Group items tagged

Vitamin D related articles in "The Heart Scan Blog" by Dr. William Davis

Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP. Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jun;85(6):1586-91. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 Mar;87(3):794. PMID: 17556697 Conclusions: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women.

Conclusions: Healthy men seem to use 3000-5000 IU cholecalciferol/d, apparently meeting > 80% of their winter cholecalciferol need with cutaneously synthesized accumulations from solar sources during the preceding summer months. Current recommended vitamin D inputs are inadequate to maintain serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol concentration in the absence of substantial cutaneous production of vitamin D. Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with cholecalciferol. Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Nov;78(5):1047. PMID: 12499343

Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin D: justification for a review of the 1997 values. Yetley EA, Brulé D, Cheney MC, Davis CD, Esslinger KA, Fischer PW, Friedl KE, Greene-Finestone LS, Guenther PM, Klurfeld DM, L'abbe MR, McMurry KY, Starke-Reed PE, Trumbo PR. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan 28. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 1917674 doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26903

A German group has now shown that the important inflammatory marker, tumor necrosis factor (TNF), is also reduced by vitamin D supplementation. Many studies have implicated increased TNF levels in promoting cancer. In this study, a modest vitamin D dose of 3320 units (83 micrograms) was given vs. placebo. The 25-hydroxy D level reached in the treated group was 34.2 ng/ml (85.5 nmol/L), which resulted in a 26.5% reduction in TNF compared with 18.7% reduction (?) in the placebo group.

Why would vitamin D be prescribed when vitamin D3 is available over-the-counter? Let's review the known differences between vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol): --D3 is the human form; D2 is the non-human form found in plants. --Dose for dose, D3 is more effective at raising blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D than D2. It requires roughly twice to 250% of the dose of D2 to match that of D3 (Trang H et al 1998). --D2 blood levels don't yield long-term sustained levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as does D3. When examined as a 28-day area under the curve (AUC--a superior measure of biologic exposure), D3 yields better than a 300% increased potency compared to D2. This means that it requires around 50,000 units D2 to match the effects of 15,000 units D3 (Armas LA et al 2004). --D2 has lower binding affinity for vitamin D-binding protein, compared to D3 --Mitochondrial vitamin D 25-hydroxylase converts D3 to the 25-hydroxylated form five times more rapidly than D2. --As we age, the ability to metabolize D2 is dramatically reduced, while D3 is not subject to this phenomenon

Add vitamin D to achieve our target serum level . . . HDL jumps to 50, 60, 70, even 90 mg/dl. The first few times this occurred, I thought it was an error or fluke. But now that I've witnessed this effect many dozens of time, I am convinced that it is real. Just today, I saw a 40-year old man whose starting HDL was 25 mg/dl increase to 87 mg/dl. Responses like this are supposed to be impossible. Before vitamin D, I had never witnessed increases of this magnitude.

True to form, Dr. John Cannell has published yet another wonderfully insightful Vitamin D Newsletter. One item caught my eye, a response to a question about the Marshall Protocol. I, like Dr. Cannell, was inundated with questions about this so-called protocol, which amounts to little more than the unfounded speculations of a non-physician, actually someone not even involved in health care. In all honesty, I blew the whole issue off after I read Dr. Marshall's rants. They smack of pure quackery, though from somebody who clearly has a command of scientific lingo. To Dr. Cannell's credit, he took the time and effort to construct a rational response in the latest issue of the newsletter. I reproduce his response here:

"Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago. However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day. She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.) In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations. "