Outlaw Vit D?

[hutchibk]

http://news.yahoo.com/vitamin-d-plus...130407705.html

(and for those who like a lot of judgement with their coffee... it does have a lot of info if you cut to it...)
http://www.naturalnews.com/036303_vi...nutrition.html

[karen z]

Many thanks for this post.

[Jackie07]

Looks like they've made the recommendation based on some current research/report. I think the point is not to encourage 'everyone' 'blindly' take supplements of any kind. Since many of us cancer patients tend to be short of Vitamin D due to reduced outdoor activity during/after treatment, I think we should take the supplement prescribed by our doctor if the lab result shows deficiency.

PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e36617. Epub 2012 May 7.
A prospective randomized controlled trial of the effects of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular disease risk.
Gepner AD, Ramamurthy R, Krueger DC, Korcarz CE, Binkley N, Stein JH.
Source
University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abstract
Vitamin D (VitD) supplementation has been advocated for cardiovascular risk reduction; however, supporting data are sparse. The objective of this study was to determine whether VitD supplementation reduces cardiovascular risk. Subjects in this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of post-menopausal women with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations >10 and <60 ng/mL were randomized to Vitamin D3 2500 IU or placebo, daily for 4 months. Primary endpoints were changes in brachial artery flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV), and aortic augmentation index (AIx). The 114 subjects were mean (standard deviation) 63.9 (3.0) years old with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 31.3 (10.6) ng/mL. Low VitD (<30 ng/mL) was present in 47% and was associated with higher body-mass index, systolic blood pressure, glucose, CRP, and lower FMD (all p<0.05). After 4 months, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels increased by 15.7 (9.3) ng/mL on vitamin D3 vs. -0.2 (6.1) ng/mL on placebo (p<0.001). There were no significant differences between groups in changes in FMD (0.3 [3.4] vs. 0.3 [2.6] %, p = 0.77), PWV (0.00 [1.06] vs. 0.05 [0.92] m/s, p = 0.65), AIx (2.7 [6.3] vs. 0.9 [5.6] %, p = 0.10), or CRP (0.3 [1.9] vs. 0.3 [4.2] mg/L, p = 0.97). Multivariable models showed no significant interactions between treatment group and low VitD status (<30 ng/mL) for changes in FMD (p = 0.65), PWV (p = 0.93), AIx (p = 0.97), or CRP (p = 0.26). In conclusion, VitD supplementation did not improve endothelial function, arterial stiffness, or inflammation. These observations do not support use of VitD supplementation to reduce cardiovascular disease risk.

Breast Cancer Res. 2011 Aug 16;13(4):217.
Vitamin D and breast cancer: interpreting current evidence.
Chlebowski RT.
Source
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 11243 West Carson Street, Torrance, CA 90502, USA. rowanchlebowski@gmail.com
Abstract
Preclinical investigations and selected clinical observational studies support an association between higher vitamin D intake and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels with lower breast cancer risk. However, the recently updated report from the Institute of Medicine concluded that, for cancer and vitamin D, the evidence was 'inconsistent and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements'. Against this background, reports examining vitamin D intake, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and breast cancer incidence and outcome were reviewed. Current evidence supports the pursuit of several research questions but not routine 25-hydroxyvitamin D monitoring and vitamin D supplementation to reduce breast cancer incidence or improve breast cancer outcome.

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

Oh, Brenda, You are just as remarkable as I remember you. One fiesty lady. Full of good information. I still love 'ya!

As we get older our organs put out an increased demand for Vitamin D. I have my levels checked regularly. I am low to mid normal.

So I take 10,000 -- 5 days a week. And apparently I'm not overdosing.

I recall 50,000 being recommended -- before they (the powers that be) freaked.

My beloved NY Onc/Integrative Medicine doc says always best (though a bit inconvenient) to take less more times a day. Generally speaking. So I split my co-enzyme Q10 into AM and PM. I do that with a lot of my supplements.

And taking 50,000 once a week, though perhaps tempting doesn't appeal to me, with my Onc's perspective in mind.

I recall, Brenda, you posting -- a thousand yrs ago -- that your doc wants you to take certain supplements with meals, preferably IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MEAL.

You made me laugh. But I get it.

We all get negligent after a time having to swallow all those pills. I do. I truly dislike it. But I DO IT. EVERY SINGLE DAY. I SWALLOW EVERY ONE OF THOSE SUPPLEMENTS -- TO DETOXIFY, TO FIGHT OFF FREE RADICALS, TO BOOST MY ENERGY, TO BOOST MY HEART HEALTH AND MY IMMUNE SYSTEM, TO HELP MY BRAIN FUNCTION BETTER, TO HELP MY DIGESTIVE SYSTEM FUNCTION MORE NORMALLY. It's a pain in the butt. But -- I BELIEVE they keep me healthy and well.

And, yes Jackie, (I think of you so often as you are always soooo incredibly amazing. A true Warrior Woman who has survived and thrived despite unimaginable challenges!) I get my supplements list from my doc in Manhattan, who is the only one of many I adore and admire who believes in supplements and for that matter, integrative medicine. Western medicine. We have a long way to go...

Though my Boca onc just told me that he realized he had to do something and now has someone who is well versed in supplements and integrative techniques come to the cancer center he directs down here every Thursday morning -- with an acupuncturist and a Yoga instructor -- to work with patients. YES!!!!!!!!!

Andi

[hutchibk]

I am not sure if you covered this Jackie, but the real problem seems to be HOW MUCH Vit D 3 is taken. Don't take too much or too little...

Thanks for your fun asides Andrea!!

[R.B.]

The information on this thread may help.

Dr Holick is one of the scientists who helped work out how we make vitamin D in the skin.

I would be interesting to see what the paper or review actually said, rather than what was reported which is in parts at odds with a growing consensus that many are deficient in vitamin D.



http://her2support.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=43711

[nitewind]

My doctor just put me on 50,000 units a week, for 12 weeks.

[Becky]

I have to take 4000iu per day just to stay in the 45-55 range in my blood. Everyone is different. You need to get tested and go from there.

[Jackie07]

A couple of abstracts on Vitamin D3 (looks like there's not only a difference bet. Vitamin D3 and other Vitamin D, the 2nd abstract even points out the better result of taking '25-hydroxyvitamin D3'):

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012 Jun 14. [Epub ahead of print]
A Systematic Review: Influence of Vitamin D Supplementation on Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Concentration.
Autier P, Gandini S, Mullie P.
Source
International Prevention Research Institute (P.A., P.M.), 69006 Lyon, France; and European Institute of Oncology (S.G.), 20139 Milano, Italy.
Abstract
Context:Few studies in subjects over 50 yr of age have evaluated the influence of variable doses of vitamin D supplementation on serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.Objective:We performed a meta-analysis of changes in circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D level associated with vitamin D supplementation in Caucasian subjects over 50 yr old.Data Sources:We conducted a systematic search in literature databases and in references of past reviews.Study Selection:Randomized placebo or open-label trials that evaluated the influence of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes were included in the study.Data Extraction:We reviewed trial characteristics and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations at baseline and during the trial.Data Synthesis:Seventy-six trials published from 1984 to March 2011 included 6207 subjects allocated to 101 intervention groups that tested supplement doses ranging from 5 to 250 μg/d (median, 20 μg/d). For similar doses, trials could obtain increases in 25-hydroxyvitamin D three to four times lower than other trials. A meta-regression showed that in the absence of concomitant use of calcium supplements, the average increase in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations was 0.78 ng/ml (1.95 nmol/liter) per microgram of vitamin D3 supplement per day. Compared to the vitamin D3, the vitamin D2 was associated with significantly lower increases (P = 0.03). Concomitant use of calcium supplementation and high 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration at baseline was nonsignificantly associated with lower increases in 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations.Conclusionsietary recommendations and randomized trials on vitamin D supplementation should evaluate whether increases in circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels match expectations-for instance, the average increases obtained by trials on vitamin D3 without concomitant calcium supplements.


Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Jun;95(6):1350-6. Epub 2012 May 2.
Relative effectiveness of oral 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and vitamin D3 in raising wintertime serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older adults.

Cashman KD, Seamans KM, Lucey AJ, Stöcklin E, Weber P, Kiely M, Hill TR.
Source

School of Food and Nutritional Sciences and the Department of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, and DSM Nutritional Products Ltd, Kaiseraugst, Switzerland.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

The relative potency of 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) to vitamin D(3) needs to be better defined so that food-composition tables can better reflect the true vitamin D nutritive value of certain foods.
OBJECTIVE:

We performed a randomized, controlled intervention study in apparently healthy, free-living adults to investigate whether the intake of 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) is 5 times more potent in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] during winter compared with an equivalent amount of vitamin D(3).
DESIGN:

A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind intervention study was conducted in adults aged ≥50 y (n = 56) who consumed a placebo, 20 μg vitamin D(3), or 7 or 20 μg 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) daily throughout 10 wk of winter. Serum 25(OH)D was measured by using an enzyme-linked immunoassay, and serum albumin-corrected calcium (S-Ca) was assessed colorimetrically at the baseline, midpoint, and endpoint of the study.
RESULTS:

The mean (±SD) increases (per microgram of vitamin D compound) in serum 25(OH)D concentrations over baseline after 10 wk of supplementation were 0.96 ± 0.62, 4.02 ± 1.27, and 4.77 ± 1.04 nmol · L(-1) · μg intake(-1) for the 20-μg vitamin D(3)/d and 7- and 20-μg 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3)/d groups, respectively. A comparison of the 7- and 20-μg 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3)/d groups with the 20-μg vitamin D(3)/d group yielded conversion factors of 4.2 and 5, respectively. There was no effect of treatment on S-Ca concentrations and no incidence of hypercalcemia (S-Ca >2.6 nmol/L).
CONCLUSIONS:

Each microgram of orally consumed 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3) was about 5 times more effective in raising serum 25(OH)D in older adults in winter than an equivalent amount of vitamin D(3). This conversion factor could be used in food-compositional tables for relevant foods. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01398202.

[Andrea Barnett Budin]

I'm just saying... Love you, Jackie.