Vitamin D

[annelb]

I saved this from OBT and still working on these posts.
Anne

I believe that Vitamin D deserves its own thread. A large percent of the population is thought to be deficient in vitamin D. The "normal" range for vitiamin D is thought by some to be way too low. Low vitamin D levels are being tied to autoimmune diseases and cancer.

There are two vitamin D tests. The most accurate is the Vitamin D 25(OH)D or it may be called 25 hydroxy vitamin D. The other test is 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D

The Vitamin D 25(OH)D results may be nmol/L or ng/ml. Here is a conversion chart http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc/auinst_si.dtl

http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/ Here you will find many links to chronic diseases that are associated with vitamin D deficiency.

Many of the diseases of modern civilization, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, periodontal disease, depression, and even obesity, are now clearly associated with vitamin D deficiency. But association is not the same as causation. Does vitamin D deficiency cause many cases of cancer, heart disease, diabetes or obesity, these diseases of modern civilization? We just don't know. We need the National Institutes of Health to fund more research on vitamin D. So far, they refuse.


Benefits of proper vitamin D supplementation seem to include most major illnesses, not just cancer. Heart disease, hypertension, arthritis, chronic pain, depression, hypertension, inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, premenstrual syndrome, muscle weakness, fibromyalgia, Crohn’s disease, multiple sclerosis, and various other autoimmune are also implicated by recent research.



This is one of my favorite articles - it is in two parts. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041009/bob8.asp
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20041016/bob9.asp
Here it is mentioned that

In North America, a typical 25-D blood concentration is 40 nanomoles per liter (nmol/l), and scientists long assumed that amount was adequate.

Last year, in a roundtable discussion at an osteoporosis conference in Lausanne, Switzerland, Vieth, Holick, Heaney, and others agreed that an optimal 25-D blood concentration for most people is 75 to 80 nmol/l. Most panelists, therefore, recommended that people strive for 800 to 1,000 IU of Vitamin D daily to achieve it.

The BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4225195.stm) on two articles. One showing that there was a lowered incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma with greater sun exposure and the other study found that the people with higher levels of sun exposure were less likely to die from their melanoma.

"It could be down to the vitamin D made by sun-exposed skin, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute reported."



Here is a link to each of the articles
Ultraviolet radiation exposure and risk of malignant lymphomas (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687363)PMID: 15687363

Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/queryd.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15687362).PMID: 15687362


continued on post 2

[annelb]

I could not find a link to this complete article - thanks to Kim, I still have it.

Scientists Say Sunshine May Prevent Cancer

By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

Scientists are excited about a vitamin again. But unlike fads that sizzled and fizzled, the evidence this time is strong and keeps growing. If it bears out, it will challenge one of medicine's most fundamental beliefs: that people need to coat themselves with sunscreen whenever they're in the sun. Doing that may actually contribute to far more cancer deaths than it prevents, some researchers think.

The vitamin is D, nicknamed the "sunshine vitamin" because the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays. Sunscreen blocks its production, but dermatologists and health agencies have long preached that such lotions are needed to prevent skin cancer. Now some scientists are questioning that advice. The reason is that vitamin D increasingly seems important for preventing and even treating many types of cancer.

In the last three months alone, four separate studies found it helped protect against lymphoma and cancers of the prostate, lung and, ironically, the skin. The strongest evidence is for colon cancer.

Many people aren't getting enough vitamin D. It's hard to do from food and fortified milk alone, and supplements are problematic.

So the thinking is this: Even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is rarely deadly, too little sun may be worse.

No one is suggesting that people fry on a beach. But many scientists believe that "safe sun" — 15 minutes or so a few times a week without sunscreen — is not only possible but helpful to health.

One is Dr. Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine and nutrition who laid out his case in a keynote lecture at a recent American Association for Cancer Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif.

His research suggests that vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one caused by skin cancer.

"I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," Giovannucci told the cancer scientists. "The data are really quite remarkable."

The talk so impressed the American Cancer Society's chief epidemiologist, Dr. Michael Thun, that the society is reviewing its sun protection guidelines. "There is now intriguing evidence that vitamin D may have a role in the prevention as well as treatment of certain cancers," Thun said.

Even some dermatologists may be coming around. "I find the evidence to be mounting and increasingly compelling," said Dr. Allan Halpern, dermatology chief at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who advises several cancer groups.

The dilemma, he said, is a lack of consensus on how much vitamin D is needed or the best way to get it.

No source is ideal. Even if sunshine were to be recommended, the amount needed would depend on the season, time of day, where a person lives, skin color and other factors. Thun and others worry that folks might overdo it.

"People tend to go overboard with even a hint of encouragement to get more sun exposure," Thun said, adding that he'd prefer people get more of the nutrient from food or pills.

But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. However, diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.

Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.

As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.

Government advisers can't even agree on an RDA, or recommended daily allowance for vitamin D. Instead, they say "adequate intake" is 200 international units a day up to age 50, 400 IUs for ages 50 to 70, and 600 IUs for people over 70.

Many scientists think adults need 1,000 IUs a day. Giovannucci's research suggests 1,500 IUs might be needed to significantly curb cancer.

How vitamin D may do this is still under study, but there are lots of reasons to think it can:

_Several studies observing large groups of people found that those with higher vitamin D levels also had lower rates of cancer. For some of these studies, doctors had blood samples to measure vitamin D, making the findings particularly strong. Even so, these studies aren't the gold standard of medical research — a comparison over many years of a large group of people who were given the vitamin with a large group who didn't take it. In the past, the best research has deflated health claims involving other nutrients, including vitamin E and beta carotene.

_Lab and animal studies show that vitamin D stifles abnormal cell growth, helps cells die when they are supposed to, and curbs formation of blood vessels that feed tumors.

_Cancer is more common in the elderly, and the skin makes less vitamin D as people age.

_Blacks have higher rates of cancer than whites and more pigment in their skin, which prevents them from making much vitamin D.

_Vitamin D gets trapped in fat, so obese people have lower blood levels of D. They also have higher rates of cancer.

_Diabetics, too, are prone to cancer, and their damaged kidneys have trouble converting vitamin D into a form the body can use.

_People in the northeastern United States and northerly regions of the globe like Scandinavia have higher cancer rates than those who get more sunshine year-round.

During short winter days, the sun's rays come in at too oblique an angle to spur the skin

to make vitamin D. That is why nutrition experts think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful during winter, and for dark-skinned people all the time.

But too much of the pill variety can cause a dangerous buildup of calcium in the body. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old.

On the other hand, D from sunshine has no such limit. It's almost impossible to overdose when getting it this way. However, it is possible to get skin cancer. And this is where the dermatology establishment and Dr. Michael Holick part company.

Thirty years ago, Holick helped make the landmark discovery of how vitamin D works. Until last year, he was chief of endocrinology, nutrition and diabetes and a professor of dermatology at Boston University. Then he published a book, "The UV Advantage," urging people to get enough sunlight to make vitamin D.

"I am advocating common sense," not prolonged sunbathing or tanning salons, Holick said.

Skin cancer is rarely fatal, he notes. The most deadly form, melanoma, accounts for only 7,770 of the 570,280 cancer deaths expected to occur in the United States this year.

More than 1 million milder forms of skin cancer will occur, and these are the ones tied to chronic or prolonged suntanning.

Repeated sunburns — especially in childhood and among redheads and very fair-skinned people — have been linked to melanoma, but there is no credible scientific evidence that moderate sun exposure causes it, Holick contends.

"The problem has been that the American Academy of Dermatology has been unchallenged for 20 years," he says. "They have brainwashed the public at every level."

The head of Holick's department, Dr. Barbara Gilchrest, called his book an embarrassment and stripped him of his dermatology professorship, although he kept his other posts.

She also faulted his industry ties. Holick said the school has received $150,000 in grants from the Indoor Tanning Association for his research, far less than the consulting deals and grants that other scientists routinely take from drug companies.

In fact, industry has spent money attacking him. One such statement from the Sun Safety ********, funded in part by Coppertone and drug store chains, declared that "sunning to prevent vitamin D deficiency is like smoking to combat anxiety."

Earlier this month, the dermatology academy launched a "Don't Seek the Sun" campaign calling any advice to get sun "irresponsible." It quoted Dr. Vincent DeLeo, a Columbia University dermatologist, as saying: "Under no circumstances should anyone be misled into thinking that natural sunlight or tanning beds are better sources of vitamin D than foods or nutritional supplements."

That opinion is hardly unanimous, though, even among dermatologists.

"The statement that 'no sun exposure is good' I don't think is correct anymore," said Dr. Henry Lim, chairman of dermatology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and an academy vice president.

Some wonder if vitamin D may turn out to be like another vitamin, folate. High intake of it was once thought to be important mostly for pregnant women, to prevent birth defects. However, since food makers began adding extra folate to flour in 1998, heart disease, stroke, blood pressure, colon cancer and osteoporosis have all fallen, suggesting the general public may have been folate-deficient after all.

With vitamin D, "some people believe that it is a partial deficiency that increases the cancer risk," said Hector DeLuca, a University of Wisconsin-Madison biochemist who did landmark studies on the nutrient.

About a dozen major studies are under way to test vitamin D's ability to ward off cancer, said Dr. Peter Greenwald, chief of cancer prevention for the
National Cancer Institute. Several others are testing its potential to treat the disease. Two recent studies reported encouraging signs in prostate and lung cancer.

As for sunshine, experts recommend moderation until more evidence is in hand.

"The skin can handle it, just like the liver can handle alcohol," said Dr. James Leyden,

professor emeritus of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, who has consulted for sunscreen makers.

"I like to have wine with dinner, but I don't think I should drink four bottles a day."

___

[annelb]

On the Net:

Government information:
http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

Assessment of dietary vitamin D requirements during pregnancy and lactation http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/5/717?ck=nck
Abstract:
Concerns about vitamin D have resurfaced in medical and scientific literature because the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the United States, particularly among darkly pigmented persons, has increased. The primary goals of this review were to discuss past and current literature and to reassess the dietary reference intake for vitamin D in adults, with particular focus on women during pregnancy and lactation. The appropriate dose of vitamin D during pregnancy and lactation is unknown, although it appears to be greater than the current dietary reference intake of 200–400 IU/d (5–10 µg/d). Doses of <= 10 000 IU vitamin D/d (250 µg/d) for up to 5 mo do not elevate circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D to concentrations > 90 ng/mL, whereas doses < 1000 IU/d appear, in many cases, to be inadequate for maintaining normal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations of between 15 and 80 ng/mL. Vitamin D plays no etiologic role in cardiac valvular disease, such as that observed in Williams syndrome, and, as such, animal models involving vitamin D intoxication that show an effect on cardiac disease are flawed and offer no insight into normal human physiology. Higher doses of vitamin D are necessary for a large segment of Americans to achieve concentrations equivalent to those in persons who live and work in sun-rich environments. Further studies are necessary to determine optimal vitamin D intakes for pregnant and lactating women as a function of latitude and race.

[annelb]

Here is an American Academy of Family Physicians article http://www.aafp.org/afp/20050115/299.html

Abstract: Vitamin D deficiency among hospitalized patients may be more widespread than realized. Vague musculoskeletal complaints in these chronically ill patients may be attributed to multiple underlying disease processes rather than a deficiency in vitamin D. However, the failure to diagnose an underlying deficiency places the patient at risk for continued pain, weakness, secondary hyperparathyroidism, osteomalacia, and fractures. The causes of hypocalcemia and hypophosphatemia in the chronically ill patient are many, and the patient may respond to simple replacement therapy. Elderly hospitalized patients with ionized hypocalcemia and hypophosphatemia, with or without an elevated parathyroid hormone level, are most likely deficient in vitamin D. Initiating treatment during hospitalization is reasonable once the diagnosis has been confirmed by finding a low 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. Treatment with high doses of vitamin D is safe. Unfortunately, some hospital formularies continue to provide multivitamin supplements that contain less vitamin D than currently is recommended

Another article - weakness and low vitamin D http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10789615&query_hl=15
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Apr 24;160(8):1199-203. Related Articles, Links


Severe myopathy associated with vitamin D deficiency in western New York.

Prabhala A, Garg R, Dandona P.

Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, State University of New York at Buffalo, 14209, USA.

Five cases of severe myopathy associated with vitamin D deficiency are described. Each patient was confined to a wheelchair because of weakness and immobility. Two were elderly, 1 was a 37-year-old African American with type 1 diabetes mellitus, 1 was being treated for carcinoid syndrome, and 1 was severely malnourished due to poor oral intake. In each, weakness had previously been attributed to other causes, including old age, concomitant diabetic neuropathy, or general debility. Correct diagnosis was made initially by a high index of suspicion, following the demonstration of clinical proximal myopathy; confirmation was made by the demonstration of low 25-hydroxyvitamin D and elevated parathyroid hormone concentrations. Treatment with vitamin D caused a resolution of body aches and pains and a restoration of normal muscle strength in 4 to 6 weeks. Four patients became fully mobile and had normal 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and the fifth also became mobile. In the 4 fully recovered cases, parathyroid hormone levels on follow-up were lower but still elevated. This finding suggests a degree of autonomy of parathyroid secretion known to occur in cases of long-standing vitamin D deficiency. Myopathy, due to chronic vitamin D deficiency, probably contributes to immobility and ill health in

[Ted Hutchinson]

annelb has provided some excellent links about Cholecalciferol. I hope nobody minds me adding another.
The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694)

Here in the UK many vitamin companies simply sell "Vitamin D" and they don't specify if the content is Vitamin d2 Ergocalciferol or Vitamin d3 Cholecalciferol.

Once you have read the above link you will see why annelb is right and why it is better, more cost effective and safer to use CHOLECALCIFEROL Vitamin D3.

Anyone reading Vitamin D research and trying to make sense of some of the conficting papers should pay attention to the type of Vitamin D used in the papers they are comparing. Given the poor rate of uptake of Vitamin d2 particularly amongst older people it's reasonable to ignore misleading conclusions from research using that form of vitamin d as it is ineffective. Research using D3 given at an appropriate strength and over an extended period, may well have provided different conclusions.

For those who want to raise their vitamin d3 status Promoting Health and Preventing Illness with Vitamin D. (http://www.endocrinemetabolic.com/resources/enews/2006/vitdnews10272006.pdf) presents a detailed account. Most readers who get a reasonable amount of sun exposure during the summer and who therefore only mildly below the ideal threshold will find 2000iu daily, sufficient to see them through the Winter. If however you suffer from SAD, then 4000iu/d may help depression (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15260882)

Some people may have concerns about the safety of using amounts at or above the current Toxic Upper Limit. This paper from R Vieth (http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/VitDVieth/Vieth%20Critique%20UL%20Vit%20D.pdf) discusses the safety aspect and explains why 10,000iu/d would be a justifiable upper limit.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

With all the new data coming in on Vit D... this is a great place to
share it!

Thanks Anne.:)

[nopain]

Get it from the sun. If you must supplement get it from Norwegien Cod Liver Oil - people have been doing this for centuries. No D2.

The key to getting it from the sun is to AVOID burning! The same rays that turn your bodys production on are also responsible for burning.

If you can avoid burning you should be able to stop worrying about the cancer risk.... unless you have extremely fair skin.

Light is life!

[Ted Hutchinson]

Sunlight Robbery - Health Research Forum (http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/sunlight.html)
Sunlight Vitamin D & Health (http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/sunbook.pdf)
Are a couple of interesting reports on the benefits of sunbathing.

The Antibiotic Vitamin...Deficiency in vitamin D may predispose people to infection..Janet Raloff (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061111/bob9.asp)

[nopain]

There is a reason the human body creates Vitamin D from sun exposure. One can always argue with Nature... but for me I'll take my dosage the way my maker intended it to be delivered.

[Ted Hutchinson]

There is a reason the human body creates Vitamin D from sun exposure. One can always argue with Nature... but for me I'll take my dosage the way my maker intended it to be delivered.I agree that regular prolonged sun exposure is probably what the skin was designed for but that was at a time when fish was also a regular part of the diet and meat and veg when available were from free range organic sources.

Now people are not getting the natural protection afforded by a high omega 3 status and high levels of antioxidants so it is reasonable to provide guidelines to stop people getting sunBURNT while still encouraging them to get REGULAR sun exposure.

More advice here How diet can help prevent sunburn (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=144#answer) however that article doesn't mention that changing to Green Tea as your preferred beverage (delicous with lemon or ginger, best made with water off the boil and not let brew for as long as brown) will add skin protection.

Your skin will also tan quicker (enabling longer safe exposure) if your Vitamin D status is high at the start of the season so keeping your Vitamin d3 up to scratch in the Winter will lead to a faster suntan in the early summer.

While those who live in an area below 40° where the option of getting sun every day of the year have the option of choosing the ideal source, those who live further from the Equator in latitudes higher than 40° will find it impossible to get regular sun Exposure at some point in the Winter. For those, maintaining their vitamin d3 status with cholecalciferol & perhaps cod liver oil, will be the safer option, given the increase in MS, breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, pain, mental illness, obesity,osteoarthritis, oseoporosis, hypertension, heart conditions, and autoimmune conditions etc which are known to occur in those with a lower than ideal vitamin d status.

[annelb]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=16479024

1: Acta Med Indones. 2006 Jan-Mar;38(1):3-5.
The effect of vitamin D as supplementary treatment in patients with moderately advanced pulmonary tuberculous lesion.

* Nursyam EW,
* Amin Z,
* Rumende CM.

Departement of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Indonesia-dr.Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta.

AIM: to compare the vitamin D group of pulmonary tuberculosis patients with a placebo group in terms of clinical improvement, nutritional status, sputum conversion, and radiological improvement. METHODS: sixty seven tuberculosis patient visiting the Pulmonary Clinic, of Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, from January 1st to August 31st, 2001 were included in this study. The subjects were randomised to receive vitamin D (0.25 mg/day) or placebo in a double blind method, during the 6th initial week of Tb treatment. The rate of sputum conversion, complete blood counts, blood chemistry as well as radiologic examination were evaluated. RESULTS: there were more male patients than females (39:28), 78.7% were in the productive age group, 71.6% had low nutritional status, 62.4% with low education level, and 67.2% with low income. One hundred percent of the vitamin D group and only 76.7% of the placebo group had sputum conversion. This difference is statistically significant (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: the sputum conversion had no correlation with the hemoglobin level, blood clotting time, calcium level, lymphocyte count, age, sex, and nutritional status. There were more subjects with radiological improvement in the vitamin D group.

PMID: 16479024 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


I was at a recent International Celiac Symposium and there was a poster on the increased incidence of TB among people with celiac disease (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=152) The author was there and said that it is felt this increased incidence was possibly related to low vitamin D due to malabsorption. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17047199&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum
Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

The author was there and said that it is felt this increased incidence was possibly related to low vitamin D due to malabsorption. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17047199&query_hl=23&itool=pubmed_docsum
AnneWhile I am sure you are accurately reporting what the author actually said the abstract concludes "This may be due to malabsorption and lack of vitamin D in individuals with CD." which I read to mean there could be both malabsoption of vitamin d and a lack of it (from other causes apart from malabsorption)
I'm sure you are aware that MOST vitamin d is obtained from sunlight and it's impossible for someone who doesn't go outside to sustain a healthy level of vitamin d from natural food sources alone. The report you quoted comes from SWEDEN latitude from 55° to 69° you can see from this calculator (http://zardoz.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD-ez.html) that this has an impact on the amount of vitamin d available from sunlight for a good part of the year so it is very easy for people who don't use supplements to become Vitamin d Deficient irrespective of whether or not they have celiac disease. The food sources of vitamin d don't contain gluten but of course that doesn't prevent there being reasons why celiacs don't absorb the vitamin d that may be obtained from oily fish.

From the 1850's through to 1930's TB sanatoriums provided SUNSHINE, fresh air, bed rest and healthy food. They weren't altogether wrong and it's about time the current SUNSMART policies were altered to provide more balanced and reasonable advice about Safe, Healthy sun exposure. At the moment the sunsmart advice is causing more chronic illness and cancers breast, colon, prostate etc etc etc than the skin cancer it is supposed to be preventing.

[Lara]

I just posted this on another forum, and saw your post here. Just wanted to add something from my area of the world.

Food for thought...

I live in a state of Australia where the rates of melanoma and skin cancer are extremely high. It used to be the highest rate in the entire world, not sure if it still is now. In the past year it has been suggested, based on studies from temperate climates in the world, that we are perhaps covering our skin too much when exposed to the sun. However, we don't live in a temperate climate so there is a lot of work being done in this area at the moment here in my state to clarify our individual situation. For decades we have been advised to cover our skin in the sun. We have a motto here that is just automatic now and one we've been teaching our children and our children's children, 'cause so many of the people my age have skin damage or worse from sun exposure. The aussie motto is Slip, slop, slap. Slip on a shirt, slop on the sunscreen, slap on a hat. Every Australian would know it. Now we're hearing conflicting reports... that we may have been covering up too much, or have we? They're working on clarifying the situation for us here.

My area has an average of about 300 days of sunshine a year. That's average. Some years much more, some less.

Study of Vitamin D levels in Brisbane
<snipped article>
The results of our recent research suggest that some adult living in South East Queensland are also vitamin D deficient or have low levels of vitamin D (8% and 23% respectively). These unexpected findings suggest that some Queenslanders may have moderated their outdoor activity and clothing in order to protect themselves from UV.

Therefore, low vitamin D levels may be a public health issue for some population sub-groups living in sunny climates. However, as Queensland has extreme levels of ambient UV and a very high incidence of skin cancer, considerable attention needs to be paid to the accuracy of guidelines about maintaining adequate vitamin D levels through sun exposure and/or supplementation. Queenslanders need clear public health messages (formulated from evidence-based guidelines) that provide information about the relevance to them of media messages from more temperate climates. Health authorities will be unable to provide suitable guidance until a thorough investigation of the vitamin D levels of the Queensland population has been undertaken.

Pilot data generated by this project would also provide a basis for the further investigation of sensible evidence-based guidelines on UV exposure, which balance the need for sun-protection and adequate vitamin D levels, and consider the different requirements of people living in sub-tropical and tropical Australia. Such guidelines should reduce public confusion and prevent changes in behaviour which may ultimately lead to an increase in the incidence of skin cancer.
bold added by me.
http://www.uv.hlth.qut.edu.au/research/index.jsp
The Australian Sun and Health Research Laboratory
Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation

from Cancer Council of Australia (http://www.cancer.org.au/documents/Risks_Benefits_Sun_Exposure_MAR05.pdf)
Risks and Benefits of Sun Exposure Statement

[Ted Hutchinson]

I take your point but we in the UK have taken your sunsmart policy and adopted it for our latitude without modification. While it may be applicable at latitude 33 sunlight robbery (http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports.html) leads to several well researched reports discussing a safe sun exposure policy to avoid sunburn, reduce melanoma but also increase vitamin d status and thereby reduce prostate, breast and colon cancers.

The situation in Australia lat 37<>12 may be more akin to Seville to Mali but it certainly doesn't apply from 50 Plymouth 57 Inverness

Having a National SunSmart policy isn't a clever idea if it doesn't take into account the needs of dark skinned native peoples nor the immigrant population. There is also the plight of those in institutions either for the elderly or mentally ill. The use of air conditioning does make it very easy to stay inside for longer that is good for you.

Look at these research papers The prevalence of vitamin D deficiency was 34.6%..... Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent among pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17079566&query_hl=31&itool=pubmed_docsum) Boston Latitude 42

Vitamin D deficiency is common in young pregnant women in this general practice, and it was not only confined to veiled women or women with dark skin. This highlights the magnitude of vitamin D deficiency in the pregnant population in a New Zealand setting; this vitamin D deficiency is responsible for the re-emergence of childhood rickets. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16964296&query_hl=33&itool=pubmed_DocSum) Wellington Latitude 41

Ninety-nine (94.3%) of the 105 subjects had vitamin D deficiency (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/83/6/1411) New Dehli lat 28

Recent epidemiological data document the high prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy among elderly patients and especially among patients with osteoporosis. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16529140)Boston Lat 42.

Vitamin D deficiency has re-emerged as a significant paediatric health issue, with complications including hypocalcaemic seizures, rickets, limb pain and fracture. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16948623&query_hl=44&itool=pubmed_docsum)Sydney, NSW, Australia lat 33

I'm sure you are capable of mental arithmetic and working out the balance between the excess deaths caused by excess sunburn cancers, anus,cervix, oral cavity, melanoma, and other non-epithelial skin cancer and can balance those against the excess deaths caused by bladder, colon, Hodgkin
lymphoma, myeloma, other biliary, prostate, rectum, stomach, uterus, and vulvabreast, kidney, leukemia,non-Hodgkin lymphoma, pancreas, and small intestine,esophagus,(male),gallbladder{female}thyr oid{female} and work out were the balance lies.

There is no need for anyone to get sunburnt and still maintain a healthy vitamin d status with regular safe nonburning sunexposure.

The slip slop slap message is causing more deaths than it saves in many parts of the world. In latitudes greater than 40 it needs to be applied with caution. Do read Oliver Gillie's reports Sunlight Robbery (http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports.html)

[Lara]

It is very difficult here to find "regular safe nonburning sunexposure", Ted. Our lives are spent IN the sun.

and

I wasn't suggesting anyone anywhere else in the world take notice of my post or adopt anything. It was posted to show that our situation is somewhat different from the situation in other places in the world and that researchers are busy working here to clarify specific recommendations for our specific situation.
and
Yes, I am "capable of mental arithmetic". Thankyou. :)

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/470300_2
Incidence of Cutaneous Malignant Melanoma
Br J Dermatol 150(2):179-185, 2004

Table 1 shows incidence rates of CMM for 23 selected countries reported in GLOBOCAN 2000.[3]
<snipped article>
Melanoma incidence data for Australia for 1983-1999 are presented in Figure 1. Recently reported statistical data suggest that the lifetime risk for development of melanoma in Australia is now 1 in 25 for men and 1 in 34 for women.

Edited to add: I grew up at Latitude: 16° 51' South. Blue eyes, fair skin. Ancestral heritage English, Irish, Scot, and prior to 1066 from France and Denmark. I've spent the past 10 years getting tiny pre-cancerous lesions burned off due to sun exposure damage as a child. I have family members who've survived malignant melanoma removal minus a lot of their flesh and lymph nodes. I have lost friends to malignant melanomas. My children, under current recommendations, have their moles checked annually with medical recommendations to actually keep mole maps via photography.

My point was that until we have more definitive research results for this particular area/zone in the world, we need to live with caution. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Thanks for your point Lara. Sorry if you interpreted my post as confrontational.

I agree with you that it is difficult to see how so many people living in places where the vitamin d is available free from sunlight every day of the year so many people have less than ideal levels.

However the cancer incidence/mortality rates for those cancers which flourish in low vitamin d status people are rising, are too high and outnumber those cancers caused by sun exposure by at least 30 to 1.

However shocking it may seem we should not let dermatologists sacrifice the lives of so many people worldwide. There is room for a sensible safe sun exposure policy where people are informed honestly about the dangers they run if they Never or Hardly ever, let the sun shine directly on their skin.

Those people who live above latitude 40 need a different emphasis than those who live below latitude 40. Those who live below 40 and who are strict adherents to the Slip, slop slap policy need to use cholecalciferol vitamin d3 supplements at an effective level as skin which is covered with clothing or screen doesn't make vitamin d. So many more people are dying of breast, prostate, colon cancer etc than are dying of skin cancer that the current sun-smart policy needs revisiting in many countries.

[Lara]

No problem at all, Ted. I do understand what you're saying and why you're saying it.

It appears to me that our department of health, Qld Health, actually is taking heed of findings in recent times across the globe and are wanting to get to the nittygritty of it all here too. If they weren't they wouldn't be doing the research they are presently. I'm pretty sure they don't want to be responsible for continuing with the stringent sun safe campaigns if that's going to be detrimental to our health either. Our state health department has enough problems already, unfortunately. Big problems.

[annelb]

If there is low serum calcium, vitamin D needs to be checked. Perhaps all infants with CHF should have vitamin D level tested. Rickets is not limited to developing countries.
Anne

Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006 Nov;22(11):728-731. Links
An Infant With Tachypnea.

* Cramm KJ,
* Cattaneo RA,
* Schremmer RD.

Children's Mercy Hospitals, Kansas City, MO.

The purpose of this case report is to illustrate the diagnostic difficulties of congestive heart failure in an infant. When presenting to the emergency department, these patients are often evaluated for sepsis, congenital heart disease, metabolic disorders, and myocarditis. We report a case of a 3(1/2)-month-old male who presented to the pediatric emergency department with congestive heart failure. He was found to have vitamin D deficiency rickets induced cardiomyopathy.

PMID: 17110866 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Pediatr Cardiol. 1999 Jul-Aug;20(4):283-6.Click here to read Links
Cardiac functions in children with vitamin D deficiency rickets.

* Uysal S,
* Kalayci AG,
* Baysal K.

Ondokuz Mayis University, School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Cardiology, Samsun, Turkey.

Nutritional deficiency of vitamin D is common in developing countries as a result of both inadequate diet and exposure to ultraviolet light. The most striking biochemical finding in this illness is hypocalcemia. Reduction in serum calcium level may affect ventricular contraction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate prospectively left ventricular function in a group of 27 infants diagnosed as having rickets. Electrocardiograms and echocardiographic studies were undertaken in all patients. A group of ten healthy infants was used as a control for the echocardiographic examinations. Patients were divided into three groups according to the biochemical classification of rickets. There were eight patients in group I, nine in group II, and ten in group III. Abnormal electrocardiographic findings were noted in four infants in group I, three in group II, and six in group III before treatment of the rickets. These changes resolved following treatment. Echocardiographic studies revealed left ventricular dysfunction in the pretreatment stage. The most striking echocardiographic finding is the increase in the ratio of interventricular septal thickness to left ventricular posterior wall thickness in eight patients from group III. This returned to normal after treatment of the rickets. This study has demonstrated echocardiographic evidence of left ventricular dysfunction in children with rickets. These abnormalities were not, however, sufficiently severe to be associated with clinical signs of cardiac failure. Cardiomyopathy may develop in rickets, especially in the third stage of the disease, and this finding may return to normal following adequate treatment of the rickets.

PMID: 10368454 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


I changed the title so I could include adults on this post. This editorial raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps better outcome would be seen in people who have less severe CHF?

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/4/731
Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand
Including Recommended Dietary Intakes (http://foodscienceblog.wordpress.com/2006/11/23/australias-new-nutrient-standards/)
Just found these and am reading them through but I thought others might also be interested.
I knew there was some reason why it wasn't a straightforward matter to equate latitudes in the southern hemisphere with the equivalent latitude in the northern hemisphere and I've now discovered that reason. It has been estimated that ultraviolet levels in summer are up to 40% higher in New Zealand than in the equivalent Northern latitudes (Madronich
et al 1998).

The guidelines are extremely comprehensive and it will be some time before I've made sense of it all but it's interesting reading and will hopefully oblige the UK FSA to reconsider UK guidelines.

[MaineERnurse]

I, for some unknown reason, am profoundly vitamin D deficient. Despite dietary and natural attempts to bring my levels up, I have to supplement.
I am taking 50,000 units of vitamin D a week in order to bring my levels to a therapeutic range.

My doctor is confuzzled as to why.

Jackie

[B12Bob]

Parathyroid is a possibility.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I, for some unknown reason, am profoundly vitamin D deficient. Despite dietary and natural attempts to bring my levels up, I have to supplement.
I am taking 50,000 units of vitamin D a week in order to bring my levels to a therapeutic range.

My doctor is confuzzled as to why.

JackieNone of the dietary sources of vitamin d contain sufficient vitamin d to restore low levels. Sunbathing (horizontal naked) at midday (when the ratio of UVB<>UVA is at it's best for vitamin d production) for a regular 20 minutes should be sufficient to raise 12000iu. Obviously the more clothes you wear the less skin is exposed. Hands and face only standing leaves only 5% of your skin surface exposed. Those bits most often exposed become the least effective (tanning) for vitamin d synthesis so finding a place where you can expose those areas not normally in public view may be increase natural synthesis.

You don't say if you are obese or not. Obese individuals require at least twice the amount of vitamin d as much gets locked up in adipose tissue.

You also don't say what colour your skin is, brown skins need about 5 times longer exosure to make the same amount, and black skins up to ten times the exposure is needed.

[Lara]

I knew there was some reason why it wasn't a straightforward matter to equate latitudes in the southern hemisphere with the equivalent latitude in the northern hemisphere and I've now discovered that reason. It has been estimated that ultraviolet levels in summer are up to 40% higher in New Zealand than in the equivalent Northern latitudes (Madronich et al 1998).

There's a hole in the ozone over Antartica and that affects the level of UV exposure for us aussies and kiwis.

Plus, in our summer, the earth orbits closer to the sun than it does up in Europe in your summer. Atmospheric conditions are also clearer here than up there. etc. etc.

Thanks for posting the link, Ted.
Interesting for me! I've saved it to read later.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/n35syn.htm

UV index
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/national/charts/UV.shtml
It's usually in Extreme level where I live. 15/Extreme today.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Free full text version of Risk assessment for vitamin D3 (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6#T1) Useful review of the scientific research considering the issue of Toxicity for Vitamin d3. Excellent tables setting out the matter in a sensible logical and clear manner.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Genetic Variants of the Vitamin D Receptor Gene Alter Risk of Cutaneous Melanoma (http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v127/n2/pdf/5700544a.pdf) While the general bias of my posting are encourages people to try to benefit from safe non burning regular sun exposure, I do appreciate that, although the risk of not having a high vitamin d status is far greater, there is some risk attached to sunburn regarding Melanoma. This paper discusses the way vitamin d both raises and lowers those risks. It's a bit technical (code for Ted doesn't understand much of it) but as it's a free download and it may come in handy sometime, here would be a safe place to store it.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y: nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860) The prevalence of hypovitaminosis D was highest during the winter and spring, when 25(OH)D concentrations <25, <40, and <75 nmol/L were found in 15.5%, 46.6%, and 87.1% of participants, respectively; the proportions were 3.2%, 15.4%, and 60.9%, respectively, during the summer and fall. If they had used a more optimal level of Vitamin D status such as 125 nmol/L then the results would have been even worse.

These alarmingly high rates of Vitamin d insufficiency were twice as likely in the obese as in the nonobese and in Scottish participants as in those from other parts of Great Britain.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D status predicts physical performance and its decline in older persons. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17341569) Vitamin D deficiency is common among older people, and can cause mineralization defects, bone loss, and muscle weakness. Objective: To investigate the association of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) concentration with current physical performance and its decline over 3 years among elderly.............Serum 25-OHD concentrations <20ng/ml are associated with poorer physical performance and a greater decline in physical performance in older men and women. Because almost 50% of the population had serum 25-OHD<20ng/ml, public health strategies should be aimed at this group.
For those who aren't aware <20ng/ml is deficiency status optimal status is >50 ng/mL

The links page of The Vitamin D Council (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/links.shtml) provides links to cheap sources of high strength vitamin d3.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Potentially modifiable determinants of vitamin D status in an older population in the Netherlands: the Hoorn Study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17344497) In the winter period, 51% of the subjects had 25(OH)D concentrations <50.0 nmol/L. Greater body fatness and less time spent on outdoor physical activity were associated with worse vitamin D status. ....Because few foods are vitamin D-fortified and the amounts of vitamin D in supplements are low, it is difficult to achieve adequate vitamin D status through increasing intakes in the Netherlands and in countries with similar policies.
We need not only to start fortifying milk on this side of the water but also raise the levels of Vitamin d3 in supplements.
Part of the problem I think is the way we have such a difference in the ways we measure Vitamin D status.
In this case they are looking at 50 nmol/L and the reader needs to be aware that is not the same as the optimal 50 ng/mL
50 ng/mL = 125 nmol/L
So those people with <50.0 nmol/L have level much less than half the optimal status.
Low serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in older persons and the risk of nursing home admission. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16960177) shows you have to keep your status above 75 nmol/L to stay out of nursing care homes.

[Ted Hutchinson]

This months newsletter from The Vitamin D Council sets out the research supporting the use of Vitamin D3 as a legal performance enhancing multifunctional steroid hormone.
Peak Athletic Performance and Vitamin D (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/newsletter/2007-mar.shtml)
I'm not surprised as there is now plenty of evidence that those with the highest Vitamin D3 status have better lung function (http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/128/6/3792) and those with the lowest vitamin d status have poorer physical performance and a speedier decline. (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jc.2006-1525v1)

[annelb]

Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y: nationwide cohort study of dietary and lifestyle predictors (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860) The prevalence of hypovitaminosis D was highest during the winter and spring, when 25(OH)D concentrations <25, <40, and <75 nmol/L were found in 15.5%, 46.6%, and 87.1% of participants, respectively; the proportions were 3.2%, 15.4%, and 60.9%, respectively, during the summer and fall. If they had used a more optimal level of Vitamin D status such as 125 nmol/L then the results would have been even worse.

These alarmingly high rates of Vitamin d insufficiency were twice as likely in the obese as in the nonobese and in Scottish participants as in those from other parts of Great Britain.

Thank you for all the links you have posted. In this article I think the conclusion in the abstract is important. Conclusion: Prevalence of hypovitaminosis D in the general population
was alarmingly high during the winter and spring, which
warrants action at a population level rather than at a risk group
level.
Yes, everybody gets a vitamin D check :cool:

The other day I was talking with a resident about testing vitamin d levels and the answer I got was it would not be necessary without symptoms. Checking vitamin D levels should be part of a routine lab panel. Until then all I can do is to tell everyone I run into to get a vitamin D check.

Anne

[JudyLV]

My 18 year old son has very low cholesterol (110). His doctor recently followed up with a test for apolipoprotein B and it was 40 mg/dl (range 60-140). He does not want to do any other tests even though I asked for several including vitamin D. Since cholesterol is a precursor to Vitamin D I really feel he should have that tested. I guess it is time to look for a new doctor.
--Judy

[Ted Hutchinson]

My 18 year old son has very low cholesterol (110). His doctor recently followed up with a test for apolipoprotein B and it was 40 mg/dl (range 60-140). He does not want to do any other tests even though I asked for several including vitamin D. Since cholesterol is a precursor to Vitamin D I really feel he should have that tested. I guess it is time to look for a new doctor.
--JudyYou may prefer just to order a Life Extension Blood Test vitamin d blood test (http://search.lef.org/search/default.aspx?s=1&QUERY=vitamin%20d%20blood%20test) or assume he has insufficient status and supplement with an effective amount of cholecalciferol on days when whole body exposure direct to effective sunshine (http://zardoz.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD-ez.html) isn't possible to ensure Optimal levels of around 50 ng/mL (125 nM/L) are available.
The Vitamin D Council (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/) has links to good sources of supply of cheap high strength Vitamin D3. There is a huge safety margin between the amount bodies actually use (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) and the amount which taken daily for many months (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6) may cause problems. I think it is generally safe to assume people have insufficient vitamin d status (in the uk (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860) almost 9 out of every 10 whites are insufficient in Winter (which means it's almost certain every with brown/black skin will definitely be insufficient) although milk is fortified in the USA and it's nearer the Equator and has more and stronger sunshine the situation isn't very much better.

[Lorryanne]

Thanks for all this info on Vit D.
6 months ago I started on a medication that has a side effect of inhibiting VIT D absorbtion.
For the last 14yrs I have avoided sun exposure because I had melanoma.

After starting this new medication I decided that there are so many things that can go wrong with my body if I don't get enough VIt D.

Skin cancer is easy to see and I have regular check ups.

So I just wanted to say thank you for posting this as it has given my decision some weight and some more info to stop people from nagging me about using sunscreen.

Lorraine

[Ted Hutchinson]

Why Athletic Performance Matters (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/newsletter/2007-mar-supp.shtml) more on the link between high vitamin d status and peak performance.
It just goes to show that taking a totally safe and effective amount of Vitamin D the amount your body actually requires, will have the effect of maintaining your Summer fitness status throughout the Winter.

[Aubrae]

Hi, I may have missed this addressed in the thread, but the body's inability to absorb vitamin D efficiently also plays a part. I was recently diagnosed with a severe vitamin D deficency (my score was an 8). I am now on high levels of vitamin D, but am showing signs of malabsorption. Tests were run for celiac sprues (gluten allergy) - and came back negative, and I am now going through thyroid testing.

I was also recently diagnosed by a rheumatologist to have fibromylagia.
I had cervical surgery this past November. The endocrinologist now treating me suspects that I also have Hashimoto's, and that at least some of my residual pain is due to some decalcification of bone, in part due to longterm low vitamin D.

So I would recommend to anyone considering cervical/spinal surgery to also have levels of vitamin D measured through bloodwork before considering undergoing surgery. If my case is any example, I would say that my very low vitamin D level has no doubt contributed to my longer recovery time. As has been pointed out earlier in this thread - testing for Vitamin D is not typically part of a standard bloodwork-up - but I definitely think should be - particularly for those showing symptoms and also those in higher-risks categories - ie - women, middle-aged, those with weaker immunity systems, etc.

[Ted Hutchinson]

These data suggest that variable responsivity to UVB radiation is evident among individuals, causing some to have low vitamin D status despite abundant sun exposure. Additionally, as the maximal 25(OH)D concentration produced by natural UV exposure appears to be approximately 60 ng/ml, it seems prudent to utilize this value as an upper limit when prescribing vitamin D supplementation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17426097)
Interesting findings.
The optimal level used by The Vitamin D Council is 50ng/mL (or 125nmol/L)
This shows the importance of getting your blood tested for Vit d if you continue to get symptoms of low Vitamin d status (almost identical to Fibromyalgia) even when you have had regularly had 20minutes daily full body direct exposure to warming sunshine for several weeks as you could be one of those whose skin is not making adequate Vitamin d.

[annelb]

Thanks for posting this good article Ted. I find it interesting that 60ng/mL seems to be the upper limit of vitamin D in the blood when exposed to adequate sunlight. Makes sense that 60ng/mL should be set as upper limit of "optimal". Now to find out what the lowest level can be without causing problems. I remember one article said 30ng/mL as no one had fractures when vitamin D was at least that high. It may need to be even higher. The Vitamin D council recommends "around 50ng/mL".

Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

Circulating vitamin D(3) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17218096)
Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is generally considered the means by which we define nutritional vitamin D status. There is much debate, however, with respect to what a healthy minimum level of circulation 25(OH)D should be. Recent data using various biomarkers such as intact parathyroid hormone (PTH), intestinal calcium absorption, and skeletal density measurements suggest this minimum level to be 80nmol (32ng/mL). Surprisingly, the relationship between circulating vitamin D(3) and its metabolic product-25(OH)D(3) has not been studied. We investigated this relationship in two separate populations: the first, individuals from Hawaii who received significant sun exposure; the second, subjects from a lactation study who received up to 6400IU vitamin D(3)/day for 6 months. Results (1) the relationship between circulating vitamin D(3) and 25(OH)D in both groups was not linear, but appeared saturable and controlled; (2) optimal nutritional vitamin D status appeared to occur when molar ratios of circulating vitamin D(3) and 25(OH)D exceeded 0.3; at this point, the V(max) of the 25-hydroxylase appeared to be achieved. This was achieved when circulating 25(OH)D exceeded 100nmol. We hypothesize that as humans live today, the 25-hydroxylase operates well below its V(max) because of chronic substrate deficiency, namely vitamin D(3). When humans are sun (or dietary) replete, the vitamin D endocrine system will function in a fashion as do these other steroid synthetic pathways, not limited by substrate. Thus, the relationship between circulating vitamin D and 25(OH)D may represent what "normal" vitamin D status should be.

This abstract suggests that all is not well under 40ng/mL or 100nmol/L that's only slightly below the Vitamin D council optimal of 50 ng/mL (125 nM/L).

I wonder how much armtwisting had to be done to allow the above research using 6400IU vitamin D(3)/day for 6 months. I can't remember seeing that amount used before. It looks like they are finally begining to realise that much higher levels of supplemenation may be needed. We also have to build into the equation a safety margin so that seasonal/weather/pollution caused fluctuations in status do not leave the body in a vulnerable state of depletion.

[Aubrae]

Thanks to all for the very helpful information. As a follow-up to a previous post (I have a severe deficiency in vit D - a level 8, then went down to a 6, now is at 18, after being on a dose of 50,000 mg of it D-3 for one month). I just got back results of recent bone density scan test. It showed moderate to severe ostepenia in my right hip and lumbar region. I suspect that based on what my surgeon was speculating, the osteopenia continues up my spine to my cervical region.

My rheumatologist suspected a vit D malabsorption problem (although tested negative for celiac). She recommended that my family doc follow up with other tests for malabsorption - which my family doc seems in no hurry to do.

I also have IBS - and it mainly manifests as constipation. Now my family doctor wants me to take a medicine called Mirlax and to continue to take it until, as she puts it, I have almost continuous bouts of diahrrea - in order to "clean out my system".

My question is this. Won't this only complicate my being able to continue to absorb the vitamin D - which right now appears to be crucial to my bone health? I am scared, I already feel very run-down. What should I do?
My insurance will cover me going to specialists - should I just go to a gastroenterologist on my own to try to get some answers?

[annelb]

Although you say you tested negative for celiac disease(CD), you may still be gluten sensitive. Dr. Lewey, a GI doctor, wrote a good explanation about this. http://ezinearticles.com/?Diagnosing-Celiac-Disease-and-Gluten-Sensitivity&id=239028 What test(s) were done to check for CD?

There is a gluten sensitivity/celiac disease forum here on Braintalk.

I do not know if causing diarrhea is a good treatment. Does not sound as though it will do much for increasing absorption of your nutrients :confused:
Anne

[Aubrae]

Thanks so much, Anne, for the reply and the very interesting information. No, I don't know the exact tests for celiacs were used, but I am going to call my doctor's office tomorrow to find out. One of the others in this forum also recommended I have a SIBO's test, which measures the level of bacteria in the small intestione and can cause malabsorption. I will let everyone know what I find out - hopefully this information can help someone else. :)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Association Between Vitamin D Status and Physical Performance: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17452740)Vitamin D status was inversely associated with poor physical performance. Given the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in older populations, additional studies examining the association between vitamin D status and physical function are needed.

This study was done at Winston-Salem latitude 36N where sunlight containing uvb rays is available throughout the year. Those living further North should be aware that from October to March the sun is at an angle that prevents the UVB light reaching the ground where you live. This means you are more likely to be Vitamin D insufficient during the Winter and therefore will have more ground to catch up in the Summer. In the UK 90% of the population are insufficent in Winter and 60% remain so throughout the year.

The study found 74.9% of women and 51.0% of men had vitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D insufficiency (serum 25OHD < 50.0 nmol/L). The OPTIMAL level of Vitamin d for PEAK PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE is 125nmol/L 50ng/ml over double the amount this study regarded as insufficient. Above this 125nmol/L level muscle performance declines.

To achieve optimal vitamin d levels you need to be taking the amount of Vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol, your body uses daily (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) or getting regular daily exposure to sunshine for at least 20 minutes (full body horizontal)

[annelb]

A study will be released in June. It is "A four-year clinical trial involving 1,200 women found those taking the vitamin had about a 60-per-cent reduction in cancer incidence, compared with those who didn't take it, a drop so large — twice the impact on cancer attributed to smoking — it almost looks like a typographical error."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

A study will be released in June. It is

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home

AnneThis is the text of the article annelb's link took you to. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1826996/posts) While the results of increasing Vitamin D status with regards to cancer may seem extraordinary for those here who have been following the research for years it is not unexpected.
Similar research using EFFECTIVE amounts of Vitamin D3 have already shown a 70% reduction in Cold/flu infections. Those here who are using sufficient cholecalciferol Vit d3 to meet our bodies needs (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) and who know this to be a safe amount,
(http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6) are well aware of the difference it makes to physical and emotional wellbeing. But you don't have to pay to raise your Vitamin D status. You can do it for free by spending 20-40 minutes in the sunshine exposing as much skin as modesty allows. Providing you never get burnt this is for most the quickest way of raising your status. If you do need to use supplements (an everyone living above latitude 45 will need to between October and March) then The Vitamin D Council (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/) have on their links page several cheap suppliers of effective strength capsules.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Each of these research based suggestions will improve the time you can safely stay out in the sun without your skin going pink.

Improve Vitamin D status with Cholecalciferol Supplements, Vitamin D3 is part of the skin's photoprotection mechanism (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17223553). By building up Vit d reserves before sun exposure you will tan naturally quicker and so this will also add to the skin's protection. I've already got a good suntan this year just by keeping my Vit d up in the Winter, just going outside a few times and I'm starting to tan nicely.

Improve omega 3 status. EPA the omega 3 essential fatty acid found in fish oil or metabolised from ground Flaxseed (or flaxseed oil) if your veggie will also improve the skin's photoprotection properties (http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/full/47/5/921). If you can't consume it, massage it into the skin, that will take it up and improve the UVR resistance.

Use tomato puree 2 tblspoons daily and olive oil ,2 tsps a day per person will lengthen the time it takes for skin to burn. See Tomatoes and Skin Protection (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/young/tomatoes.shtml)What you are adding is the lycopene in tomatoes and polyphenols in olive oil are both phytonutrients.

Drink Green tea. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17254040) If you can't be persuades to drink it hot then make it half strength put it in the fridge to get really cold then top it up with fizzy bottled water maybe add some honey. Green tea can also be applied directly to the skin or you can wash/bath in it.

Pomegranate juice (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16613491), another high phytonutrient with strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties.

Make sure you have plenty of other phytonutrients in your diet. ie raspberries, blueberries, World's Healthiest Foods Highest in Antioxidant

Phytonutrients (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=faq&dbid=42#antioxidants)Systemic photoprotection through carotenoids

Nutritional supplements are increasingly used to protect human skin against environmentally-induced damage, most importantly as a consequence of ultraviolet radiation exposure. beta-carotene is a major constituent of comercially available products administered for systemic photoprotection. Studies on the systemic use of beta-carotene provide evidence that 15-30 mg/d over a period of about 10-12 wk produces a protective effect against UV-induced erythema. Beta Carotene Food Sources (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=125#foodsources)

Improve the antioxidant factors in diet, selenium, vitamin C, Vitamin E have a good evidence to support their use but use natural food sources rather than synthetic.

Build up exposure to UVB now gradually, by regular, limited, exposure to UVR. A home solaria sunlamp used perhaps 3 times a week through the winter for just a few minutes each time will harden the skin and enable it to cope with sunlight during the Summer without burning. UV hardening therapy: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16488300)

Read this page of The Vitamin D Council newletter (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/newsletter/2006-aug.shtml)You can find the cheapest high strength Vitamin D from the links page on that site.

How can my diet help protect me from sunburn?: answer (http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=144#answer)

be aware that 6 out of ten of UK residents remains Vitamin d insufficient throughout the Summer (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860)leaving them vulnerable to cancers, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, hypertension,Osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, Mental illness, depression, Multiple Sclerosis and more, for each individual dying from cancers arising from excessive sunburn, 30 will die from cancers thriving in Vitamin D depleted bodies and a total of 250 die from conditions arising from too low a vitamin D status. Regular limited direct exposure to sunshine is far more important than complete protection. There is absolutely no point in striving so hard to prevent skin cancer that you actually promote prostate, breast and colon cancer. These are far greater risks and avoiding all sun exposure more than doubles the risk you put you child in. The most wicked, evil and dangerous thing you can do is to put the sunscreen on before your child goes outdoors. That is inviting those risk factors thought to lead to Multiple Sclerosis and the above most common deadlycancers by denying the natural protection afforded by high vitamin d status. (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061111/bob9.asp) There is no point at all in avoiding skin cancer if in doing so your deliberately, knowingly double the risk of breast, prostate, colon cancers and MS.

You have to be aware that Vitamin D protects more than sunburn damages so the research shows even people with active melanomas (the most deadly skin cancer) have BETTER LONGER prognosis if they CONTINUE to SUNBATHE.

The aim of sunblock is to prevent burning, but if you apply it before you go outside and never allow your skin to react in the way it naturally evolved (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16982574)and so preventing Vitamin D production YOU ARE DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D Status of Patients Admitted to a Hospital Rehabilitation Unit: Relationship to Function and Progress. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17515682&query_hl=12&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Ninety-four percent of the patients had serum 25OHD concentrations below the recommended minimum optimal concentration of 80 nmol/L.

Most patients in a hospital RU had a suboptimal serum 25OHD concentration, reflecting what has previously been observed in hospitalized patients in general and also the population at large. Although no specific physical deficits or attributes could be directly attributed to low serum 25OHD, the baseline functional status of Rehabilitation Unit patients, length of stay and progress attributable to inpatient rehabilitation ( Functional Independence Measurement efficiency) were favorably affected by higher serum 25OHD concentrations.

The moral if this abstract seems to me to be if you want to stay out of hospital or Rehab keep your vitamin d status high. Once in hospital/rehab your length of stay is related to your Vit d status and if you want to get out quicker make sure your in the higher Vit d status range.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Concomitant Lower Serum Albumin and Vitamin D Levels Are Associated with Decreased Objective Physical Performance (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17536208) among Japanese Community-Dwelling Elderly.
Concomitant lower serum albumin and lower vitamin D levels are associated with decreased muscle strength and balance capability in both men and women. These results suggest that serum albumin and 25OHD together may be an important target for strategies aiming to achieve a healthy life and prevent loss of independence in community-dwelling elderly.

Strategies to improve albumin (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ICF/is_5_31/ai_n17207531) I don't think I have to repeat how best to improve your Vitamin d status but if anyone wants to know then do ask.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Maternal vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of preeclampsia. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17535985)Maternal vitamin D deficiency may be an independent risk factor for preeclampsia. Vitamin D supplementation in early pregnancy should be explored for preventing preeclampsia and promoting neonatal well-being.

Bear in mind Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) At a maternal intake of 6,400 IU vitamin D3/day, circulating vitamin D3 increased dramatically. and normally the body uses between 3000 & 5000iu daily (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D deficiency in general medical inpatients in summer and winter. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17535381)Low vitamin D levels were common in this general medical inpatient population. The average vitamin D level was lower in the patient group tested in November following winter. Supplementation of vitamin D did not uniformly prevent deficiency.

Remember this is Australian Research and their Winter Summer are opposite months than in the Northern Hemisphere.
Be interesting to read the whole paper to see what level they were using to supplement and what type of Vitamin D they were using.

Anyone care to take bets that they were using D2 Ergocalciferol?

Anyone want to bet they limited intake to 2000iu/d hence the failure to raise status?

Remember there are now plenty of research papers showing those who have the lowest Vitamin D status are most likely to have to go into care homes, rehab units and the lower your Vit d status the longer you will stay there.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D status and health correlates among German adults. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17538533)

Another report highlighting the extent of Vitamin D insufficiency status generally in a population and it's impact on the amount of illness. When the cost of sorting the problem is so minimal, the risk negligible and the benefit so great it does make me wonder who is profiting from the general inaction?

[Ted Hutchinson]

Does solar exposure, as indicated by the non-melanoma skin cancers, protect from solid cancers: Vitamin D as a possible explanation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17540555&itool=pubmed_DocSum) Vitamin D production in the skin seems to decrease the risk of several solid cancers (especially stomach, colorectal, liver and gallbladder, pancreas, lung, female breast, prostate, bladder and kidney cancers). The apparently protective effect of sun exposure against second primary cancer is more pronounced after non-melanoma skin cancers than melanoma, which is consistent with earlier reports that non-melanoma skin cancers reflect cumulative sun exposure, whereas melanoma is more related to sunburn.


See message 45 (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showpost.php?p=109188&postcount=45)for ways of protecting your skin fron burning so you can obtain adequate exposure to the beneficial cancer protection regular LIMITED (http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm)exposure to sun provides.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D And Calcium Cuts Cancer Risk In Older Women, New Study Says (http://medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=73621)The results showed that women in the Calcium plus Vit D group had a 60 per cent drop in their cancer risk over the four years compared to the women in the placebo group.

In order to eliminate the possibility that some women may have started the trial with undiagnosed cancers, the researchers re-analysed the results leaving out the first year's figures. This showed an even bigger 77 per cent reduction in cancer risk in the Calcium plus Vit D group compared with the placebo group.



Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/6/1586) results of a randomized trial


Background: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are lacking.

Objective: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing incident cancer risk of all types.

Design: This was a 4-y, population-based, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged >55 y in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude 41.4°N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400–1500 mg supplemental calcium/d alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/d (Ca + D), or placebo.

Results: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P < 0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were 0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer risk.

Conclusions: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Sunlight may be needed to prime T cells to function in skin (http://www.tantoday.com/forums/science-uv/23948-vitamin-d-dermis-sunlight-may-needed-prime-t-cells-function-skin.html)

This article explains how the skin reacts to sunlight in a way that improves it's ability to deal with cancer cells. Those with an understanding of science may care to read her research paper "DCs metabolize sunlight-induced vitamin D3 to 'program' T cell attraction to the epidermal chemokine CCL27". (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17259988&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)however others may prefer to hear her discussing her work at Science News Central (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392932)it does not take more than a few seconds to register to watch the video.

The point you need to understand is that while having a sufficiently high vitamin D status is going to help protect your body from cancer to protect your skin you really need to activate the protection mechanism right where it's needed. As the sun not only makes Vitamin d on your skin but also processess it to the active subtance that does the work, having this occur on your skin is better, more efficient and more effective, than taking a supplement and having to wait for the metabolic product to be processed in the body and then travel out to where it is needed.

[Mariel]

I have high Omega 3 in blood assay, low Omega 6 and 9. I cannot seem to eat high Omega 3 foods, causes indigestion and pain. But I have had 60 skin cancers, mostly basal, a few squamous, over 35 years. So I have to cover up with sun protective cloth. Also I have porphyria, one of the kinds sensitive to light. So I am in a bind. I take 500 mg of D3 a day by pill. That's about what I can do. I get some sunshine even though I keep it out, because I live in New Mexico at high elevation.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I take 500 mg of D3 a day by pill.I think there may be a mistake in your post
2,000 IU of D3 =0.05 mg
20,000iu= 0.5mg
200,000iu= 5mg
2,000,000iu= 50mg
20,000,000iu=500mg

Hopefully you are taking 0.05mg d3 =2000iu/d
If you took 2 of these 1mg=0.1mg =4000iu/d then your Vitamin d level should achieve optimal status given you get no imput from oily fish/codliver oil/sunlight.

If the confusion arises because you are taking a 500iu D3 pill then you will be Vitamin D3 deficient. You would need to take 8 of these every day as you can't stand sunlight/oilyfish (the best sources of Vit d3) however it would be cheaper to buy some 5000iu capsules and just take 5 one week and 6 the next to average 4000iu/d. Ideally you need a circulating level of Vitamin D of 100nmol/L. It would be worth your while having a 25‑hydroxyvitamin D blood test to check this out to ensure you are getting sufficient Vitamin D3.

Any intake over 10,000iu/d should really only be short term to correct a deficiency situation as this is the level that should be regarded as the Toxic Upper Limit. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6)

Another part of your post I find confusing is you say you cannot tolerate high omega 3 foods yet have a high omega 3 assay. Most people have high omega 6 status as generally we are all eating too much omega 6 and not enough omega 3.
Living at altitude at your latitude should be a recipe for high vitamin D status but as with everything there are exceptions (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17426097&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)to make life complicated.

[Mariel]

Hello Ted. You are correct, I did not mean mg of Vit D 3 but i.u. I cannot take more than I take, even if I am deficient, and yes, I test very deficient. This seems to be because I have Porphyria. Having Porphyria makes us often unable to eat or take things which we need. It's tragic.

My theory as to why I have a high Omega 3 ratio in my blood, and yet cannot eat high Omega 3 foods very well, is that I do not metabolize Omega 3 well. I became interested in this Pyroluria thread because Ona has a similar condition where she is different from the "average", and cannot seem to metabolize or digest Omega 3 well. I am attempting to get more Omega 6.

Living at high altitude in the sun is my nemesis, having Porphyria. I have to cover up with two layers of sun protective cloth. I know, tragic. I hate my disease, but I am not alone! There is an army of us.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I cannot take more than I take, even if I am deficient, and yes, I test very deficient. This seems to be because I have Porphyria. Having Porphyria makes us often unable to eat or take things which we need. It's tragic.

My theory as to why I have a high Omega 3 ratio in my blood, and yet cannot eat high Omega 3 foods very well, is that I do not metabolize Omega 3 well. You really are in a catch 22 situation and whatever you do, whatever anyone suggests, is likely to fail. However, other readers should be aware you are the exception to the rule.

I still think that raising your vitamin d status to optimal can only help.

Have you asked your doctor if you could have a vitamin d3 injection?
It is quite possible to have vitamin d3 injected in quite large amounts (obviously you would start with a low one to see what the reaction was first)

The Omega 3 EPA is one of the best ways of improving skin photoprotection, and your peculiar omega 3 metabolism/uptake problem may be contributing to the sun intolerance which prevents you obtaining Vitamin D via sun exposure.

However the transdermal uptake of Vitamin D may be a route for you to explore.
You can buy Vitamin D3 ointments/creams which you could experiment with. You could simply take a high strength Vitamin D3 capsule, slide it apart, drop the contents into some olive oil or similar massage oil mix well and apply this to your skin. (obviously trying a test patch first to see what happens before extending the massage to eventually applying it over your whole body)

Having been vitamin d3 deficient for so long it will take large amounts of vitamin D3 over many months to obtain a vitamin D status of 100nmol/L which is the minimum you should aim for.

[Mariel]

The skin absorption through using a capsule in olive oil is a good idea, and I will try it. I get along fine with olive oil, which is a monounsaturated oil and rather neutral in the Omega 3/Omega 6 problem. I think I probably could absorb more D3 in this way. I am going to try it this very day.

Most people with porphyria do not think about D3, although those on the MS forum where you've been certainly do so. My first dx was MS, but it probably was a secondary situation, that is, brain sclera caused by untreated and undiagnosed porphyria, with consequent ingestion of "bad" drugs for years.

I am therefore not aware of any reason to not take Vitamin D3 because of porphyria, just have the experience of reacting with my typical reaction, spasticity and pain, when upping my oral D3 dose. I know I have been able to take transdermal things, so I will give it a try. I happen to have some 400 mg capsules of d3 which I can use, and of course the olive oil. The only reason for D3 to react in porphyria is that it is a precursor of a hormone, and we do badly with many hormones, i.e., estrogen, progesterone, some forms of cortisone (Prednisone). Estrogen and progesterone are among our worst "triggers".

I can report a change today in how I feel from eating sunflower seeds, perhaps thus getting more Omega 6. I am more relaxed. Less spasticity. Could be a help. Mariel

Thanks!

mariel

[Ted Hutchinson]

I happen to have some 400 mg capsules of d3 which I can use, and of course the olive oil.
I bet/hope they are 400iu not mg
Bear in mind ideally your body needs 4000iu/daily so you may find the 5000IU capsules from The Vitamin d council links page a cheaper option than ten 400iu capsules.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I have just found a website containing video presentations about Vitamin d from the Worlds Leading Experts.

You can find it Contemporary Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D-Related Disorders (http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=asbmr&c=10169&s=20343&e=6950&&) some of it needs advancing so you skip the conference admin information but you can preview the slides to reach the speakers you are most interested in listening to.

I found it great being able to see some of the people whose papers I have been quoting. Robert Heaney, Reinhold Vieth, Bruce Hollis are now real people to me.

Not surprisingly there appear to be a lot of good suntans among this group of scientists. I wonder why?

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D status modulates the immune response to Epstein Barr virus: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17574770&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)Synergistic effect of risk factors in multiple sclerosis.MS risk is associated with low vitamin D status prior to disease, and Epstein Barr virus (EBV) infection seems to be a prerequisite for MS. EBV could activate autoreactive T cells by several mechanisms, but it is not clear why this leads to MS. Only a small proportion of those infected with EBV develops MS, whereas autoreactive T cells are present in the normal T cell repertoire. Genetic factors cannot explain this enigma alone, because the genetic predisposition to MS in most cases is quite weak. Vitamin D receptors are expressed on EBV infected B cells, antigen presenting cells and activated lymphocytes, and the bioactive vitamin D metabolite dihydroxyvitamin D(3) suppresses antibody production and T cell proliferation and skews T cells towards a less detrimental Th2 phenotype. EBV infected B cells constitute a constant challenge to the immune system, also during seasonal periods of relative low vitamin D status. I propose that vitamin D modulates the immune response to EBV, and that detrimental activation of autoreactive T cells leading to MS is more likely if the vitamin D status is suboptimal.

Plenty of other reasons to stay Vitamin D replete but here's another one.

[Ted Hutchinson]

[The influence of vitamin D deficiency on cancers and autoimmune diseases development (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17578830&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum).]

There is a growing number of diseases which prevalence can be associated with vitamin D deficiency. The link between low cholecalciferol concentration and bone diseases is well established, however there is also data suggesting that it may influence development and progression of different cancers and autoimmune diseases. The in vitro studies proved that the active vitamin D metabolite - 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) may arrest the cell cycle progression, induce apoptosis as well as regulate T cells and antigen presenting cells function. Results of the in vivo experiments suggest that vitamin D deficiency accelerates development of autoimmune diseases and cancers in animals. Epidemiological studies imply that the vitamin D deficiency is also associated with the increased incidence of autoimmune diseases and cancers in people. The main determinant of vitamin D serum concentration in a human body is skin synthesis. The changes in the lifestyle, air pollution as well as a common use of sun screens caused that the contemporary European receives little sunlight compared to his ancestors. According to the recent epidemiological studies, the vitamin D concentrations in serum of people who live in high latitudes (above 34 degrees N/S), including Poland, is far from being sufficient. This paper reviews results of the recent studies concerning the potential role of the vitamin D in the development of cancers and autoimmune diseases, as well as provides guidelines for vitamin D supplementation.

[JudyLV]

Last year my 25 OH D was 27 ng/ml. I supplemented 2,000IU/day as recommended by my doctor and my nutritionist. Initially I took a liquid form then I switched to an oil based vitamin D. I just got my results back after taking vitamin D for one year and my 25 OH D is now 29 ng/ml. I will increase what I am taking and get more direct sun but I obviously I have not been able to absorb the vitamin D. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
--Judy

[Ted Hutchinson]

27ng/mL = 67.5nmol/L
29ng/mL= 72.5nmol/L

400iu ought to raise nmol/L by 8-12 nmol/L

Are you sure you have D3 CHOLECALCIFEROL there are sometimes absorbancy issues with D2 ERGOCALCIFEROL?

Are you taking the D3 with food. It is fat soluble and therefore is best taken up when you have bile available to do so, taking it just with a glass of water on an empty stomach may allow it to wash away.

It is very safe to take significantly more than you do at the moment.
Optimal Status is 125nmol/L so you need at least another 2000iu.
If you doctor is planning to retest next year and you know what your current status is I'd use the 5000iu capsules from the sources listed at The Vitamin D Council links page. Taking one a day and not missing any days (as is needed if you wish to limit intake to 4000iu daily) will be fine.
The Tolerable Upper Limit should be 10,000iu as this is the level below which adverse events haven't ever been recorded. 40,000iu daily for some months has been shown to lead to problems. But 5000iu and regular sunshine will NOT cause problems and by next year the results should be much better.

Come October it may be an idea to have short but regular sunbed sessions to replace the sunshine contribution.

[JudyLV]

Thanks for the response Ted. The form I take is is definitely D3 and I take it with food and a digestive enzyme.
--Judy

[Ted Hutchinson]

Thanks for the response Ted. The form I take is is definitely D3 and I take it with food and a digestive enzyme.
--JudyYou haven't mentioned Crohn's or other digestive disorder. If you had a chronic digestive disorder then this would explain the failure to absorb a reasonable amount. Providing there weren't major changes in your sun exposure 2000iu extra should have raised your status by around 40nmol/L however as 5000iu is a perfectly safe amount to take daily I'd give that a go.

Check your medications. Some can interfere with absorption of vitamin D, such as cortisone and other steroids.

[JudyLV]

I was diagnosed with MS and hypothyroidism in 1998. Toxcity has been an issue also. I have been on a gluten free diet for over 4 years and my MS has been stable since then. One year ago I learned I have delayed food allergies to many foods (gluten, egg, dairy, soy, legumes....). Since removing those foods I have had continued improvement with my health. The only prescription drugs I take is for my thyroid. I do not have Celiac Disease because I do not have the genes but there is no question I am gluten intolerant.

Thanks again.
--Judy

[Ted Hutchinson]

You can read the full text of this new research here
Vitamin D status predicts physical performance and its decline in older persons (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jc.2006-1525v1)

Or you can skip the science and just read a review of the paper here. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKCOL65871220070626?pageNumber=1)

The paper concludes that levels of Vitamin D lower than <20ng/ml that is 50nmol/L are linked with poor physical performance as measured by
1)the time taken to walk 3 meters, turn 180º and walk back(walking test),
2)time taken to rise five times from a kitchen chair with arms folded in front of the chest (chair stands),
3_ability to stand with the heel of one foot directly in front of - and touching the toes of- the other foot, for at least 10 seconds (Tandem stand).

As I have pointed out in other threads your body really needs twice this amount of Vitamin D.
If you want it to work properly you need to aim for 100nmol/L. This is the level achieved if your total Vitamin D3 intake from sunshine, diet and supplements is around 4000iu daily. It's particularly your lower limb strength that is affected by low vitamin D and this is why many older people fall. So getting outside into the sunshine for 20minutes is so important as is taking a sensible effective amount of Vitamin D3.

Remember that even though you may not have to pay for your prescriptions (UK) it is likely your doctor, if you asked for this on prescription would offer D2 and this is NOT effective for older people. The case against ergocalciferol (Vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694) if you want to know why I think any doctor who prescribes D2 (MOST DO) needs retraining.

I think US readers also find their doctors are on a scam issuing the more expensive artificial more toxic least effective form of Vit d2 rather than the cheaper, natural, fully effective, least likely to have adverse events D3 Cholecalciferol. Why do we let them get away with it?

[glenntaj]

--to say that people let the medical establishment get away with that degree of knowledge lack. People just don't know--and, perhaps more to the point, don't know what they don't know. And that includes most doctors, whose nutritional training, if not nil, is close to that.

There's also been a considerable "out of the sun" movement here, and that contributes to lowered Vitamin D levels. As someone whose wife is an ultramarathoner (out in the sun constantly), and who has already had one melanoma removed, I am ambivalent about this. On the one hand, I know she needs good D3 levels (especially as an athlete). On the other, the incidence of skin cancer is up sharply, as we have seemed to have broken the ozone layer; humans evolved to be outside manufacturing Vitamin D in a very different environment, with more protections from the damaging wavelengths of radiation than we now have.

The only solution at this point for her--there is great risk of recurrence for those who've had one melanoma--is coverage and D3 supplementation. And, C and B-vitamin supplementation on top of that, for purposes of antioxidation and enhanced cellular repair.

[Ted Hutchinson]

As someone whose wife is an ultrmarathoner (out is the sun constantly), and who has already had one melanoma removed, I am ambivalent about this. ....snip........

The only solution at this point for her--there is great risk of recurrence for those who've had one melanoma--is coverage and D3 supplementation.
While I fully support the use of clothing/sunblock etc for those who want to spend more than 25 minutes outside at a time, I do think we have to understand that Vitamin D3 obtained by sun exposure is actually more effective than Vitamin D from supplements.

How sunshine helps your skin protect itself from cancer?

Sunlight may be needed to prime T cells to function in skin (http://www.tantoday.com/forums/science-uv/23948-vitamin-d-dermis-sunlight-may-needed-prime-t-cells-function-skin.html)

This article explains how the skin reacts to sunlight in a way that improves it's ability to deal with cancer cells. Those with an understanding of science may care to read her research paper "DCs metabolize sunlight-induced vitamin D3 to 'program' T cell attraction to the epidermal chemo-kine CCL27 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17259988&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)". however others may prefer to hear her discussing her work at Science News Central (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392932) it does not take more than a few seconds to register to watch the video.

The point you need to understand is that while having a sufficiently high vitamin D status is going to help protect your body from cancer to protect your skin you need to activate the protection mechanism right where it's needed. As the sun not only makes Vitamin d on your skin but also processes it to the active substance that does the work, having this occur on your skin is better, more efficient and more effective, than taking a supplement and having to wait for the metabolic product to be processed in the body and then travel out to where it is needed.

5 minutes full body exposure raises 1000iu, turning over to expose the other side raises another 1000iu, repeating this on both sides ensures your 4000iu daily requirement is fully met. You can't stay any longer than that as the Vitamin d is then converted to suprasterols (http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm)which are useless so if you want to store some for the winter or rectify a deficiency, you need to leave the second 20minute session to later in the day, ensuring of course that your skin never gets red or burnt. The prognosis for those people with melanoma who continue to get regular LIMITED sun exposure is better than for those who totally avoid the sun.

[glenntaj]

--she certainly does get regular exposure, though not all over her body (running naked is still not looked upon favorably in most locales). :p

But, in the course of her training--most of it not done during the highest sun hours, but rather early in the morning or around dusk (especially now, to avoid the worst of summer heat)--she can be our there for two-three hours at a time, and she does use sunscreen and wear a special covering sunblock hat, singlet, and shorts.

She does burn, but not as rapidly as I do, and she will freckle, but she does eventually turn tan. (I do the freckle/burn/peel routine in the sun, and do not end up much darker than my typical pale winter coloring, so I am very careful to limit my exposure during the high sun hours.)

I suspect she does get enough sun, aggregately, to manufacture some D, but given her history, and tha fact that she does take cover-up steps, she will keep taking her D3.

Given how we've interefered with the natural ultraviolet protection the atmosphere used to afford us, it's a very delicate balance between getting enough sun for optimal D levels and optimal immune response, and getting enough to cause cellular breakdown/mutation.

[Ted Hutchinson]

This animated diagram, together with the one below it (http://www.uvguide.co.uk/vitdpathway.htm)shows the process of Vitamin d synthesis from sunlight. You will see what happens to the Vitamin d on the surface of the skin if you continue to apply heat to it.

This is why it is SO IMPORTANT, to cover up, go inside, stay out of the sunshine after your initial 20-25mins and why it (if you life in places where it is easy to burn in less then 20mins) is crucially important NEVER to let the skin burn. All the Vitamin D you need is make in a QUARTER of the time it takes your skin to burn, so burning and even going red are counterproductive to the acquisition of Vitamin d from sunlight.

PS I'm not suggesting your wife is anything like a lizard, just the process of Vitamin d synthesis is the same for both.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I'd like to add a bit more to this post. (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showpost.php?p=122299&postcount=70)

In vivo relevance for photoprotection by the vitamin D rapid response pathway. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17223553&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

and

Photoprotection by 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 is associated with an increase in p53 and a decrease in nitric oxide products. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17170736&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)


These are both papers supporting the idea that REGULAR LIMITED sun exposure when UVB is available (shadow shorther than your height, the UV index needs to be at least 3, to make vitamin D. ) helps protect your skin from cancer. Remember though that exposure over 25minutes or exposure that causes skin reddening or burning is counterproductive as it not only destroys the Vitamin D3 it has just made but also is linked to increasing skin cancer incidence.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in European postmenopausal women. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17631697)OBJECTIVE: Inadequate vitamin D level is associated with secondary hyperparathyroidism and increased bone turnover and bone loss, which in turn increases fracture risk. The objective of this study is to assess the prevalence of inadequate serum vitamin D levels in postmenopausal European women. There are no clear international agreements on what constitutes a level of vitamin D inadequacy, but recent publications suggest that the circulating level of vitamin D should be over 80 nmol/L or at least between 50 and 80 nmol/L.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Assessment of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] was performed in 8532 European postmenopausal women with osteoporosis or osteopenia. European countries included France, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Hungary, United Kingdom, Spain and Germany. Two cut-offs of 25(OH)D inadequacy were fixed : < 80 nmol/L and < 50 nmol/L.RESULTS: Mean (SD) age of the patients was 74.2 (7.1) years, body mass index was 25.7 (4.1) kg/m(2). Level of 25(OH)D was 61.0 (27.2) nmol/L. There was a highly significant difference of 25(OH)D level across European countries (p < 0.0001). The lowest level of 25(OH)D was found in France [51.5 (26.1) nmol/L] and the highest in Spain [85.2 (33.3) nmol/L]. In the whole study population, the prevalence of 25(OH)D inadequacy was 79.6% and 32.1% when considering cut-offs of 80 and 50 nmol/L, respectively and when considering patients aged less than 65 years, the prevalence reached 86% (cut-off of 80 nmol/L) and 45% (cut-off of 50 nmol/L).CONCLUSION: This study indicates a high prevalence of vitamin D [25(OH)D] inadequacy in European postmenopausal women. The prevalence could be even higher in some particular countries. A greater awareness of the importance of vitamin D inadequacy is needed to address this public health problem.

Another of todays vitamin D research listings is Hypovitaminosis D is frequent in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes. unfortunately no abstract but the title says enough.

[annelb]

A review article by Dr. Holick was published by the New England Journal of Medicine this July 2007. You can access complete article through Dr. Holick's website. http://www.uvadvantage.org/home.cfm The link is at the top of this page. Or a direct link to the article is http://www.uvadvantage.org/CONTENT/NEJournalofMedicine.pdf

Thanks to Dr. Holick we can all read this article. The NEJM requres a subscription.
Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

Thanks a lot for that Annelb.
I've just skimmed through it, won't have time to read it properly until tonight, but I am very surprised by his recommendations on page 276.

Firstly by the continued referenceS to D2 rather than D3, knowing that it is only 30% as effective and D3 is readily available seems perverse to me.

I'm also disappointed by his stopping at 30ng/ml. This seems too low to me given the known benefits of having a status above 40ng/ml 100nmol/L

I wonder if it is just a political manoeuvre to get the medical profession to take one small step in the right direction with the intention to raise standards higher once the first stage has been accomplished. However I think it will take far to long to shift the goal posts once so trying to do it in two stages will take twice as long.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D Deficiency: The Cause of Everything? (http://accordent.biocom.arizona.edu/2007/10/04/IMGR20071004/rnh.htm)

Click here for Windows media presentation (http://accordent.biocom.arizona.edu/2007/10/04/IMGR20071004/links.htm)

Click here for real player presentation (http://accordent.biocom.arizona.edu/2007/10/04/IMGR20071004/links.htm#)

It takes about an hour.

I'd like to add a point for UK folk who listen to the above. Bear in mind as you listen to the recommendations at the end of the talk that Saskatoon (where the speaker works) is on the same latitude as the UK so should have the same UVB availablity seasonally BUT Saskatoon is in the middle of the continent and UK is surrounded by water, as air travels over water it becomes more humid and when humid air passes over high land it cools and cloud forms and cloud blocks UVB. Saskatoon has Annual Sunshine: 2,381 hours annually UK 1495.9hrs average. If you have 6.5hrs sunshine daily it provides more opportunities for sun exposure than 4hrs. The presentation is taking place in Arizona and sunshine wise that is another story.

[Ted Hutchinson]

The Assessment of Circulating 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D: Emergence as
Clinically Important Diagnostic Tools (http://prevention.cancer.gov/files/news-events/20070507-8-hollis.pdf)
Just wanted to find a safe home for this link.
When comparing Vit d figures from different research papers/presentations we have got to bear in mind that there is/has been wide variation in the methods employed and the accuracy of those methods.

Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D measurement in a large population survey with statistical harmonization of assay variation to an international standard (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17726070) this paper is an attempt to harmonise the results from UK labs but the variation is something folk have got to remember.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk of postmenopausal breast cancer - results of a large case-control study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17974532) Our findings strongly suggest a protective effect for postmenopausal breast cancer through a better vitamin D supply as characterized by serum 25(OH)D measurement, with a stronger inverse association in women with low serum 25(OH)D concentrations (< 50 nM).

[Ted Hutchinson]

Double-dose vitamin D lowers cancer risk in women over 55. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17976337&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)
Wouldn't it be nice if we could recommend something as simple and safe as a daily vitamin to reduce the risk of cancer? Until now, we have had no definitive evidence to support such a recommendation. The Lappe et al trial, however, concluded that improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. Will this single, relatively small study pass the test of time and be confirmed by future clinical trials? We think so. The estimated relative risk reduction was dramatic (0.232) and the 95% confidence interval was 0.09 to 0.60, meaning that the true relative risk reduction has a 95% probability of being in the range of 40% to 91%. The P value of <.005 suggests that the probability of this finding occurring by chance alone is less than 1 in 200. Our critical appraisal found no significant flaws in this randomized controlled trial. Vitamin D is known to have cancer protective effects at the cellular level. Prior population based studies support the association between vitamin D and cancer prevention. For these reasons--and the fact that 1000 IU vitamin D is very safe for most patients--we find this single RCT convincing as a practice changer. For us, the potential benefit outweighs the potential harm. The criteria and findings leading to the selection of this study as a Priority Update from the Research Literature can be accessed at www.jfponline.com/purls.

You can read the article in Journal of Family Practice here (http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=5445&UID=) Increasing the dose of vitamin D3 from the current standard of 400–600 IU per day to 1000 IU per day lowers future risk of cancer in women older than age 55 who do not get adequate vitamin D from sun exposure or diet Those living North of Omaha where this research was conducted should be aware that they will have fewer days each year when UVB is available from sunlight and may need somewhat higher vitamin d intake to obtain the same benefit.
UK women for example would need 2000iu/daily during the Winter (November to March) to raise their status from 40nmol/L on average to 80nmol/l.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Sunbathing 'slows ageing process' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/11/08/scisun108.xml)

Vitamin D 'may help slow ageing' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7083323.stm)

Where he says About one-third of the population is thought to be vitamin D deficient. he is talking about the medical definition of deficient rather being INSUFFICIENT.
The average UK adult has a summer peak vitamin d status around 70nmol/L and a winter low (for several months) around 40nmol/L
80nmol/L is the level that optimises calcium uptake and reduces colon cancer incidence by 72%.
100nmol/l is the level that enables all the body's systems that need Vitd never to run short. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096)
125nmol/l is the level associated with peak physical fitness and lowest all cancer incidence.

The Role of Inflammatory Cytokines and Telomere Length in Musculoskeletal Aging (http://www.cihr.ca/e/33387.html)

[Ted Hutchinson]

If you keep your eyes on the Vitamin D news you will over the next few days see headlines like this one.
Vitamin D injection fails to prevent fractures in elderly people (http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/medizin_gesundheit/bericht-96129.html) This study reports that 300,000iu intramuscular vitamin D2 ergocalciferol injection does not improve the fracture risk of elderly people. No protective effect was observed.

It would help me and keep people better informed, if when you see these headlines, if you could use the comments section where available, to explain why ergocalciferol (Vitamin D2) should never be used as a vitamin supplement and why it is not effective for older people and how by using it, this research is fundamentally flawed.

The Case Against Ergocaciferol as a vitamin supplement. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694) explains the research showing that it is NOT as effective as D3 in raising vitamin d status. 3000iu of Ergocalciferol is the equivalent of 1000iu of Vitamin D3, that's at best if it is absorbed/utilised at all.

But we also know from this study "Plasma 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Responses of Younger and Older Men to Three Weeks of Supplementation with 1800 IU/day of Vitamin D" (http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/18/5/470) published 1999, by Bess Dawson-Hughes (an acknowledged expert) shows clearly that older people do NOT absorb/utilize Vitamin D2 as well as younger people and concludes Concentrations of 25(OH)D3 did not change significantly in any group.

And here A comparison of the effects of alfacalcidol treatment and vitamin D2 supplementation on calcium absorption in elderly women with vertebral fractures. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8883116) Our study shows that vitamin D2 supplementation is ineffective in stimulating calcium absorption in elderly women

It is D3 that is required to improve the uptake of calcium from our food.

It is D3 that is improves muscle strength and muscle function so older people are less likely to sway and are more able to regain their balance should they start to tumble.

So in the first place the 300,000iu of vitaminD2 was actually only the equivalent of 100,000iu of Vitamin D3.

100,000iu spread over 12 months should be the equivalent (if it is absorbed, if it were converted to D3) of 277iu daily

We know from "The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is effective" (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649)that 400iu/daily d3 raises status by 7-12nmol/L so 277iu could possibly make a difference of 4-7nmol/l. As older people have nmol/l status of 35nmol/l summer 23nmol/l winter so adding at best 7nmol/l is trivial, it is simply insignificant because to improve calcium uptake/muscle function we need to be near the 80nmol/l level and these people are still below half the level required.

Perhaps if they had provided the vitamin D as D3 and in daily oral doses the impact would have been greater as this study shows may be the case.

Efficacy of different doses and time intervals of oral vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium in elderly nursing home residents. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17874029) is some research comparing daily, weekly, monthly oral intake of vitamin D3. They found that, although daily dosing was best, the difference between daily and weekly was insignificant but monthly intake produced significantly lower effects. While I cannot be certain this is the same for injection it is probably the same.

So if you want to repeat this experiment at home and see if your risk of fracture is less following the use of an effective amount of vitamin d, please learn from their mistakes and pay attention to the following points.

1)Use the form of vitamin D that is known to be absorbed best, particularly for older people, D3 CHOLECALCIFEROL.

2)Take an effective amount of supplement either DAILY or Weekly, (it's fat soluble so best taken with food)not monthly or annually.

3)Understand that those who have spent their lives working with Vitamin D3 say 400iu/daily raises status only by approximately 9nmol/l.

4)Understand the average 45yr old has a winter vitamin d status around 40nmol/l and older people (because they stay indoors more and have thinner skins with less cholesterol to convert to vitamin d) have winter levels around 23nmol/l

5)Do some simple mental arithmetic to work out how many iu's you are likely to need to raise your status to over 80nmol/l the level that maximises calcium uptake and improves muscle strength.

6) and rememberRisk assessment for vitamin D (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6) shows all the research in the safety of vitamin d up to January 2007 (more has been done since with even higher amounts safely) and NO ADVERSE EVENTS occur or have occurred under 10,000iu/daily but even that is twice what anyone reading this would need.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Deficiency In Exposure To Sunlight Linked To Endometrial Cancer (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114162728.htm)
higher serum levels of vitamin D are associated with reduced risk of endometrial cancer,"

This is the third environmental paper from this research team to show a strong association between vitamin D and cancer using global incidence data (GLOBOCAN). The first paper, which illuminated a similar pattern for kidney cancer, was published Sept. 15, 2006, in the International Journal of Cancer. The second, on ovarian cancer, was published Oct. 31, 2006, in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

[Ted Hutchinson]

What's the Real Story on Vitamin D? (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/269033.aspx)There is an interesting video here summarising briefly some of the case for more vitamin D3.

Very interesting for me to see/hear Dr Cannell and Bill Sardi.
I would like to have seen all the material they filmed as when they showed photos from the lab of scientists I recognised Sigmundsdottir (http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218392932) and it would have been interesting to hear more of her work on the role of sun exposure on cancer prevention.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Are sunlight deprivation and influenza epidemics associated with the onset of acute leukemia? (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=18024404)Month of diagnosis of 7,423 cases of acute leukemia (AL) in Finland during 1964-2003 were linked with data on influenza and solar radiation. Acute myeloblastic leukemia (AML) showed the highest risk in the dark season. During the light season, the incidence decreased by 58% (95% confidence interval, 16-79%) per 1,000 kJ/m(2)/d increase of solar radiation. Independent of solar radiation, AML increased by 9% (95% confidence interval, 0-19%) during influenza epidemics. Reoccurring at the same time annually, darkness-related vitamin D deficiency and influenza could cause successive and co-operative mutations leading to AL with a short latency.

But those who have read Epidemic Influenza And Vitamin D (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/51913.php) will be aware that taking sufficient vitamin d to keep your status above 120nmol/l (2000-3000-4000iu/d depending on latitude, Cannell lives at 35 and therefore has more sunshine so can get away with a lower input than those at lat 45 or 55) reduces flu incidence by 70%.

See also The Antibiotic Vitamin Deficiency in vitamin D may predispose people to infection (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20061111/bob9.asp)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D2 RIP OFF (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vitamin-d2-rip-offs.html)
Dr Davis cites another paper but all the evidence against D2 is set out here (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694).

[Ted Hutchinson]

Double-dose vitamin D lowers cancer risk in women over 55 (http://www.jfponline.com/pdf%2F5611%2F5611JFP_PURL2.pdf) Not a bad article on Vitamin D and cancer.
Pity doctors can't get off the D2 treadmill, one day they will comprehend the vast amount of research showing it really isn't utilised by many people and providing only the form of Vitamin D3 that is metabolised naturally will save many lives.
I thought the concluding caveat was really pathetic. It isn't as if it takes any time at all to ensure your patients are aware that in order to reduce their cancer risk they need to increase their vitamin D3 status. We don't need prescriptions, or blood tests or medical supervision, we just need the medical authorities to raise the current RDA levels so that effective strength supplements are more readily available. We need to raise the current safe upper limit to 10,000iu/daily, and we need to change the Sunsmart policy so that regular SHORT sun exposures when there is UVB in available (shadow shorter than height) are encouraged rather than discouraged as the cancer creation industry currently suggest.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I have posted the full text of the January 2008 Vitamin D Council newsletter here (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=24926) But as the newsletter involves all cancers it is important that readers of this forum also have a link to the newsletter.
The Vitamin D council have lost their website manager so it may not appear online for a while.

[Ted Hutchinson]

End-stage vitamin D deficiency (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/end-stage-vitamin-d-deficiency.html)

[Ted Hutchinson]

What’s Putting Fresh Emphasis on Lab Measurements? (http://www.aacc.org/AACC/publications/cln/2007/dec/cover2_1207.htm)

“Right now we believe that 1 alpha, 25-dihydroxy vitamin D3 downregulates pro-inflammatory cytokines including interleukin 12, interleukin 2, and interferon gamma, and that it enhances cytokines that inhibit inflammation, including interleukin 4 and interleukin 10,” explained Christakos.

[Ted Hutchinson]

SUNLIGHT SPECIAL (http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/SunlightSpecial.pdf)
This is a basic guide to the role of sunlight/vitamin D3 in cancer protection.
It is very good and I agree with almost everything he writes in this e-book. It's a pity he didn't reference Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) as Figure 2 shows quite clearly how 25(OH)D status naturally levels off over 100nmol/L - 40ng/mL and achieving a stable natural status (as acquired by those who spend time every day in the sun with few clothes) of around 150nmol/L or 60ng/mL allows the body to keep circulating a reserve of Calcidiol, ready to be turned into Calcitriol (the activated cancer fighting metabolite) so he slightly understates the need for HIGHER levels of vitamin D3.

For those who want to see the science this medical journal article for Canadian doctors summarises the current science ( (http://www.cfp.ca/cgi/content/full/53/5/841?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=vitamin+d&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT)May 07) reasonably well. "Researchers have estimated that the oral dose of vitamin D3 to attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels above 80 nmol/L is 2200 IU/d if baseline levels are 20 to 40 nmol/L, 1800 IU/d if levels are 40 to 60 nmol/L, and 1160 IU/d if levels are between 60 and 80 nmol/L."

Remember the majority of Canadians live within 200km of the US border and thus are nearer the Equator than us and being a Continent rather than an island they have 30% more sunny( vitamin d3 acquiring) days and their milk is fortified, so their base levels are higher than ours and their supplement recommendations (because they are operating in a richer vitamin d environment) can safely be lower than ours.
The average white UK adult (45yr) has a vitamin d status at the moment around 40nmol/l (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860)and will stay at or below that level (hence the worse prognosis if you are unlucky enough to be diagnosed and treated for cancer) until mid April. The average UK adult never gets much over 70nmol/l so at best has only half the natural status and generally is around a quarter.

For the average UK adult to attain optimal status around 130nmol/L we need to take 400iu of Vitamin D3 for each 9nmol/L rise needed. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649)

In August when average status is 70 the difference between actual and optimal is 60nmol/l so that is 6 or 7 x 400iu =2400iu/d -2800iu/d
From November to end of March to rise from 40-130 requires 90nmol/l extra= 10 x 400iu= 4000iu/daily.
These figures are for while you are resident in the UK, when you are on holiday nearer the equator particularly for Winter break using SHORT regular, 10-20minute full body(or as near as possible) sun sessions, while your shadow is shorter than your height, will boost your levels without the need for supplements. When you've had your SHORT non burning sun exposure cover up or go in the shade.

If everyone drove around in cars with tyres at most only 50% inflated and generally with 25% of the optimal tyre pressure we would do something about it but car accidents are more immediate and dramatic than cancer and heart disease deaths.

Vitamin D Deficiency The cause of Everything. (http://accordent.biocom.arizona.edu/2007/10/04/IMGR20071004/links.htm) is a presentation for medical students outlining current vitamin D knowledge. It's very basic so everyone reading this post will find something useful in it and it's not hard going at all.

[LordieLordie]

Let me start by saying that I take 5000IU a day...
....

I am on some type of a crusade to convinced friend, family and people I love, that they should; take vitamin D. The reasons to the converted are obvious, but I find it hard to convince people who believe they live a "healthy life", eat right, stay out of the sun etc, that they need vitamin D.
Many say that "it sounds too good to be true" and if it is so simple and obvious, why doesn't everyone take it.. And the have a point.

I now I started to tell people that vitamin D is NOT a miracle of any kind. I don't even tell then they need to take any. What I tell people is that vitamin D deficiency is an epidemic, and that Vitamin D deficiency is linked to many of our modern life's ills and they are most likely OK but should get tested "just in case they are low". I convince them that the next time they do their annual tests add 25(OH)D3 to the list of tests..

Every one of the people that actually ended up doing the test comes up deficient!! some are as low a 10ng/ml, and I live in California!!!

I would say that the highest level I have seen among my friends was 22ng/ml.. Next I give them on bottle of Bio Tec's 5000IU and tell them where they can buy more.. :)

I believe that taking Vitamin D doesn't guarantee that you will not get cancer, flu, or many other problems vitamin D claims to cure.
I am convinced that Vitamin D deficiency is a cause of a whole slew of health problems and every one should get more sun exposure AND take vitamin D.

[annelb]

I have been telling everyone I work with to get a vitamin D check. So far 5 have done so and so far 5 are deficient. Amazing.

I was able to get my vitamin D to 42ng/ml last summer by taking 2000IU and getting in the sun about 4-5 times a week - sunning of face and arms. At the end of this summer I dropped back to 24 :eek: The only difference is that my sunning had dropped to about 2 times a week. I am now taking 5000IU of D3 and will get another test in a few months.

Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

Where people can get 25(OH)D Tests arranged quickly and easily and at little or no cost then the policy suggested by annelb and LordieLordie is the counsel of perfection.
For people living in the UK or anywhere above latitude 50 it seems to me totally unnecessary. The average UK summer status never gets much above 70nmol/L 30ng/mL at it's peak. Winter status stays below or around 40nmol/l 16ng/ml from December through to March. As 98% of the population are clearly Vitamin D insufficient it is pointless testing everyone.
We know with absolute certainty that no harm occurs with the daily use of 10,000iu Vitamin D3.
To raise from 40nmol/l to 80nmol/l requires about 2200iu/d just a fifth of the TUL to go on to 125nmol/l would require double that but that is still under half what should be the safe upper limit.
Those levels are only required during the winter.
In summer whenever effective sun is available, 50% less will be a safe insurance policy.

I agree entirely with LordieLordie that Vitamin D isn't a cure all. Vit d is implicated in 50% of Breast Cancers so the other 50% will still occur but if your body has the means to deal with them naturally the consequences will not be so severe and/or the progression will be slower. The fact that low vitamin d status is implicated in the incidence of a cancer does not prove that cancer would not have occured anyway. Vitamin D is cheap and if a risk factor is avoidable it is madness not to avoid it.

In the same way with heart disease, people with optimal vitamin D status will have other risk factors that may carry them off, but seeing the research on vitamin D and cardiac function, coronary heart disease, and congestive heart failure (http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/researchHeartDisease.shtml)and knowing low vitamin d status is implicated in so many aspects of these conditions, it is sheer folly not to use your common sense and take steps to make sure you are not unnecessarily adding to your risks by being Vitamin D insufficient.

[LordieLordie]

The Globe and Mail has an interesting article about a Vitamin D survey that was done with students from Toronto U.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071219.wvitamin19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home



Are you getting enough vitamin D?

The sunshine vitamin: Researchers sound alarm over shortage among non-whites


MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
December 19, 2007 at 4:42 AM EST

Vitamin D tests conducted on a group of University of Toronto students have found that virtually all non-whites had insufficient levels of the sunshine vitamin, putting them at elevated risk of debilitating diseases such as osteoporosis, cancer and diabetes.
The research, which is awaiting publication in a medical journal, found that 100 per cent of those of African origin were short of vitamin D, as were 93 per cent of South Asians (those of Indian or Pakistani origin), and 85 per cent of East Asians (those of Chinese, Indochinese or Filipino origin, among other countries).
The findings have alarmed the researchers, who say that if the results are typical of Canada's growing non-white population, the country could be facing a public health crisis.
"I think it's important to take measures as soon as possible for this," said Esteban Parra, an anthropologist at the university who worked on the study and said the result "really surprised" researchers.



Insufficient vitamin D amounts were also found among those of European ancestry, but were less widespread, at 34 per cent of those surveyed.
The research, based on blood tests conducted at the university's Mississauga campus in February and March, is the first to systematically examine vitamin D levels of a group of racially diverse, young Canadian adults and categorize the results by ethnicity.
A variety of factors influence how much of the vitamin people have, but skin colour and diet are among the most important.
The results indicate that Canada may have to revise its vitamin D intake levels and increase awareness about the risk of deficiencies, particularly among non-whites.
Some of the levels found - among people from all ethnic groups - were so low that if the students had been infants, they would have been at risk of the debilitating childhood bone disease known as rickets. Insufficiency in the study was defined as a blood level of less than 50 nanomoles/litre, or about half the amount found earlier this year to prevent cancer in a U.S. trial.
Currently, Health Canada doesn't have a racially based recommendation for vitamin D, and tells everyone to take the same amount. It didn't respond to requests for its reaction to the study, but said earlier this year that it was interested in reviewing the country's vitamin D recommendations.
The Canadian Cancer Society, however, earlier this year advised non-whites that they need to consume more than whites. The recommendation, through diet and supplements: 1,000 IU a day year-round for non-whites, and that amount in fall and winter for whites.
The new study vindicates the cancer society's approach, and also suggests that the country's main food-fortification strategy - adding vitamin D to milk and infant formula - doesn't work for non-whites as they get older, although it helps prevent rickets during infancy.
The idea of adding the nutrient to milk was adopted when the population was mainly of Northern European origin, the group most likely to drink the dairy product over a full lifetime and least likely to have allergies to it.
The U of T findings reinforced the importance of skin colour, which has been known for more than a decade to be a factor determining how easily a person is able to make vitamin D at a given latitude.
Most of a person's vitamin D is made when skin is exposed to strong spring and summer ultraviolet light, hence its nickname the sunshine vitamin. Those with darker skins have more pigmentation due to melanin, a natural sunscreen, that slows the ability of skin to make the vitamin.
"The darker your skin, the lower your average vitamin D level will be. There is no doubt about it," said Reinhold Vieth, a professor in the department of nutritional sciences at the university and another of the researchers. Dr. Vieth said Canada needs a public health strategy that includes more information about vitamin D, particularly for those at risk of deficiencies based on skin colour.
One of the participants in the study, Roselle Gonsalves, said she was "very much surprised" that her vitamin reading, while near the average of the group, was considered insufficient, even though she had a summer job working outdoors for part of the day. Ms. Gonsalves, of South Asian ancestry, hadn't been aware that melanin in skin reduced vitamin D levels, and before participating in the study had thought her skin colour gave her an advantage when it came to the nutrient. "I was shocked," she said.
Regardless of racial background, people living in Canada are among those at the highest risk in the world for vitamin D insufficiency because of the country's northern latitude. It is impossible, even in southern parts of Canada, to make the vitamin in skin for about six months each year during the fall and winter because the sunlight is too feeble, so the amount a person is able to build up during the summer is of critical importance.
The study took samples from 107 healthy young adults who self-reported their ancestry. Those participating were also asked to keep a diary of everything they ate and all the supplements they took for a week, to determine how much of the nutrient they are consuming.
Even among those whose diet log indicated they were complying with Health Canada's daily recommended intake of 200 IU, Dr. Parra said many students still had insufficient levels of the nutrient, suggesting the national standard is too low.
THE SUNSHINE VITAMIN
Most of the vitamin D circulating in our bodies is made in our skin, when it is exposed to ultraviolet light.
Whites can make about 10,000 International Units after about 10 minutes to 15 minutes in a bathing suit around noon in summer. Those with darker skin need up to six times longer to make the same amount because their higher levels of melanin act like a natural sunscreen.
Those with low levels can easily correct the problem by taking supplements. Most multivitamins contain 400 IU, but vitamin D pills have up to 1,000 IU. A year's supply of the bigger dose costs about $15 to $20, or about five cents a day.
There are a number of conflicting recommendations on how much vitamin D to take. Health Canada developed its recommendations 10 years ago, and many critics say its advice is outdated. In any case, the agency says an adequate amount for those aged one to 50 is 200 IU daily; for 51 to 70 it is 400 IU, and over 70 it is 600 IU. The safe upper limit is 2,000 IU.
Given that differences in skin colour determine how much vitamin D a person makes in sunlight, the Canadian Cancer Society is recommending non-whites take 1,000 IU daily year-round, while whites take that amount only in fall and winter.
Government health-insurance plans cover blood tests for vitamin D requested by physicians. Many researchers think people need at least 75 nanomoles/litre for optimum health, although typical levels in Canada in winter fall to around 40 nmol/L, and even less in non-whites.
Vitamin D insufficiency used to be thought of as a problem causing only rickets, but in recent years, researchers have found that low levels of the nutrient are linked to a disparate range of diseases and health problems, including many types of cancer, osteoporosis, mult-iple sclerosis, diabetes and susceptibility to tuberculosis and influenza.
Diet is a source of vitamin D, but very few foods contain it naturally. In Canada, milk and some other products are artificially fortified: a cup of milk contains about 100 IU. Oily fish, such as salmon and sardines,
also contain about 300 IU a serving. Smaller amounts are found in organ meat and egg yoke.
Martin Mittelstaedt
*****
MAN-MADE VITAMIN D

With the right amount of exposure to UV-B sunlight, it's possible for humans to create enough vitamin D. Here's how:

<LI _counted="undefined">Sebaceous glands
Produce an oily substance thatcontains acompound called 7-dehydrocholesterol. <LI _counted="undefined">Sunlight
Provides the energy needed for 7-dehydrocholesterol to rearrange itself into a chemical called previtamin D3.
Key organs
The liver and kidney convert the previtamin D3 to vitamin D. From there, it is released into the general circulation and transported to target organs.
As people age, the concentration of 7-dehydrocholesterol falls, reducing their ability to produce vitamin D.Sources: University of Toronto, Scientific American, American Society for Nutrition




http://images.theglobeandmail.com/archives/RTGAM/images/20071219/wvitamin19/_done_1219vitad_800big.jpg

[Ted Hutchinson]

There are a few points from the above post that I would like to clarify.
You will see in the chart of different nmol/l levels they say at

75nmol/L --Optimal Levels above this point.

I have highlighted the above because 75nmol/l is still too low for comfort.
80nmol/l is the safest minimum level we should all try to be above throughout all the 12months of the year. That is the level associated with the 72% fewer colon cancers in the otherwise fundamentally flawed Freedman study. It is also the level at which calcium uptake from diet is maximised. So while it is true to say OPTIMAL LEVELS are ABOVE this point I would have preferred the line to have placed at 80nmol/l with the tag This the lowest level for safety.

The chart should have been condensed to include at the top
125nmol/l --- The level at which peak muscular performance is achievable.
130nmol/l --- The level associated with lowest cancer incidence
150nmol/l --- The level our bodies naturally attain and sustain given regular sun exposure throughout the year.

I don't think the article stresses sufficiently the lack of evidence to support the current safe upper limit.
We know from recent research that 280,000iu/week have (under medical supervision) been administered for some months without problems. Risk assessment for vitamin D (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6) sets out the research and instances of toxicity, up to the beginning of 2007. To continue to represent 2000iu as the Safe Upper Limit brings the medical profession into disrepute. One can only despise a profession that clings to myth and superstition while pretending to offer evidence based medicine.
It is BAD reporting to repeat as fact "The Safe Upper Limit is 2000iu/d" without pointing out the ONLY IGNORANT IDIOTS BELIEVE THIS TO BE TRUE.
Much the same applies to the repition of the current RDA's. We know for certain that everyone who sticks to the current RDA will be vitamin D DEFICIENT. We know for certain that every mother who sticks to the current prenatal vitamin advice will give birth to a vitamin d deficient baby and will provide no vitamin d to that baby in her breast milk. The Canadian Paediatric Society (http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/II/FNIM07-01.htm)have taken a small step in the right direction. A more responsible journalist would have included a reference to the fact that they are suggesting 2000iu/d should be considered as the minimum amount for pregnant or nursing mothers. (I suspect if the silly SUP was raised they would find it easier to suggest the amount needed was in fact higher.)

[Maggi315]

Believe it or not,after reading through all six pages here, I am still confused about my test results. So if anyone would be so kind as to look at them and help me, I would greatly appreciate it. Somewhere it was mentioned there were two different tests, but I had a Vitamin D panel done, which has several, here are the results (I also failed my heel scan and have broken 2 bones in the past year over minor incidents, so I am concerned about my bone density, I go for the scan this week sometime).

Vit. D, 1, 25-dihydroxy 61ng/ml High (15-60)

Vit. D, 25-Hydroxy, LC/MS/MS
Vit. D, 25-OH, Total 26ng/ml (20-100)

Vit. D, 25-OH, D3 26ng/ml (20-100)

Vit. D, 25-OH, D2 <4ng/ml

Lab notes say that therapy is based on total, between 20-30 is considered insufficiency and that optimal levels are above 30.

Any other comments would be helpful, why is my one high? When this test was taken, I was not on any supplements, now I am on one which is a bone density supplement developed by Dr. Alan Gaby and has D3 in it,plus a bunch of other stuff.

thanks!

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vit. D, 1, 25-dihydroxy 61ng/ml High (15-60)The Vitamin D Council say only the 25(OH)D reading is necessary. That is the base material (calcidiol) from which Calcitriol 1,25D is made as required. You may like to learn about the Metabolism of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D to 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D here (http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pdf/NEJournalofMedicine.pdf)

25(OH)D is usually reported as ng/mL or nmol/l depending on where you live & lab used. There is a difference between the results obtained from different assessment methods and the accuracy of the test varies between labs. There is a system called DEQAS for making lab results compatible, so it is important to know if the lab doing your test is a DEQAS member. (Although most laboratories report the normal range to be 20 to 100 ng per milliliter [50 to 250 nmol per liter], the preferred range is 30 to 60 ng per milliliter [75 to 150 nmol per liter].)

1,25 is is active in picogram quantities (1/1,000,000,000,000 of a gram) This is a very tiny amount to measure and therefore the accuracy of the test procedure is vital for the result to accurately reflect your current status. The half life of 1.25 is just a few hours and Serum phosphorus, calcium, fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF-23),and other factors can either increase (+) or decrease (–) the renal production of 1,25(OH)2D.

1,25(OH)2D decreases its own synthesis through negative feedback and decreases the synthesis and secretion of parathyroid hormone by the parathyroid glands

If you have studied the Holick paper you will see that 25(OH)D is the base material used by the various tissues to raise 1.25 as needed. Parathyroid hormone increases the metabolism of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which further exacerbates the vitamin D deficiency.

Therefore raising your vitamin D status to significantly over 30ng/ml will allow the system to bring itself back under control.

There is more information here which may help you understand (http://www.old.rlbuht.nhs.uk/jps/vitamind_serum_c.htm) why a high result on the 1,25 is not be a cause for concern.

I would however beg to differ over their statement

25-OH Vitamin D >20 ng/ml (50 nmol/l) indicates adequate Vitamin D status. The level needed for optimal uptake of calcium from diet (assuming your skin is white, blacks have a lower requirement for calcium than do whites for bone endpoint ) and is also associated with 72% fewer colon cancer incidences is 80nmol/l 32ng/ml


Vit. D, 25-Hydroxy, LC/MS/MS Vit. D, 25-OH, Total 26ng/ml (20-100
25(OH)D test. This test measures the amount of calcidiol circulating in the blood. The most accurate measure of the amount of vitamin D in the body. When someone refers to vitamin D blood level, they are referring to blood calcidiol level.

Your Vit. D, 25-OH, Total 26ng/ml means you could could improve your health by increasing the amount of Vitamin D you take daily.

If you look at the figures in this study (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) you can see that the amount of circulating 25(OH)D is dependent on the amount of vitamin D3 we have stored. The amount of stored D3 isn't usually measured. But Hollis has done this in people having ample sunshine (however it was winter at the time) and people having ample supplements (those that took them anyway) what we see is that 25(OH)D plateaus at from 40ng/ml to around 50 -60ng/mL. This means that should a crisis occur your body has the means to deal with it properly. Optimal nutritional vitamin D status may occur when approaching equimolar concentrations of circulating vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D (above 100 nmol).

So if I were in your position I would aim to raise 25(OH)D above 50ng/ml 125nmol/l by increasing Vitamin D3 intake by a further 4000iu/daily.

Any other comments would be helpful, why is my one high? When this test was taken, I was not on any supplements, now I am on one which is a bone density supplement developed by Dr. Alan Gaby and has D3 in it,plus a bunch of other stuff. If the bone density supplement developed by Dr Gaby is PhytoPharmica OsteoPrime Forte (http://www.ritecare.com/prodsheets/PHY-17702.html) only contains 200iu cholecalciferol. Therefore an additional significant amount of Vitamin D3 would make a significant difference to your 25(OH)D reserves lower your PTH and enable the 1,25 to be brought under control.

Those who are confused by my attempt at trying to simplify a complicated process may find the talk by Mark R. Haussler, Ph.D. here (http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=asbmr&c=10169&s=20343&e=6950&&) easier. But it is challenging. Perhaps this very short version will be sufficient.

Calcidiol 25(OH)D status controls Parathyroid hormone level.
Higher Parathyroid hormone levels increase circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol) level
Raising Calcidiol 25(OH)D lowers Parathyroid hormone thereby also lowering circulating 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D Calcitriol.

[LordieLordie]

How to covert NanoGrams per milliLiter (ng/mL) to nanomoles per Liter (nmol/L)

1 ng/mL = 2.5 nmol/L

ex: 32 ng/mL = 80 nmol/L

happy holidays!

[Ted Hutchinson]

If you take the ng/ml figure and divide by .4 that converts ng/ml to nmol/l
30ng/ml =75nmol/l 40ng/ml =100nmol/l
to reverse it (I think in nmol/l) divide nmol/l by 2.5
Google toolbar will do sums for you if you just enter for example
30/.4=
or
75/2.5=

[mrsdoubtfyre]

What about people taking DRUGS that lower cholesterol?

Some of the aggressive statin therapies drastically lower cholesterol, and would they impair the 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin too?
Lowering cholesterol is an artificial intervention, the body is not equipped for.

If so, then even sun exposure would not produce vit D in these patients? Something to think about.

[Kimo]

I was diagnosed with being vitamin D deficient (19 ng/ml). My treatment is pretty much what I've read as being the standard one: 50,000 IU once per week for a month. After five weeks, I'm to be tested again.

My question is about what happens when you take that huge 50,000 IU pill. I assume your body doesn't absorb it all. Isn't that a lot of vitamin D? Does it replenish your needed requirement? Or, does it just give you a boost and then disappear?

Just wondering!

[mrsdoubtfyre]

is D2 not D3... that means not all is used.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I was diagnosed with being vitamin D deficient (19 ng/ml). My treatment is pretty much what I've read as being the standard one: 50,000 IU once per week for a month. After five weeks, I'm to be tested again.

My question is about what happens when you take that huge 50,000 IU pill. I assume your body doesn't absorb it all. Isn't that a lot of vitamin D? Does it replenish your needed requirement? Or, does it just give you a boost and then disappear?

Just wondering!First we must get over the idea that 50,000iu is a huge number when talking about vitamin D.
5 minutes full body sun exposure when your shadow is shorter than your height produces 1000iu. If you turn over and do front/back twice each side your skin makes 4000iu.
If you then cover up, go inside, stay in the shade and allow your skin to cool down the 4000iu will be absorbed into your body.
When your skin has cooled you can repeat the process and make another 4000iu.
PROVIDING you NEVER burn OR let you skin get pink you could with careful management acquire and store 50,000iu/daily.
But realistically it is safer (lower skin cancer risk) to aim only for 10,000iu/daily from sun exposure.

Vitamin D2 rip-offs (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vitamin-d2-rip-offs.html)

The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694)

There is a new study out claims Vitamin D2 just as good as D3? (http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=82331-vitamin-d-cholecalciferol-ergocalciferol) but this was a very small study using only 68 people divided into 4 groups so only 17 in each group and with ages 18-82 covered with an average age of 38ish there cannot have been a sufficient number of people (particularly in the older age range) to provide reliable evidence. Also they were only trying to raise to 30nmol/l that is really too low.

As D2 is far more expensive and generally less reliable it is better to use d3.

With older people the lack of cholesterol in their skin means they are 65% less able to create vitamin D3. I agree with Mrs D that aggressive statin therapy may be adding to the Vitamin D deficiency situation.

Vitamin D is fat soluble if you take it with a meal it will be absorbed. It takes a little while for the body to process it but when using a single 50,000iu/ONCE A WEEK/D3 most people can raise status in 8 weeks. Thus shortening the time shown on Heaney's graph Figure one here (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) using 5000iu/daily.

50,000iu once a week is about the same as 7000iu/daily.
Your body naturally uses 3-5000iu/daily (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204)
So using the 50,000iu is a catch up operation.
It is absolutely safe. (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6) this shows 10,000iu should be thought of as the safe upper limit as in practice adverse events have only occurred above 350nmol/l and to achieve that status you would need to take 40,000iu DAILY for over 150 DAYS consecutively before hypercalcemia could occur,
Taking one x 50,000iu a week is trivial in comparision.

Do be aware also the half life of 25(OH)D is 10 -19 days perhaps 3 weeks and your body uses 4000 iu daily approx so that accounts for a further 28000 iu disappearing each week.

NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM TAKING TOO MUCH CHOLECALCIFEROL Vitamin D3.
People regularly die from drinking too much water.

[houghchrst]

I am Bipolar II and live in Michigan and I find that lack of sunlight seriously affects me especially bad this year as it is the gloomiest I can ever remember. I have started taking 4000IU of D3 and am finding that since I have raised the dose I have become seriously depressed and ache quite badly. I am in the middle of a really bad PMS phase and also have fibromyalgia. Just today this article was brought to my attention
http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Light-therapy-for-female-bipolar-depression-explor.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true (http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Light-therapy-for-female-bipolar-depression-explor.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true)
so I am wondering if this could affect my D3 that I take first thing in the a.m. and if maybe I should try switching to midday. I am miserable so I could be grasping at straws and it is just what it is and has nothing to do with the D but wondered if anyone had any ideas or knew anything about this.

[Ted Hutchinson]

I am Bipolar II and live in Michigan and I find that lack of sunlight seriously affects me especially bad this year as it is the gloomiest I can ever remember. I have started taking 4000IU of D3 and am finding that since I have raised the dose I have become seriously depressed and ache quite badly. I am in the middle of a really bad PMS phase and also have fibromyalgia. Just today this article was brought to my attention
http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Light-therapy-for-female-bipolar-depression-explor.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true (http://www.psychiatrysource.com/NewsItem/Light-therapy-for-female-bipolar-depression-explor.aspx?l1=3&firstpage=true)
so I am wondering if this could affect my D3 that I take first thing in the a.m. and if maybe I should try switching to midday. I am miserable so I could be grasping at straws and it is just what it is and has nothing to do with the D but wondered if anyone had any ideas or knew anything about this.You say you have STARTED taking 4000iu.
It takes between 60-90 days to replenish your vitamin D3 stores and raise status to the level approaching optimal.
Adverse events from Vitamin D have only been observed over 350nmol/l and that requires ten times the amount you are currently using for over 150 days so there is no possibility the symptoms you are experiencing are directly related to the vitamin D3.
Where the effect of Vitamin D and Light therapy have been compared Vitamin D provided a more effective solution. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10888476?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)
I have found that since my vitamin d status has been corrected I no longer have to use my SADLIGHTS. They remain in the attic this winter.
Vitamin D is fat soluble so it best taken with food.
The light therapy is not a source of Vitamin D as SADLIGHTS do not provide UVB (they would damage your eyes if they did)
Timing of light therapy is a matter of trial and error.
I found FIRST thing in the morning was best for me. Though I also used it through the day at times. I never used it after 5pm in the afternoon. But as I say I haven't needed to use them since I corrected my Vit d situation.
In this thread Fibromyalgia VITAMIN D (http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3214) I have collected some Vit D Fibro links.

I did think (before I found out about Post Polio Syndrome) that this was a possible explanation of my pains and chronic fatigue. However since I have raised my vitamin D status my joint pains have reduced and muscle strength improved, (still got PPS so it doesn't work miracles) so quality of life is much improved.

Vitamin D3 is fat soluble and it takes a while for it be digested and processed by the system. 25(OH)D the product it is turned into has a half life (time spent in the body) of about 10-19 days so it isn't washed straight out of the body. If you wanted you could take your D3 just once a week by taking 7 capsules on one day, the difference weekly rather than daily makes to the total absorption is trivial. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17874029) Though taking a months supply in one go is more wasteful and somewhat less effective.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

Light therapy does not do anything for Vit D levels.

I have been using it myself for about a year now. ( I do not use it in the summer and late spring early fall).

I am NOT bipolar, but as I age, I seem to not handle the winters as well as I used to. I also live in the northern latitudes, and always feel better in the summer.

There are different reactions to light therapy. The one I do is in the early morning at 8000 lux for 30 minutes using a light visor.

My son is using it at 4pm. It works better for him. He has ADHD and mild anxiety issue. After having mono, he seems to bottom out in the afternoon at work.

So everyone is different. I will say when I started my light therapy, my arthritic pain became much much better.

Using light therapy needs support. I take tryptophan and B6 about 3 times a week to enhance neurotransmitter synthesis. I do not use drugs. If you use SSRI's you should have a doctor's supervision for any light therapy. Used in the wrong way, may induce mania, or at least hypomania.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Time series analysis of ultraviolet B radiation and type 1 diabetes in Newfoundland. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18221425)
Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) has been previously been associated with decreased levels of vitamin D. This study investigates the temporal association between average daily ultraviolet B (UVB) irradiance and T1DM in Newfoundland. Methods: A complete list of patients diagnosed with T1DM in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador was constructed using multiple sources. Pooled and unpooled monthly incidence data along with monthly UVB measurements were used to build a time series transfer function model. The model was used to predict the future incidence of T1DM based on previous monthly trends, and these predictions were compared with actual measured incidences. Results: A seasonal variation in pooled monthly incidence was observed. The transfer function model was able to reasonably predict the future incidence of T1DM based on previous observations and monthly UVB measurements. Tests of seasonality demonstrated a significant seasonal trend (p = 0.0003). Conclusions: This study suggests that erythemal UVB radiation may be temporally associated with the incidence of T1DM

[Ted Hutchinson]

The vitamin D miracle: Is it for real? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080308.wxvitamin08/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home)
This is probably the best article I've ever read on the subject of vitamin D. I do urge everyone to read it.

It is also worth reading some of the comments. There are some familiar names there Bill Sardi, John Cannell and others.

PS For those who, having read the article, want to increase their Vit d, I still haven't found anywhere cheaper than Bio-tech (http://www.bio-tech-pharm.com/products/d35.html) They supply 5000iu capsule but because Vit d is fat soluble it stays in your system for around 3 weeks so (apart from breast feeding mothers who do need daily vit d) it doesn't matter if you take your vit d once weekly or every day.

3 x 5000iu capsules once a week = a total intake of 15000iu a week = just over 2000iu/daily = 1.8p daily cost
5 x 5000iu capules once a week-= a total intake of 25000iu a week = just over 3500iu/daily.

For those who don't believe me and are happier to take their vit d daily the next best option IMO is
Carlson, Vitamin D, 2000 IU, 360 Soft Gels (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?c=1&pid=7255860309350762561) $15.28 to the UK= £7.59 = 2p daily for 2000iu/d The link is to IHERB but Vitacost, Vitaminshoppe, Vitaminlife and numerous others do them.

UK buyers irrespective of who you use (only 1000iu is available in the UK so you have to import to save money) you need to remember that TAX + HANDLING charge is levied on all imports above £18 also it's cheaper to use a company that uses post USPS rather than carrier. I order 2 pots of Vit d from Biotech at a time and haven't got stung for tax/handling charge this means the total cost per day taking one 5000iu/daily is 4.2p

If you haven't used Iherb before using WAB666 referral code will save you $5 off your first order.

[annelb]

The vitamin D miracle: Is it for real? (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080308.wxvitamin08/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home)
This is probably the best article I've ever read on the subject of vitamin D. I do urge everyone to read it.

It is also worth reading some of the comments. There are some familiar names there Bill Sardi, John Cannell and others.

Hi Ted, I came here to post a link to this great article. I should have know that you would beat me to it :cool:

Glad you are keeping this thread up to date.
Anne

[Ted Hutchinson]

"Most people are idly curious about their vitamin D levels, get several levels done to confirm they really are that low and then do nothing about it," Kovacs writes on an Internet blog. (http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1094964)

In case any of the readers here are quite that stupid to think $15.70 for 250 days supply (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/catalog.aspx?cat_id=2) is a big deal, here are a couple of abstracts that may encourage them to at least get some regular sun exposure on their skin.

Progression of malignant melanoma is associated with reduced 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels Solar UV-exposure, (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120086788/abstract) particularly intensive short-time and recreational sun exposure, is considered to be the major etiologic factor for melanoma. But on the other hand 90% of all requisite vitamin D has to be formed in the skin through the action of the sun – a serious problem due to the fact that new scientific findings convincingly demonstrate vitamin D deficiency to be associated with a variety of severe diseases including various types of cancer (e.g. colon, prostate and breast cancer). According to recent reports sun exposure is associated with a relatively favorable prognosis and increased survival rate in various malignancies, including malignant melanoma. It has been speculated that these findings were related to UV exposure-induced relatively high serum levels of vitamin D which may lead to a more favorable course of melanoma. To prove this hypothesis the present study aimed to correlate the serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (which represents the readily measurable 'storage' precursor form of vitamin D) with tumor thickness at time of diagnosis and course of disease in patients with melanoma. The study population consisted of 212 patients with histologically proven cutaneous melanomas of different stages: stage I (n = 50); stage II (n = 20); stage III (n = 20); stage IV (n = 122). Basal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were analyzed (DiaSorin LIAISON 25-OH Vitamin D-Assay) in those patients and compared with a control group (n = 80). Additionally, each participant was requested to fill out a questionnaire about the history of sun exposure. Interestingly, basal 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were lower in melanoma patients as compared to the control group, although this difference was statistically not significant. Moreover, progression of malignant melanoma was associated with statistically significantly reduced 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels. In conclusion, our findings add to the growing body of evidence that 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels may be of importance for pathogenesis and progression of malignant melanoma.

And this
1,25-dihydroxy vitamin D3 regulates cutaneous innate immune function (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120086776/abstract)Hormonally active vitamin D3 – 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 (1,25D3) – acts as a signalling molecule in cutaneous immunity. In this study we investigated if Toll-like-receptor (TLR) function and antimicrobial peptide (AMP) expression are controlled by 1,25D3 in keratinocytes. The AMP cathelicidin and TLR cofactor CD14 were known to be induced by 1,25D3, and analysis of TLR2 expression revealed this also was increased by 1,25D3. Topical 1,25D3 application to human skin confirmed these results, showing increased cathelicidin, CD14 and TLR2 by immunostaining. Furthermore, the presence of 1,25D3 enabled human keratinocytes to respond to Malp2 (a TLR2/6 ligand) with increased cathelicidin production which was inhibited by neutralizing antibody to TLR2. 1,25D3 also increased the ability of keratinocytes to kill Staphylococcus aureus. Interestingly, keratinocytes surrounding human skin wounds increased expression of CD14 and showed a previously known increase in cathelicidin AMP. Thus, we hypothesized that 1,25D3 was also a signalling molecule during skin injury. Supporting this, we found that CYP27B1, the enzyme that converts 25-hydroxy vitamin D3 (25D3) to active 1,25D3, was significantly increased in wounds and induced in response to factors in the wound micromilieu such as TGFβ1 or TLR stimulation. Blocking the vitamin D receptor, inhibiting CYP27B1 enzymatic activity, or limiting 25D3 in culture each prevented TGFβ1 from inducing cathelicidin, CD14 or TLR2. Furthermore, mice deficient in CYP27B1 failed to increase CD14 in vivo following injury. Thus, this investigation demonstrates how injury initiates the innate immune response; 25D3 is activated to 1,25D3 by enzymatic conversion, a process triggered by microbial products or host factors such as TGFβ1. The increase in 1,25D3 then directly increases cathelicidin release and enables responsiveness to microbial products through induction of TLR cofactor CD14.[/url]

For those who are not familiar with reading medical research abstracts these papers show that previous advice from Dermatologists to stay out of the sun to protect your skin have been too simplistic. Because we need higher levels of Vitamin D to protect from heart disease, cancer and diabetes it is more important to get sun exposure providing you never get sunburnt. (getting sunburnt destroys the vitamin D near the surface of the skin and thus leaves the damaged skin cells unprotected and liable to cancerous mutations. So regular short sun sessions improve your skins immune functions and may well reduce your chance of MRSA. The skin cancer that actually kills most people is melanoma and the first paper makes it quite clear the lower your vitamin d status the more likely you are to get melanoma and the more sun exposure those with Melanoma get the longer they lived and the better their prognosis.
So while it is important never to get burnt by the sun, it's really important not to keep your skin covered all the time, either with clothing or sunscreen.

Exposing as much skin as is practicable for a short period as this calculator works out (http://thevitamindcure.com/calculator) is the best way of ensuring a high vitamin D status but if this isn't possible then do use EFFECTIVE STRENGTH D3 Cholecalciferol supplements.

I agree with this statement
"Many of the requests to test blood levels of the so-called sunshine vitamin are unnecessary, he said, advising that patients concerned about whether they are getting adequate amounts of the nutrient should take a vitamin D supplement for several months. " the dangers of Vitamin D toxicity are greatly overstated. Using 5000iu/daily even with regular full body sun exposure could not possibly cause toxicity. Even 10,000iu/daily D3 is considered a safe upper limit. You need to take 40,000iu/daily for many months to raise status to the 350nmol/l level at which adverse events occur.
So although it is interesting to be tested and this should motivate people to take action with supplements/sun exposure to correct the situation (that means raising your status to around 125-150nmol/l 50-60ng) it is absolutely totally safe to just take sufficient Vitamin D to meet your body's daily needs (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) and rely on your body to use the vitamin D from sun exposure to build your stores for the winter period. That only happens after your daily needs have been met and a level of 50ng -125nmol/l is attained and maintained. (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Use of vitamin D in clinical practice. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18377099)

The recent discovery - from a meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials - that supplemental cholecalciferol (vitamin D) significantly reduces all-cause mortality emphasizes the medical, ethical, and legal implications of promptly diagnosing and adequately treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such deficiencies common, and probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency is implicated in most of the diseases of civilization. Vitamin D's final metabolic product is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and maintenance, seco-steroid hormone that targets more than 200 human genes in a wide variety of tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it targets. One of the most important genes vitamin D up-regulates is for cathelicidin, a naturally occurring broad-spectrum antibiotic. Natural vitamin D levels, those found in humans living in a sun-rich environment, are between 40-70 ng per ml, levels obtained by few modern humans. Assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D (25(OH)D) is the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure treatment is adequate and safe. Three treatment modalities exist for vitamin D deficiency: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation, and vitamin D3 supplementation. Treatment of vitamin D deficiency in otherwise healthy patients with 2,000-7,000 IU vitamin D per day should be sufficient to maintain year-round 25(OH)D levels between 40-70 ng per mL. In those with serious illnesses associated with vitamin D deficiency, such as cancer, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, autism, and a host of other illnesses, doses should be sufficient to maintain year-round 25(OH)D levels between 55 -70 ng per mL. Vitamin D-deficient patients with serious illness should not only be supplemented more aggressively than the well, they should have more frequent monitoring of serum 25(OH)D and serum calcium. Vitamin D should always be adjuvant treatment in patients with serious illnesses and never replace standard treatment. Theoretically, pharmacological doses of vitamin D (2,000 IU per kg per day for three days) may produce enough of the naturally occurring antibiotic cathelicidin to cure common viral respiratory infections, such as influenza and the common cold, but such a theory awaits further science.

If you click this link you get the full text. (http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/13/1/6.pdf) it would also be worth sending a copy to your Doctor.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Association of vitamin D deficiency with heart failure and sudden cardiac death in a large cross-sectional study of patients referred for coronary angiography. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18682515)Low levels of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D are associated with prevalent myocardial dysfunction, deaths due to heart failure and SCD. Interventional trials are warranted to elucidate whether vitamin D supplementation is useful for treatment and/or prevention of myocardial diseases.
Very interesting paper showing how those with the lowest levels of Vitamin D3 were most likely to die.

Interestingly, we noticed that in the entire study population (including also patients without available 25[OH]D levels) more SCDs and deaths due to heart failure occurred in the months from December to May that were the
six months with the lowest median 25(OH)D levels at baseline, as compared to the months from June to November: Bear in mind the study took place in Austria so it's Winter when Vitamin d status drops and extra deaths occur.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Scotland's Health Deficit: an Explanation and a Plan by Oliver Gillie (http://www.healthresearchforum.org.uk/reports/scotland.pdf) Free downloadable booklet explaining why health in the most Northerly parts of the UK is so much worse than down South.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D2 Potentiates Axon Regeneration (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/neu.2008.0593)To date, the use of autograft tissue remains the “gold standard” technique for repairing transected peripheral nerves. However, the recovery is suboptimal, and neuroactive molecules are required. In the current study, we focused our attention on vitamin D, an FDA-approved molecule whose neuroprotective and neurotrophic actions are increasingly recognized. We assessed the therapeutic potential of ergocalciferol—the plant-derived form of vitamin D, named vitamin D2—in a rat model of peripheral nerve injury and repair. The left peroneal nerve was cut out on a length of 10 mm and immediately autografted in an inverted position. After surgery, animals were treated with ergocalciferol (100 IU/kg/day) and compared to untreated animals. Functional recovery of hindlimb was measured weekly, during 10 weeks post-surgery, using a walking track apparatus and a numerical camcorder. At the end of this period, motor and sensitive responses of the regenerated axons were calculated and histological analysis was performed. We observed that vitamin D2 significantly (i) increased axogenesis and axon diameter; (ii) improved the responses of sensory neurons to metabolites such as KCl and lactic acid; and (iii) induced a fast-to-slow fiber type transition of the Tibialis anterior muscle. In addition, functional recovery was not impaired by vitamin D supplementation. Altogether, these data indicate that vitamin D potentiates axon regeneration. Pharmacological studies with various concentrations of the two forms of vitamin D (ergocalciferol vs. cholecalciferol) are now required before recommending this molecule as a potential supplemental therapeutic approach following nerve injury.

The full text of this paper is online if you click the link. It's far more interesting than it sounds as they discuss the role of Vitamin D in the brain and it's effect on nerve growth. I'll put another link to it in the MS forum as they should be interested in the bit where they show However, from our previous experiments showing a twofold decrease in the transcript expression of myelin-associated oligodendrocytic basic protein (MOBP) in our prenatal deprivation model (Eyles et al., 2007), we can infer that vitamin D probably supports myelin synthesis.

I've already commented on this research in the polio forum as it's the peripheral nerves and axonal damage that are the cause of further degeration in my condition. I was just taking 5000iu/daily but as this research used 100iu/kg I'm increasing my intake to 7000iu/daily, I've also had a 25(OH)D test that was disappointing low (not surprising as we had a lousy summer in the UK this year) I was 120 and I really want to be around 150nmol/l 60ng so I've increased to 7000iu/daily.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Does Vitamin D Make the World Go ‘Round’? (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/bfm.2008.9984) Interesting full text paper.

It's particularly important that anyone thinking of becoming pregnant or currently pregnant reads this paper in full and acts on it.

It is critical that people understand that optimal nutritional vitamin D status occurs when equivalent amounts of circulating vitamin D3 and 25(OH)D3 occur (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) (40 ng/mL ~100nmol/l); at this point the Vmax of the enzyme appears to be achieved. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme)

We have to understand that as we humans live today, this enzyme operates below its Vmax because of the chronic deficiency of substrate, vitamin D.

What other steroidal hormone system in the body is limited in this fashion?
None because their starting point is cholesterol.

Only when you are Vitamin D replete (either by sun or dietary supplements) , will/can your vitamin D system function in the same way as your other hormones work. They are not limited by lack of availability of their base material and neither should your Vitamin D hormonal system be limited in this way.

The point is that our bodies did not evolve to spend so much time indoors or so completely covered either with clothing or sunblock when outdoors. We evolved as naked outdoor living creatures and our Vitamin D metabolism is based on always having more Vit d available than is necessary.

Only when you attain and maintain your 25(OH)D above 40ng~100nmol/l (but sensibly above 50ng ~125nmol/l as that builds in a safety margin) can you be sure you have sufficient of this important hormone to be used in over 900 different sites, in 36 different organs and performing over 200+different enzyme actions.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Sign up now for a $30 25(OH)D test every six months for the next 5 years. (http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action)
These tests normally retail at $75 each so are a real bargain.

I heard about them from David Mendosa's diabetes blog (http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/17/56119/vitamin-testing/2) I do urge everyone, diabetic or not to get tested and to continue with the program throughout the next 5 years.

I try to keep my 25(OH)D (http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_download/disease_incidence_prev_25ng_p_ml_bline072608.pdf) above 54ng or 130nmol/l the chart explains why.
I live at latitude 52 so get no Vit d from sun from Sept through to March and even in summer we get lots of cloud so I was taking 5000iu/daily but because that left me at 120nmol/l and no higher I have increased my intake to 7100iu/d and I hope the next test will show a better result.

[MsModelSara]

Wow...I'm glad I found this thread! There is so much usefull information I never knew about. Why isn't it more widely known that vitamin D is so important? I was just tested today for a deficiency..among other tests so I'll find out my numbers in a few days or so.

Vitamin D seems to have links to alot of diseases/conditions once people become deficient for an extended time, hypothyroidism seems to be one of them (which I have).

Thanks to everyone who posted info from articles and sites in here! I am thankfull for it. :-)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Connection with Vitamin D and Cancer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOUR9JSmY3w) another talk in the Grassrootshealth.org series.

and this one on Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXtGHSt-5o)

[Ted Hutchinson]

SUNSHINE VITAMIN DIMINISHES RISK OF COLDS, FLU
People with asthma and other preexisting lung diseases face an especially exaggerated year-round risk from a deficiency (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41121/title/Sunshine_vitamin_diminishes_risk_of_colds,_flu)

It follows earlier work by Dr Cannell showing higher vit d status reduces cold/flu incidence. If you want links to the research just ask.

[Proton Soup]

SUNSHINE VITAMIN DIMINISHES RISK OF COLDS, FLU
People with asthma and other preexisting lung diseases face an especially exaggerated year-round risk from a deficiency (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41121/title/Sunshine_vitamin_diminishes_risk_of_colds,_flu)

It follows earlier work by Dr Cannell showing higher vit d status reduces cold/flu incidence. If you want links to the research just ask.

yes, please

[Ted Hutchinson]

If you want to skip the history go straight to the paper in bold type If you are unable to access the full text and would like to read more then PM me and I'll try and summarise the paper. I'm beginning to think putting too much science here may be counterproductive as may be turning some people off. I find it fascinating but then not everyone finds this stuff interesting.

From Dr Cannell's newsletter.
As readers from 3 years ago remember, this newsletter first published

evidence vitamin D would prevent influenza and many varieties of the

common cold in 2005:


http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2005-nov.shtml

I then published the theory in:

Epidemic influenza and vitamin D. (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=529704)

As Science News reported, I realized this after observing an influenza epidemic at Atascadero State Hospital.

The antibiotic vitamin: deficiency in vitamin D may predispose people to infection. Science News, November 11, 2006 (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_20_170/ai_n16865477)

Last year, we used vitamin D to explain virtually all of the many unsolved mysteries of influenza.

Cannell JJ, et al. On the epidemiology of influenza. Virology Journal. 2008 Feb 25;5:29. (http://www.virologyj.com/content/5/1/29)

Our second influenza paper is by far the most accessed paper in the journal this year.

Top 20 most accessed articles for last year in Virology Journal (http://www.virologyj.com/mostviewedbyyear)

Today, researchers from Harvard and the University of Colorado, writing in the Archives of Internal Medicine, published convincing evidence my observations at Atascadero State Hospital were correct.

Vitamin D deficiency linked to more colds and flu. Scientific American, Feb 23, 2009 (http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-more-2009-02-23)

Adit A, et al. Association Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Level and Upper Respiratory Tract Infection in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(4):384-390. (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/169/4/384)

Influenza kill around 35,000 Americans every year and similar viruses cause additional mortality and untold morbidity. As I have said, It appears Linus Pauling was right about everything he said about vitamin C, but he was off by one letter. The Vitamin D Council, the nearly broke non-profit educational organization, now believes most influenza deaths and many other respiratory infections, like the common cold, could be prevented if Americans, and their doctors, understood some simple facts:

· Vitamin D is not a vitamin, but a steroid hormone precursor, which has profound effects on innate immunity.

· The amount of vitamin D in most food and nearly all multivitamins is literally inconsequential.

· The correct daily dose of vitamin D for adults is approximately 5,000 IU/day, not the 200-600 IU recommended by the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Medicine and the FDA.

· The only blood test to determine vitamin D adequacy is a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, not the 1,25-di-hydroxy-vitamin D test many physicians now order.

· Healthy vitamin D blood levels are between 50-80 ng/ml, levels obtained by fewer than 5% of Americans.

· Medicare’s new proposed rule change, which forbids Medicare carriers for paying for virtually all vitamin D blood tests (Draft LCD for Vitamin D Assay Testing (DL29510), will kill tens of thousands of Americans yearly.

· The mechanism of action of vitamin D in infection, dramatically increasing the body’s production of broad-spectrum natural antibiotics (anti-microbial peptides or AMP) suggests pharmaceutical doses of vitamin D (1,000 IU per pound of body weight per day for several days) will effectively treat not only influenza and the common cold, but help treat a host of other seasonal infections, including meningitis, septicemia, and pneumonia, in both children and adults.

· In 1997, when the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) set the current guidelines for vitamin D intake, they forgot to correct for the widespread sun avoidance that began in the late 1980’s when the AMA’s Council of Scientific Affairs warned against sun-exposure, and recommended that all Americans should make every effort to never let a photon of sunlight strike their skin. The failure of the 1997 FNB to compensate for sun-avoidance, has led to millions of deaths around the world.

· Physicians who ignore vitamin D deficiency will eventually suffer medical-legal consequences.

· While many think the influenza virus causes influenza, Cannell notes it was George Bernard Shaw who first understood: “The characteristic microbe of a disease might be a symptom instead of a cause.” George Bernard Shaw, (Preface on Doctors, The Doctor’s Dilemma, 1911

[Ted Hutchinson]

Marc Sorenson on Vitamin d short video (http://www.kewego.com****eo/iLyROoafJFMr.html#addcomment_a)

Mercola on the topic (http://www.viddler.com/explore/mercola****eos/135/) longer talk. Mostly correct He's has a slip of the tongue when he talks about when is the best time to sunbathe. Your shadow must be SHORTER than you are tall. So when the sun is overhead is best, by the time your shadow is longer than you are tall the amount of UVB is so diffused that it will not be sufficient to be powerful enough.
We, particularly those in the north, do not need to be so worried about vitamin D toxicity. Mercola lives/works well below latitude 40 (which is hundreds of miles further south than I live) yet he spends his winters nearer the Equator. For most people whille 5000iu/d will probably just about be sufficient, a 25(OH)d test after 90 days use will confirm that, and under 10,000iu/d cannot raise status sufficient to cause harm. It takes 40,000iu/daily for many months to raise status to 200ng/mL or 500nmol/l when hypercalcemia occurs.

[andy1618]

Hi all,

I am looking to find people who use a vitamin other than B vitamins to control seizures.

I had my first seizure at two weeks old. I spent the first six months of my life in and out of hospital. Doctors were mystified by my illness. None of the ‘normal’ antiepileptic drugs that were administered had any positive effects. At this time I was having many ‘different types’ of seizures a day some of which went status. Countless tests were being done including, EEGs, lumber punctures… etc. A top pediatrician from the main city hospital told my mother that he was going to a meeting. He said he would talk about me in the hope that someone there would be able to help us. At this meeting there was a professor who was doing research into childhood epilepsy. He suggested a trial of Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (vitamin B6). Pyridoxine Hydrochloride was administered (I was five months old). Within two to three days my mother noticed a big difference in me. I’d stopped having severe seizures. Because of the positive effects that vitamin B6 had on my seizures the antiepileptic drugs were withdrawn (this all happened back in 1970-71). I’ve been taking Pyridoxine Hydrochloride on a daily bases ever since. I have now been using vitamin B6 for just over 38 years.

I was still experiencing my aura and the occasionally seizure while I was taking vitamin B6 only. So, after an unsuccessful two year trial of Antiepileptic Drugs, which started when I was 15 years old, I began to do my own research into the other seven B vitamins. By the time I was 19 years old, I'd discovered a B complex that I thought was right for me. After getting the B complex tablet analyzed by doctors at the hospital and with my doctor's consent, I started to take this B complex, along with my B6, on a daily bases. Again, it was successful, my aura was under control and so were my seizures.

I can't remember the exact date of my last grand-mal seizure but it must have been about 18 years ago now. All of my major seizures (CPs, SPs, MCs, TCs... many different types) have also been controlled for about 18 years thanks to B vitamins only.

I would love to compare my seizures to the seizures of people who have been using vitamin D, only, to control their seizures. No other medication (Antiepileptic Drugs, Minerals… etc.), Just vitamin D or Vitamin D with other vitamins (please state which vitamins you use).

Please do not reply to this if you use vitamins as supplements only, if you are using vitamins because of deficiencies as a result of using Antiepileptic Drug(s)/other medication, you are using your vitamin(s) without your doctor’s consent or if you just 'presume' that there are people out there that use vitamin D/vitamins only to control their seizures.

Thank you for your time,

Andy

[Ted Hutchinson]

Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJHfdUKSD2A) David Sane, MD, discusses the prevention of cardiovascular disease through vitamin D.

Vitamin D and Diabetes-Can We Prevent it? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTtmvMvgfl0)In this program, Frank Garland, PhD, discusses vitamin D and the opportunity for prevention of diabetes.

[Ted Hutchinson]

CaroleBaggerlyVideo click image to run.
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/0O3L77kgU24/default.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O3L77kgU24)
Vitamin D basics including how to do the home blood spot test. Ideal summary for beginners.
She kept talking about $40 for the test, the site she links to www.ordervitamindtest.org is still saying $30 so if you are hard up then you'd better order quick as I suspect they intend to raise the price a little.

[andy1618]

Hi Ted,

How did you become interested in vitamin D and have you researched all of the 13 'true' vitamins?

Regards

Andy

[Ted Hutchinson]

Hi Ted,

What is your story with vitamin D?

Regards

AndyPolio when a child. When I was around 40 started getting Post polio (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/post_polio/detail_post_polio.htm) but didn't know there were late effects so put it down to "midlife crisis" "male menopause" "depression" etc etc. Usual run of tests etc showing nothing of interest. Got the the point I had to use a wheelchair away from home as I was falling so often. Finally communication between bladder/brain failed and I ended up in hospital. More tests showing nothing. So faced with life in wheelchair being cared for I panicked and decided it was time to find out what was going on. Discovered PPS, Discovered INFLAMMATION and the inflammatory response was the root of the progressive deterioration and then had to find out how to reduce inflammation. So went for omega 3's first, then I explored the world of D3, then magnesium then low carbohydrate diets.

Could have saved myself a lot of hassle if I'd picked up on the importance of low carb eating earlier but together these measures have lowered my inflammatory status, I don't fall, I now don't use a wheelchair, I don't use pain killers, antibiotics, antidepressants, either so no medications at all. Just omega 3 1.5g EPA+DHA, magnesium 600mg, VitaminD3 5OOOiu and a low carb diet.
I think everyone should raise their Vitamin D status to 60ng 150nmol/l.
http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss230/tedhutchinson/chronicdiseasepreventionvitamind.jpg (http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_download/disease_incidence_prev_25ng_p_ml_bline072608.pdf)

[andy1618]

Polio when a child. When I was around 40 started getting Post polio (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/post_polio/detail_post_polio.htm) but didn't know there were late effects so put it down to "midlife crisis" "male menopause" "depression" etc etc. Usual run of tests etc showing nothing of interest. Got the the point I had to use a wheelchair away from home as I was falling so often. Finally communication between bladder/brain failed and I ended up in hospital. More tests showing nothing. So faced with life in wheelchair being cared for

Hi Ted,

I'm sorry to hear of this but I think it is great that you have found something that works for you.

I also use Omega 3, I get my Omega 3 from eating fish (Salmon, Mackerel...etc.). I have/sometimes do use capsules but I prefer to get my Omega 3 from fresh oily fish.

Regards

Andy

[can]

Hello Ted. It is nice to read a success story like yours. Can you tell me where you buy Omega 3 ( EPA & DHA ), whether it be local or over the net? Thanks in advance.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Hello Ted. It is nice to read a success story like yours. Can you tell me where you buy Omega 3 ( EPA & DHA ), whether it be local or over the net? Thanks in advance.Depends where local is. If I lived in the USA I'd use IHERB (http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?pid=8341&at=0) but in the UK Simply Supplements triple strength (http://www.simplysupplements.net/product/275/omega-3-triple-strength-1000mg/) are good value.

If you spread your IHERB reward code around that will reduce the price so you can get under the UK customs tax threshold. You need to get below £18. If you haven't used IHERB before code WAB666 saves you $5.

But do be aware what andy1618 says. A tin of sardines in tomato sauce contains 2g of omega 3 and because they are small surface living fish unlikely to be polluted. But although I do try to eat fish regularly I sometimes don't so having a backup capsule I think is worth it. It is the RATIO of omega 3<> omega 6 that is important so cutting back on omega 6 inputs is as effective as building up omega 3 intake.

Stephan on omega 3 ratio (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/09/omega-ratio.html) Stephan has lots of posts on omega 3 and they are very thought provoking. Well worth studying.

[msellie]

This is good information. Thank you for this.

ellie

[mrsdoubtfyre]

http://synergyhn.com/12preview/

I've been trying to find who is paying for this foundation. Have you any
information about that, Ted? Normally I can find the supporters, but I can't with this one.

Now the Marshall Protocol is branching out to blame all autoimmune disease on Vit D.
They seem to think we are being poisoned by our food chain...and I don't understand that at all!

[Ted Hutchinson]

http://synergyhn.com/12preview/

I've been trying to find who is paying for this foundation. Have you any
information about that, Ted? Normally I can find the supporters, but I can't with this one.

Now the Marshall Protocol is branching out to blame all autoimmune disease on Vit D.
They seem to think we are being poisoned by our food chain...and I don't understand that at all!The trouble with Marshall's computer modeling is that unless you have access to the software he uses you cannot check where the problem is. Until other people replicate his results there is no way of checking what he is saying. In real life scenarios, in actual practice you need to have a 25(OH)D status above 45ng to enjoy the best health outcomes and levels between 40ng~ 60ng are associated with least chronic disease. If Marshall was correct we would see increasing disease incidence not less above his threshold.
I've not bothered to search for the supporters of this approach. I think it's possible that there are exceptions to every rule and there will be some people who can manage on lower levels than others but almost without those rare exceptions the human species would not have survived or evolved living naked outdoors eating a basically low carbohydrate high fat diet (in the absence of farming) if sunshine and saturate fat were harmful.
I know it's a bit more complicated than that but when we are thinking about a NATURAL vitamin D status we must start from the point where our DNA evolved. As 60~80ng is the level our DNA naturally attains/maintains living outdoors naked, we have got to have good, sound, solid evidence to suggest levels lower than that are better, safer and lead to longer life.
I don't see that evidence.
As Marshall has a track record for fraud I simply don't trust him.

[mrsdoubtfyre]

What I am trying to find, is the MONEY supporting him and his studies. (the latest one only had about 100 people in it BTW).
I do see he recruits professionals as seen from that link I gave you.

Also I saw recently that overweight/or obese patients store vit D in the fat, and may be taking enough in supplements but not showing it in testing, because it is scooped up in the fat instead. Have you heard of this?

So I wonder if some people do not show improvements as they should with supplements because of the weight issue?

[Ted Hutchinson]

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/TQ-qekFoi-o/default.jpgVitamin D Prevents Cancer: Is It True? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ-qekFoi-o)
Please watch and tell other people to watch it also.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Statins and vitamin d (http://springerlink.com/content/3252535263362294/)
commenting on this paper

Increased Levels of 25 Hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D After Rosuvastatin Treatment: A Novel Pleiotropic Effect of Statins? (http://www.springerlink.com/content/97l0850542403817/fulltext.pdf)
This is likely to be the way the claimed clinical benefit of statins is achieved and may be the pleiotropic effect of rosuvastatin, decreasing mortality in patients with coronary artery disease.

But they still don't know the mechanism involved. this is my rewording of the conclusions of the paper and not a direct quote.

This is a new listing on PUBMED and it's relevant here because it seems to me pointless taking a statin (with many obvious and dangerous side effects) that achieves it's magic by actually increasing your vitamin D3 status (by some mechanism as yet unidentified) when you can more cheaply and more effectively and without any side effects achieve the same effect (without any side effects) by taking Cholecalciferol Vitamin D3 by itself.

It is sheer madness (or the perverted logic of big Pharma) to make people take a drug that has potential for unpleasant side effects that works by mimicking a safe supplement that is cheap and doesn't produce side effects at the normal amounts most people reading this require.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Nephropal Vitamin D Rounds - July, 2009 (http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2009/07/vitamin-d-rounds-july-2009.html) This summary of this months vitamin D highlights is quite interesting.

I thought his section on Vitamin D and the Evolution of Man and Primates was worth reading. Particularly relevant for those who have been seduced by MP.
Vitamin D has a suppressive effect on the immune system. Thus, when the immune system is presented with a foreign pathogen, an inflammatory response is activated. However, an over response would not only entail damage to the pathogen but also to the host itself. And as a result, monocytes activate Vitamin D (1,25 OH Vitamin D by 1-alpha hydroxylase) which then causes a "check and balance" on the immune response by suppressing CAMP gene expression. This limits damage to this host while combating a foreign pathogen. It is primate specific and has been perfectly conserved for 55 million years.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Another excellent Nephropal blog post on vitamin d (http://nephropal.blogspot.com/2009/08/children-and-vitamin-d.html)
Here is the study author on you Tube.
7 in 10 U.S. Children Low in Vitamin D (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNfXSYbG8Cs)

For those who have access here is the Prevalence and Associations of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Deficiency in US Children: NHANES 2001–2004 (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/peds.2009-0051v1?) Paper.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Maternal Vitamin D Deficiency Leads to Cardiac Hypertrophy in Rat Offspring. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19828430)The aim of this study was to determine the effect of vitamin D deficiency from conception until 4 weeks of age on the development of the heart in rat offspring.

Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were fed either a vitamin D deplete or vitamin D-replete diet for 6 weeks prior to pregnancy, during pregnancy and throughout lactation.

Cardiomyocyte number was determined in fixed hearts of offspring at postnatal day 3 and 4 weeks of age using an optical disector/fractionator stereological technique.

In other litters, cardiomyocytes were isolated from freshly excised hearts to determine the proportion of mononucleated and binucleated cardiomyocytes.

Maternal vitamin D deficiency had no effect on cardiomyocyte number, cardiomyocyte area, or the proportion of mononucleated/binucleated cardiomyocytes in 3-day-old male and female offspring.

Importantly, however, vitamin D deficiency led to an increase in left ventricle (LV) volume that was accompanied by an increase in cardiomyocyte number and size, and in the proportion of mononucleated cardiomyocytes at 4 weeks of age.

Our findings suggest that exposure to vitamin D deficiency in utero and early life leads to delayed maturation and subsequent enhanced growth (proliferation and hypertrophy) of cardiomyocytes in the LV.

This may lead to altered cardiac function later in life.

Not good news when you know that most mothers are vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy and lactation.

Breastfeeding Medicine Does Vitamin D Make the World Go ‘Round’? (http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/bfm.2008.9984) has a section on the Daily intake of vitamin D required to ensure human breast milk if replete with D3. It really is about time we gave pregnant and nursing mothers ACCURATE SCIENCE BASED information to enable them to acquire effective preventative levels of D3
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/vitamin-d-levels-chart-25-hydroxy-d-optimal-deficient-cancer-excess-ng-ml.gif Multiply by 2.5 to convert to nmol/l. Just in case anyone isn't aware the amount for CANCER is the amount required to optimize CANCER TREATMENT
Getting into the optimal zone usually requires a total intake at least 5000iu/daily/D3
You'd probably need 50,000iu/weekly = 7000iu+ to stay above 65ng/ml
To get excess requires MORE than 40,000iu/daily for many months.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Natural News article on Vitamin D3,Vitamin D: How to Determine Your Optimal Dose (http://www.naturalnews.com/027345_Vitamin_D_sun_exposure_blood.html) Gets the basics covered reasonably well.

[Ted Hutchinson]

Does Vitamin D Improve Brain Function?
New studies show low vitamin D levels may impair cognitive function (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-d-make-a-difference)

[Ted Hutchinson]

Inverse association between serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels and non-melanoma skin cancer in elderly men. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19921445)
To determine the relationship between 25(OH) vitamin D levels and non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC), we performed a nested case-control study in ambulatory, elderly men enrolled in the Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS) Study.

Health habit and medical history, including self-reported history of NMSC were recorded and 25(OH)D levels were measured on serum collected at baseline from a random sample of Caucasian MrOS subjects.

Mean age (73 +/- 5), BMI, daily vitamin D and calcium intake were similar in the men with (n = 178) and without NMSC (n = 930), but higher levels of 25(OH)D were associated with a decreased risk of having a history of non-melanoma skin cancer

Men in the highest quintile of 25(OH)D (>30 ng/mL) had 47% lower odds of non-melanoma skin cancer compared to those in the lowest quintile.

Our results suggest that a diagnosis of NMSC is not a surrogate for adequate 25(OH)D levels or increased UV exposure, and high 25(OH)D levels may be associated with a reduced risk of NMSC.

What they are saying is that having non-melanoma skin cancer DOES not indicate you have been spending too long in the sun and have an adequate vitamin D status. There are saying the opposite, if you had a higher vitamin D status you would have a 47% lower risk of getting skin cancer.