Group items tagged

I stumbled on one of the growing number of local media stories on the power of vitamin D. \nIn one story, a purported "expert" was talking about the benefits of "high-dose" vitamin D, meaning up to 1000, even 2000 units per day. \nI regard this as high-dose---for an infant. \nJudging by my experiences, now numbering well over 1000 patients over three years time, I'd regard this dose range not as "high dose," nor moderate dose, perhaps not even low dose. I'd regard it as barely adequate.

ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2009) - Vitamin D is significantly associated with muscle power and force in adolescent girls, according to a new study. Although vitamin D is naturally produced in the body through exposure to direct sunlight, vitamin D deficiency has become widely common in the United States. Vitamin D deficiency has been shown to have a significant negative impact on muscle and bone health, and can lead to conditions including osteoporosis and rickets.

"From 1955 to 1990, all infants in East Germany received 600,000 IU of Vitamin D every three months for a total of 3,600,000 IU at age 18 months. With the 400 IU/day recommendation of the American Pediatric Association in mind, I ran across this amazing paper while surfing Medline for Vitamin D. According to this paper, all infants in the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) received dangerously high doses of Vitamin D every three months in their doctors office. The policy was in place for 35 years. The first 600,000 IU dose was given at three months and then every three months until the child was 18 months of age. This works out to an average of 6,000 IU per day (actually, for several technical reasons it is not equivalent) for 18 months. The authors collected blood before the dose and then 2 weeks after the quarterly dose to obtain 25(OH)D, 1,25(OH)D, and calcium levels on a total of 43 infants. Before the first dose, at 3 months of age, the average infant was extremely deficient (median 25(OH)D of 7 ng/ml). Two weeks after the first dose the average 25(OH)D level was 120 ng/ml, the second dose 170 ng/ml, the third dose, 180 ng/ml, the fourth dose, 144 ng/ml, the fifth dose, 110 ng/ml and after the sixth and final dose, 3.6 million total units, at age 18 months, the children had mean levels of 100 ng/ml. That is, by the 15 and 18 month doses, the children were beginning to effectively handle these massive doses. The highest level recorded in any of the 43 infants was 408 ng/ml at age 9 months, two weeks after the third 600,000 IU dose. Thirty-four percent of the infants had at least one episode of hypercalcemia but only 3 had an elevated serum 1,25(OH)D. The authors reported that all the infants appeared healthy, even the infant with a level of 408 ng/ml, that is, no clinical toxicity was noted in any of these infants."

"So why is Dr Vieth so frustrated? You might think he'd have cause for celebration. But for him and other vitamin D researchers around the world, the good news comes with a bitter aftertaste. They believe they can prove vitamin D could help millions live longer and be healthier and yet they have not been able to convince their own governments. In the US and Canada, official vitamin D policy is set by the Institute of Medicine. And in the opinion of Vieth, the current recommendations - 200 International Units per day for people under 50, 400 for people aged 51-70, and 600 for those 71 and older - are outrageously low. Bruce Hollis, professor of paediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, calls 400 IU a day "a joke". That's because the best research suggests that to achieve the higher vitamin D blood levels associated with disease prevention, most adults in the US would need to take 1,000-2,000 IU a day: five to 10 times more than the current official recommendation for adult In 1999, Reinhold Vieth (pictured right) published a review of vitamin D research in response to the IOM conclusions. In it, he argued that there was no evidence that amounts lower than 20,000 IU a day could be toxic. "Throughout my preparation of this review, I was amazed at the lack of evidence supporting statements about the toxicity of moderate doses of vitamin D," Vieth wrote. Studies have since shown 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D to be safe. While any substance will become toxic in excess, vitamin D researchers today accept that the current vitamin D recommendations could be more than quadrupled with no fear of toxicity.!

"Last Wednesday night I gave a lecture to my clients on hunter-gatherer diets. The turnout was great and the information was well-received. I had it professionally video-recorded and will probably offer this as a DVD for sale (with the handout included). Watch for it in the future. Part of what I discussed was vitamin D3 supplementation. Since I have been supplementing with 4,000-10,000 Units of D3 per day I have noted enhanced recovery and size response from my training. Apparently, skeletal muscle has both surface receptors and nuclear receptors for D3 that augment calcium flux during contraction (from surface receptors) and have steroid-like effects at the nuclear level WRT protein synthesis. This D3 supplementation is not really "supplementation" but is instead "augmentation" to levels that would be normal if we got normal sun exposure as we did in our evolutionary past. Check out www.vitamindcouncil.org for more information. Also, check out this abstract below for your consideration. Also, check out this article."

"We are fond of grumbling about Britain's grey skies, but there may be a good medical reason for doing so. It seems the dreary weather is bad for our hearts - worse, even, than raised cholesterol and an unhealthy diet. That's the controversial claim being made by Dr David Grimes, a gastroenterologist from Blackburn. He's been gazing at the sky for 20 years for clues about why his patients get more sick than those in the south of the country. And what he's found turns key assumptions about heart disease on their head. 'It's not diet or cholesterol levels that raise your risk of heart disease,' he claims. 'It's where you live. People in the north are more likely to be ill because they get less sunshine Basically they are suffering from 'latitude' sickness. The link is vitamin D. While we get some from our diet, the main source is the sun - sunlight converts a compound in the skin into vitamin D, so the amount you make is directly related to the amount of sunshine you get. In a new book Dr Grimes argues the higher the level of vitamin D in your blood, the lower your risk of heart disease and a range of other illnesses. If he's right, what we need is not diet and lifestyle advice, but food fortified with vitamin D. For years the vitamin was thought to be useful only for preventing rickets. So how does he treat them? 'You can do it with diet,' he says 'One Bangladeshi woman eats oily fish every day and now has a vitamin D blood level of 40. 'We give supplements of 1,000 international units (IU) a day or we can give an injection of 300,000 IU that lasts for a year. 'The patients respond well,' says Grimes 'but what's needed is a proper controlled, long-term trial and who is going to fund that? Not a drug company.'"

"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Important news for seniors: A daily dose of vitamin D cuts your risk of falling substantially, researchers reported today. But not just any dose will do. "It takes 700 to 1000 international units (IU) of vitamin D per day and nothing less will work," Dr. Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari, who directs the Center on Aging and Mobility at the University of Zurich, Switzerland, noted in an email to Reuters Health. Those recommendations - which are higher than those by the U.S. Institute of Medicine -- are based on the results of eight studies that looked at vitamin D supplements for fall prevention among more than 2,400 adults aged 65 and older. Falls were not notably reduced with daily doses of vitamin D lower than 700 IU. An analysis of all eight studies, posted online today in the British Medical Journal, add weight to several others which have shown that vitamin D improves strength and balance, and bone health in the elderly, the researchers note."

Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective. Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC. Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;19(7):468-83. Review. PMID: 19523595 RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D(3), or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium.

"ScienceDaily (Oct. 8, 2009) - Women with breast cancer should be given high doses of vitamin D because a majority of them are likely to have low levels of vitamin D, which could contribute to decreased bone mass and greater risk of fractures, according to scientists at the University of Rochester Medical Center." Scientists funded by the NCI analyzed vitamin D levels in each woman, and the average level was 27 nanograms per milliliter; more than two-thirds of the women had vitamin deficiency. Weekly supplementation with high doses of vitamin D -- 50,000 international units or more -- improved the levels, according to Peppone's study. The U.S. Institute of Medicine suggests that blood levels nearing 32 nanograms per milliliter are adequate.

"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. "

"April 28, 2009 (Seattle) -- High doses of vitamin D dramatically cut the relapse rate in people with multiple sclerosis, a study shows. Sixteen percent of 25 people with multiple sclerosis (MS) given an average of 14,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day for a year suffered relapses, says Jodie Burton, MD, a neurologist at the University of Toronto. In contrast, close to 40% of 24 MS patients who took an average of 1,000 IU a day -- the amount recommended by many MS specialists -- relapsed, she says. Also, people taking high-dose vitamin D suffered 41% fewer relapses than the year before the study began, compared with 17% of those taking typical doses. People taking high doses of vitamin D did not suffer any significant side effects, Burton tells WebMD."

"(NaturalNews) Treatment with vitamin D supplements may slow the progress of , according to a study published in the journal BJU International. In the United States, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among men, after lung cancer. Approximately 240,000 new cases are diagnosed every year, leading to 30,000 deaths. Researchers have suspected for nearly two decades that the so-called "sunshine vitamin" may play a role in the risk and progression of prostate cancer, but no studies have previously been conducted on its usefulness as a treatment."

"Olmesartan (trade names Benicar, Olmetec) is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist used to treat high blood pressure. The prodrug olmesartan medoxomil is marketed worldwide by Daiichi Sankyo, Ltd. and in the United States by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and in India by Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. under the trade name Olvance. Olmesartan may possess high affinity for the Vitamin D Receptor, based on molecular modeling studies[2], but these results have not been duplicated in clinical trials. Because of the role of the Vitamin D receptor in innate immunity[3], this would indicate that olmesartan has immune modulatory properties. This theory is currently the premise underlying the Marshall Protocol, which uses olmesartan to impose a chemical blockade on 1,25 Vitamin D as part of a treatment of sarcoidosis and other diseases. The Marshall Protocol asserts that, assuming the etiology of these diseases is based on infection by cell-wall-deficient bacteria, restoring proper Vitamin D ratios via olmesartan dosing, combined with pulsed antibiotic dosing, would result in a cure.!

The Author The author of this site is the British writer, John Davidson. Please note that the author is neither a doctor, nor a qualified health practitioner. Every cancer patient should always consult his or her medical practitioner with regard to the use of complementary remedies or treatments, and nothing on this site should be construed in any way as medical or therapeutic advice. It is simply the result of one person's search for solutions. Please read our disclaimer. About This Site Internet searches trawl up vast amounts of information about cancer, from a broad spectrum of viewpoints. The information and internet links on this site are for those seeking to augment the treatment offered by their hospital oncology (cancer) unit. Of course, a great many other internet sites concerning cancer can be found by keying the requisite search words into any of the major search engines. The content of this site was initially prepared, at the request of medical and nursing staff and others, some weeks after I had had an emergency operation for the removal of a colon cancer, and while undergoing chemotherapy in case any cancer cells had gone AWOL. There had been some escape of cancer cells into associated lymph nodes (3 out of 17, including the most distal), but no other tumours had been picked up by a CT scan. When I returned home from hospital in September 2005, with the help of friends, I started doing some research on cancer. I was amazed to discover that despite the billions of pounds/euros/dollars etc. spent on cancer research, and the many advances in understanding the numerous variants of the disease, the standard treatment for my stage of colon cancer is still a drug (fluorouracil, also called 5FU) that has been in use for more than forty years, has uncomfortable side effects, and which only increases the chances of survival after five years by 5 to 10%.

Good Information

Part 2 - Downsize the Supersizing in the United Kingdom Reader's Digest collected nifty suggestions such as the following from 19 countries, asking leading nutritionists and own international editors to spill the quirks of their lifestyles that can serve us all. Consider it a world weight-loss course you don't need tickets for. to send your belly packing?

Bodnar LM, Simhan HN, Powers RW, Frank MP, Cooperstein E, Roberts JM.