Can vitamin D prevent cancer – UCSD?
How much vitamin D is toxic? 2 Opposing Views

A GREAT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY (If you only review 1 part of this page – watch this lecture):
Michael Hollick, MD, PhD, Boston University, LANDMARK LECTURE

  1. 9 min mark: GROWTH RETARDATION in children – STUNTED GROWTH + DIABETES
  2. 38 min: if you take 10,000 iu a day, will you get cancer from vitamin D?
  3. 39 min: what would happen if a lawyer took 1 MILLION iu a day for prostate cancer prevention?
  4. 44 minute mark: PSORIASIS 90% response w/ Dr. Hollick’s skin cream
  5. 48 minute mark: 253% increase in colon cancer w/ low vitamin D
  6. 51 minute mark: how you may protect you from the WINTER FLU
  7. 53 minute: bone density, decreased melanoma, decreased skin cancer
  8. 57 minute: what is the most common medical issue in the world?
.

Researchers at UCSD state that vitamin D is important for cancer prevention: 75% reduction in breast cancer in some studies.

.

. . . . .

ANY CHARACTER HERE

UCSD: Can vitamin D help prevent JUVENILE ONSET DIABETES?

ANY CHARACTER HERE

ANY CHARACTER HERE

THE VITAMIN D COUNCIL: ADVOCATING THE HIGHER DOSES OF VITAMIN D
Today the Food and Nutrition Board Has Failed Millions

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif., Dec. 1, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following was released today by the Vitamin D Council:

After 13 years of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), yesterday recommended that a three – pound premature infant can take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman.

While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women

will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism (1).

Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.

The FNB also reported that vitamin D toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium but not clinical toxicity.

Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and the pregnant women 15 micrograms/day (600 IU).  As a single 30 minutes dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input – as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen – is dangerous.  That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.

Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago.

They ignored 1,000’s of studies from the last 10 years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health.

Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin D deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets.  The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin D blood levels then it must be OK because such low levels are so common.  However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence of most modern day pregnant women.

Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin D levels – not just optimize the bone effect – supplementing is crucial.  But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin D levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms).  Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women.  Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight.  Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women.  Therefore supplementing with higher amounts — like 5000 IU/day — is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.

For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies, Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10 year-olds in a randomized controlled trial.  They found

vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks

in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate.  If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D.  Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB’s new adult recommendations.

Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports.  Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton, or in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world.  So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report?  Why not?  Yesterday, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM’s FNB for the release of these 14 reports.

I, my family, most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of  readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter, have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems.  My advice: especially for pregnant women, continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your (OH)D] is between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories).

Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia (2), a doubled risk for preeclampsia (3), a tripled risk for gestational diabetes (4), and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section (5).

Yesterday, the FNB failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price.  Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of “transparency” by quickly responding to our freedom of Information requests.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

1241 Johnson Avenue, #134

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

(1) Cannell JJ.. On the aetiology of autism. Acta Paediatr. 2010 Aug;99(8):1128-30. Epub 2010 May 19.

(2)Karatekin G, Kaya A, Salihoglu O, Balci H, Nuhoglu A. Association of subclinical vitamin D deficiency in newborns with acute lower respiratory infection and their mothers. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009;63(4):473-7.

(3) Bodnar LM, Catov JM, Simhan HN, Holick MF, Powers RW, Roberts JM. Maternal vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of preeclampsia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(9):3517-22.

(4) Zhang C, Qiu C, Hu FB, David RM, van Dam RM, Bralley A, Williams MA. Maternal plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus. PLoS One. 2008;3(11):e3753.

(5) Merewood A, Mehta SD, Chen TC, Bauchner H, Holick MF. Association between vitamin D deficiency and primary cesarean section. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2009;94(3):940-5.

A 2nd Opinion: Wall Street Journal BLOGS: CON

Health Blog
WSJ’s blog on health and the business of health.

By MELINDA BECK LINK

A long-awaited report from the Institute of Medicine to be released Tuesday triples the recommended amount of vitamin D most Americans should take every day to 600 international units from 200 IUs set in 1997.

That’s far lower than many doctors and major medical groups have been advocating—and it could dampen some of the enthusiasm that’s been building for the sunshine vitamin in recent years.

Many doctors have added blood tests of vitamin D levels to annual physicals, and sales of vitamin D supplements have soared to $425 million last year from $40 million in 2001, according to the Nutrition Business Journal.

It’s long been known that vitamin D is essential to maintaining strong bones. But hundreds of new studies have also linked low vitamin D levels to a higher risk of a slew of chronic health problems—heart disease, stroke, diabetes, prostate, breast and colon cancers, auto-immune diseases, infections, depression and cognitive decline. Studies have also suggested that many Americans are vitamin D deficient due to working and playing indoors and slathering on sunscreen.

The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences that sets governmental nutrient levels, said there wasn’t enough evidence to prove that low vitamin D causes such chronic diseases; it based its new recommendations on the levels needed to maintain strong bones alone.

“The evidence for bone health is compelling, consistent and gives strong evidence of cause and effect,” said Patsy Brannon, a professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University and member of the IOM panel. For the other health problems, she said, “there are relatively few randomized controlled trials, and even in the observational studies, the effects are inconsistent.”

The new recommendations, which cover the U.S. and Canada, call for 600 IUs daily for infants through adults age 70 and 800 IUs after age 71. The IOM assumed that most people are getting minimal sun exposure, given rising concern over skin cancer and latitudes where the sun is too weak to create vitamin D on the skin much of the year. The panel also raised the acceptable upper limit of daily intake to 4,000 IUs for adults, from 2,000 previously.

Those levels do take into account vitamin D from food sources—but only a few, such as salmon and mackerel, contain much naturally. Milk fortified with vitamin D contains about 40 IUs per cup. Most Americans and Canadians need to get much of their vitamin D from supplements.

The IOM panel also issued new recommendations for daily calcium intake— ranging from 700 milligrams for children aged 1 to 3 up to 1,200 milligrams for women 51 and older. The main change from the 1997 recommendations was to lower the recommended level for men 50 to 70 to 1,000 from 1,200. The panel noted that teenage girls may not get enough calcium, and that postmenopausal women may get too much, running the risk of kidney stones.

The changes will impact the percentages of recommended daily allowances of vitamin D and calcium listed on food packages, as well as the composition of school-lunch menus and other federal nutrition programs

The panel dismissed concerns that many Americans and Canadians are vitamin D deficient, noting that there is no scientifically validated level that’s considered optimum. Even so, the panel concluded that for 97% of the population, a blood level of 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter is sufficient.

Some vit D advocates took particular issue with that assumption. Several major medical groups, including the Endocrine Society and the International Osteoporsis Foundation, concluded that 30 ng/ml is necessary for optimal bone health.

“Randomized clinical trials have shown that in men and women 60 and older, you see fewer falls and fractures at the 30 ng/ml level,” said Bess Dawson-Hughes, endocrinologist and director of the Bone Metabolism Laboratory at Tufts University. She also noted that while healthy people may reach that level taking 800 IUs per day, those who don’t go outside, who use sunscreen religiously, have very dark skin or are taking some medications will need more.

Studies have also shown that at levels below 30 ng/ml, the body seeks calcium for everyday needs by leaching it from bones.

Dr. Brannon said the panel found such a wide range of blood levels considered optimal in various studies that it could not settle on a single threshold level. “I think the confusion is understandable. The committee is very concerned about the lack of evidence-based consensus guidelines for interpreting blood levels for vitamin D,” said Dr. Brannon. “We strongly recommend that these be developed.”

The panel was also concerned about what she called “emerging evidence of concern” about possible ill effects of too much vitamin D. Besides a risk of kidney and heart damage noted with vitamin D levels of 10,000 IUs per day, Dr. Brannon said the panel had seen higher death rates from pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer and other causes in men whose blood levels were above 50 ng/ml. The link is still tentative and may never be proven, she noted: “The difficulty is, you can’t design a trial to look at adverse effects.”

Other vitamin D advocates had guarded praise for the recommendations. “At least they recognized that there was a need to raise the daily intake level. That’s a very important message,” said Michael Holick, a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine who testified before the committee in April.

He said that despite the paucity of randomized-controlled trials, the long list of chronic diseases associated with vitamin D does make sense, given that

it is actually a hormone that affects virtually every organ in the human body and regulates as many as 2,000 genes.

For his part, Dr. Holick recommends that adults take 2,000 to 3,000 IUs per day—and notes that he had done studies giving subjects 50,000 IUs twice a month for six years and seen no harmful effects.

“There is no downside to increasing your vitamin D intake, and there are more studies coming out almost on a weekly basis,” he said.

One in particular may help settle whether vitamin D has long-term benefits beyond bone health: The National Institutes of Health has begun recruiting 20,000 men and women over age 60 for a nationwide clinical trial to study whether taking 2,000 IUs of vitamin D, or omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, is any better than a placebo at lowering the risk of heart disease, cancer than other diseases.

In the meantime, some doctors say the IOM recommendations will not change their belief in testing patients’ vitamin D levels and supplementing them as needed.

“I supplement patients who are deficient and they feel better. They come in and say, ‘I’ve been much less achy and stiff or my mood’s been better since I’ve been taking the vitamin D,’ said Alan Pocinki, an internist in Washington D.C. Most of his patients are office workers, and 75% of them are below the 30 ng/ml level he considers necessary.

“Do we have the data to prove this conclusively? No. We don’t have evidence for much of what we do in medicine, but if you wait for the evidence, you may be depriving your patients of beneficial treatments,” Dr. Pocinki said.

.

BALANCE IS KEY

VITAMINS WORK AS A TEAM

DON’T TAKE HIGH DOSES OF ANY VITAMIN IN ISOLATION

Vitamins do not work in isolation, and nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the interactions among the oil-soluble vitamins – vitamins K, A, D, and E.

Their multiple roles in human metabolism are intertwined and interdependent in a complex system of dynamic synergism.

For example, excessive vitamin A intake may increase bone fracture risk in older people, but studies show that when vitamin A is taken with vitamin D, together they help prevent bone loss, a clear demonstration that these oil-soluble vitamins work best together.*

Excessive vitamin A with low or normal vitamin D can look like vitamin D deficiency.

Excessive vitamin D with low or normal vitamin A can look like vitamin A deficiency. And the blood levels of the functionally deficient nutrient can remain within normal ranges.

By supplementing vitamin D with vitamin A, both an unbalanced excess and an artificial deficiency of either one is avoided. In fact, taking them together may increase the effectiveness of lower doses, as well as reduce the risk of higher doses.*

WARNING & DISCLAIMER – This information has not been reviewed by the FDA. The information is for educational purposes only, and is not meant to represent medical advice, or to diagnose, treat, or prevent any disease. Please consult with your physician before implementing any changes to your health care plan. Interactions may occur with your medications or other elements of your present treatment.