Group items tagged

Is a lower dose of vitamin D supplementation enough to increase 25(OH)D status in a sunny country? Pignotti GA, Genaro PS, Pinheiro MM, Szejnfeld VL, Martini LA. Eur J Nutr. 2009 Nov 28. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 19946776 CONCLUSION: The dose given (400 IU/day) was not enough to achieve 25(OH)D concentration, considered optimal for bone health.

Not enough vitamin D: health consequences for Canadians. Schwalfenberg G. Can Fam Physician. 2007 May;53(5):841-54. Review PMID: 17872747 Conclusion Low levels of VTD are considered a major public health problem in Canada, especially during the winter. Those with risk factors should be screened for low 25(OH)D levels and repletion therapy instituted if needed. Researchers have estimated that the oral dose of vitamin D3 to attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels >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.64 We need to ensure that patients have healthy blood levels of 25(OH)D to prevent levels of parathyroid hormone from rising and to maximize absorption of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate. Positive effects on bone are marginal at best unless patients consume at least 800 IU/d of VTD. The emerging and exciting role of the VTD receptor and the actions of VTD in maintaining health in other cell types have become more apparent during the last decade.

Evidence-based decision making on micronutrients and chronic disease: long-term randomized controlled trials are not enough. Ames BN, McCann JC, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Aug;86(2):522-3; author reply 523-4. PMID: 17684228

Evidence continues to pile up that the sunshine vitamin protects against much more than bone-softening rickets. Vitamin D, also found in milk and oily fish, is becoming king, from fighting colds to preventing cancer. \n\nInvestigators at the Medical University of South Carolina shut down part of a National Institutes of Health study that left nursing mothers and infants deficient, even though the mothers received the maximum safe amount of vitamin D allowed by the Institute of Medicine.\n\nBut here's the kicker. New research suggests we're not getting nearly enough, and recommended levels may be woefully inadequate.

Not enough vitamin D: health consequences for Canadians.\nSchwalfenberg G.\nCan Fam Physician. 2007 May;53(5):841-54. Review.\nPMID: 17872747 \n

For many years, vitamin D was boring--even to doctors. Because it was considered good for bones and not much else, multitaskers like vitamin A, B vitamins and vitamin E hogged all the press. But recent studies have thrust this long-neglected nutrient into the spotlight. Scientists now think vitamin D may affect everything from diabetes to cancer. They're also finding that many people don't have enough of it.

Vitamin D and type 2 diabetes: are we ready for a prevention trial? Scragg R. Diabetes. 2008 Oct;57(10):2565-6. PMID: 18820212 doi: 10.2337/db08-0879 Despite evidence from the current article (3) and the Finnish study (17), doubts still remain about whether low vitamin status is a cause of type 2 diabetes. Further cohort studies are required, assessing baseline vitamin D status using blood 25(OH)D to be sure that the Ely and Finnish studies are not false-positive results. Glucose clamp studies are also required because we are still not sure of the mechanism influenced by vitamin D-whether it is insulin resistance, secretion, or both. But most importantly, given that nearly three decades have passed since the first studies linking vitamin D with insulin metabolism (6,7), well-designed clinical trials of the effect of vitamin D supplementation on glycemia status and diabetes risk are urgently required to settle this question. And they need to prevent past mistakes. In particular, the vitamin D dose given in such trials needs to be high enough-above 2,000 IU per day (19)-to raise blood 25(OH)D levels above 80 nmol/l because diabetes risk is lowest at this level (9,20). If well-designed trials are carried out and confirm a protective effect from vitamin D, it could be used by the general population as a simple and cheap solution to help prevent the diabetes epidemic.

Does having enough sunlight and vitamin D give us more power to tolerate gluten and not develop damaging self-destructive auto-antibodies? It's unlikely we'll know in any good RCT (randomized controlled trials). No drug company will put up lettuce $$ to determine that good ol' cheap FREE UVB unblocked-sunshine is going to trump their $2-3/day drug (or super-sized vitamin D analogue) in a head-to-head trial. That's just absurd. And they're not stupid... because they pay staticians a lot of lettuce to figure that out for them.

According to a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 75 percent of Americans do not get enough Vitamin D. Researchers have found that the deficiency may negatively impact immune function and cardiovascular health and increase cancer risk. Now, a University of Missouri nutritional sciences researcher has found that vitamin D deficiency is associated with inflammation, a negative response of the immune system, in healthy women.

ScienceDaily (Apr. 8, 2009) - According to a recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 75 percent of Americans do not get enough Vitamin D. Researchers have found that the deficiency may negatively impact immune function and cardiovascular health and increase cancer risk. Now, a University of Missouri nutritional sciences researcher has found that vitamin D deficiency is associated with inflammation, a negative response of the immune system, in healthy women.

CHICAGO (Reuters) - The "sunshine vitamin," vitamin D, is increasingly seen as vital to health, yet more Americans are not getting enough, U.S. researchers said on Monday. Analyzing data from government health surveys, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine found three out of four Americans had "insufficient" levels of vitamin D, up from about one out two 20 years ago-

"Had enough about reading/hearing about Vitamin D? Well, it keeps on coming. And for my lack of surprise, the medical community in general is not catching on like wild fire. I really don't understand it. A recent study from the Heart Institute at Intermountain Medical Center in Salt Lake City (click) followed 27,686 patients greater than 50 years of age with no prior history of cardiovascular disease. The Vitamin D levels were checked and classified as such: * normal - greater than 30 ng/ml * low - 15 to 30 * very low - less than 15 The results of the study showed that patients with very low Vitamin D levels in comparison to normal had: * 77% greater risk of death * 45% increased risk of coronary artery disease * 78% increased risk of stroke * twice the risk of developing heart failure"

sunlightD.org Grassroots Health and ZRT Labs are working together to help us all make sure we have enough vitamin D. Participate in understanding vitamin D. Visit grassrootshealth.net and join the research project. You'll get your D tested twice a year for five years. The cost is just $40 a test, $80 a year, more than reasonable for accurate D testing, and you'll help provide real answers, for yourself and for us all, about how much D we get and how much we need. Join now. Do commit to the full 5 years if you decide to sign on. If not joining for the full test period please use the testing links below.

AUGUSTA, Ga. - Too little vitamin D could be bad for more than your bones; it may also lead to fatter adolescents, researchers say.\n\nA Medical College of Georgia study of more than 650 teens age 14-19 has found that those who reported higher vitamin D intakes had lower overall body fat and lower amounts of the fat in the abdomen, a type of fat known as visceral fat, which has been associated with health risks such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes and hypertension