to make a difference to risk of occurrence for example on the Grass Roots Health and VitaminDwiki sites.

However results of the risk v higher blood levels were mixed, and overall only just positive; further comment would need examination of all of the studies considered.

But there are lots of other reasons for attaining reasonable Vit D levels - see Grass Roots Health and VitaminDwiki
http://www.vitamindwiki.com/Proof+that+Vitamin+D+Works

Thanks again for your thoughts



Abstract

"Background:

Experimental studies suggest potential anti-carcinogenic properties of vitamin D against breast cancer risk, but the epidemiological evidence to date is inconsistent.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases along with a hand search for eligible studies to examine the association between vitamin D status (based on diet and blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D)) and breast cancer risk or mortality in a meta-analysis. A random-effect model was used to calculate a pooled adjusted relative risk (RR).

Results:

A total of 30 prospective studies (nested case-control or cohort) were included for breast cancer incidence (n=24 studies; 31 867 cases) or mortality (n=6 studies; 870 deaths) among 6092 breast cancer patients. The pooled RRs of breast cancer incidence for the highest vs the lowest vitamin D intake and blood 25(OH)D levels were 0.95 (95% CI: 0.88–1.01) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.83–1.02), respectively. Among breast cancer patients, high blood 25(OH)D levels were significantly associated with lower breast cancer mortality (pooled RR=0.58, 95% CI: 0.40–0.85) and overall mortality (pooled RR=0.61, 95% CI: 0.48–0.79). There was no evidence of heterogeneity and publication bias.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that high vitamin D status is weakly associated with low breast cancer risk but strongly associated with better breast cancer survival."

[R.B.]

Just a quick post for the moment; this is what I have been up too for a while; having the honor of being asked to write some 6 chapters in a edited Springer Publication. (A university type reference book)

The chapters argue the physiological importance of plant based Omega 3 linolenic acid ALA and Omega 6 linoleic acid LA in evolutionary terms as well as on physiology and energetics.

There is a limited amount of material on cancer; the chapters look more widely at the impact of and implications of imbalances, and oxidation of LA and ALA, in the context of a western nutrient depleted diet, on the occurrence of western non-communicable diseases including cardiovascular, obesity dementia's, and more widely behavioral change, trends to aggression etc, set within an evolutionary framework.

Some of the ideas are new and arguably potentially of significant importance. As above the University Books are expensive, but may be found in some libraries. (just to be clear I and other contributors received no payment or reward beyond a free copy and the honor of contributing).

This thread http://www.her2support.org/vbulletin...=24410&page=22 that has been running since 2005 was in part the start of the journey that lead to these chapters being written. so thank you all very much for your interest and support over the years.



http://www.springer.com/br/book/9783319404561
Pages 321- 463

[SoCalGal]

Thanks for the update RB :-)
Seeing my alternative medicine guru tomorrow - the first time in over a year. He first taught me about balancing the omega's, eliminating wheat and dairy and upping the vitamin D. It's been over 9 years of living with mets.
Nice to "read from you"!
A So Cal Gal

[Juls]

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

[Cheryl Edwards]

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

[Juls]

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

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

[R.B.]

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.

[R.B.]

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."

[Laurel]

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!

[R.B.]

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”

[Laurel]

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.

[R.B.]

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