It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

[aaron]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

The 1 * reviews on Amazon for the book are very enlightening too.

[erising]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

I live in New Mexico where we get an average of 345 days of bright sunshine per year (8 inches per year of rain, and just a rare cloud). I am outside in full sun at least 10 hours each week. I am vitamin D deficient. If I am, then I think everyone is. My doctor tests me every quarter (blood test), and I take 50,000 units of vitamin D3 three times per week. I was totally shocked when my doctor told me that I needed extra vitamin D!

[shiny!]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

Vitamin D can prevent the flu. In fact, the flu might even be considered a vitamin D deficiency disease. In the five years since I've been taking vitamin D, I have not gotten the flu even once. I used to get it almost every winter.

Vitamin D and Flu: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/51913.php

My naturopathic physician told me that over half of the people in Arizona are deficient in vitamin D.

In spite of the test being cheap, I had a hard time convincing my family physician to order it. He said it was unnecessary for people in Arizona to be tested because we all get plenty of sun. I told him that I, like many of us here, stay indoors as much as possible during the summer because it's so friggin' hot. I finally had to yell at him to make him order the test! At the time, I was taking 2,000 IU of D3 daily (the government recommended 400 IU). When the results came back, I was so low that I wasn't even in the bottom of the range. The doc was shocked.

So I upped my dosage to 4,000 IU daily. Got tested a few years later and was in the recommended range- but near the low end. My new doctor (fired the old one) said that was perfect. I argued that it was still low-ish but she said it was just where she wanted it.

My stepson's an internist and pediatrician, so I asked him for his opinion. He said my doctor was a moron and that she was not keeping up with recent findings. According to him, post-menopausal women are now advised to take between 8,000-10,000 IU daily. So that's what I'm taking.

[flintlock]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vit...xicity/AN02008

How good are these Vit D tests?

[swgprop]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vit...xicity/AN02008
How good are these Vit D tests?

Flintlock, your link was to a Mayo Clinic writeup about toxicity?

[Spartacus]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

Not the best study ever done ...

Look up critiques by Chris Masterjohn, Anthony Colpo, Denise Minger.

There was also another critique by a pofessional statistician that I can't find at the moment.

Regarding diet and Cancer, some recent reading surfing caused me to note this for eventual reading:
"The China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted And the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss, And Long-term Health"


'Referred to as the "Grand Prix of epidemiology" by The New York Times, this study examines more than 350 variables of health and nutrition with surveys from 6,500 adults in more than 2,500 counties across China and Taiwan, and conclusively demonstrates the link between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.'

Campbell was also found "pulling a fast one" with casein protein's association to some cancers; Ideology trumping science but I've forgotten the details.

[Spartacus]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

2,000 IU OUGHT to be safe but I urge caution; be prepared to find out it does nothing.

almost all the current data is correlational, Just like garlic before it, and beta carotene before that.

Remember that large numbers of correlational studies showed that high serum beta carotene correlated with many lower cancer rates. And when intervention studies were finally done - 2 done in smokers, for example, smokers given supplemental beta carotene had such a higher rate of lung cancer the 2 studies (1 in British Columbia, one in the UK) both had to be cancelled for ethical reasons.

Same for garlic. lots of correlational proof. Then when Stanford's Chris Gardner did a long term intervention study, the results were NIL.

Correlational "proof" is low quality proof. You used to read the same kind of stuff for Beta Carotene & garlic that you now get for Vit D.

these guys note that it's mostly correlational but then don't put it into context for you

http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=1336

The few large, controlled intervention studies done with vitamin D to date have not produced significant benefits[0] and the pro-Vit D crowd is now (suspiciously, IMHO) shifting the goal posts, saying higher intake is needed. They may be right of course, but that's a question for good research. Until GOOD proof comes in IMHO it should not be promoted so heavily, and should be promoted with prudent caution, realizing that a lot of people will think if 1,000 is good then 10,000 will be better.

A lot of what you read is like the article dlew22 links to below: those guys ASSUME the correlation is completely valid, and are telling everyone they have to take 4kIU

I personally would not take more than 400 IU per day during the summer and no more than 2,000 in winter.

If you're taking D supplements, take small amounts of A, E and K as well; vit A supplementation was found, empirically, to increase osteoporosis, because (in theory, not yet empirically verified in vivo AFAIK) these vitamins interact, and an excess of one can clobber another. to clarify further: the osteoporosis was observed, the theory's yet to be proven to the best of my memory.

http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=765

If you look at the longest life expectancy in Japan, it is the southernmost prefecture of Okinawa.

If you look at the longest life expectancy in the US it is in the southernmost state of Hawaii.

[0] Some small intervention studies have found limited benefits. This is a standard pattern, by the way, that also happened with garlic supplements ... initial studies show effect, later studies that take more cautions find less and less effect as older studies are critiqued and newer studies change the methodology to address the critiques. same holds true for pharmaceuticals - in the population after approval they're routinely found to be half as effective as initial studies, and this is the drugs that survive - many drugs show initial-trial benefits and these completely disappear later (so the drug's not approved and you can't do "initial study to routine use" comparisons)

[shiny!]

Re: It is getting cold, and you may be vitamin D deficient

2,000 IU OUGHT to be safe but I urge caution; be prepared to find out it does nothing.

almost all the current data is correlational, Just like garlic before it, and beta carotene before that.

Remember that large numbers of correlational studies showed that high serum beta carotene correlated with many lower cancer rates. And when intervention studies were finally done - 2 done in smokers, for example, smokers given supplemental beta carotene had such a higher rate of lung cancer the 2 studies (1 in British Columbia, one in the UK) both had to be cancelled for ethical reasons.

Same for garlic. lots of correlational proof. Then when Stanford's Chris Gardner did a long term intervention study, the results were NIL.

Correlational "proof" is low quality proof. You used to read the same kind of stuff for Beta Carotene & garlic that you now get for Vit D.

these guys note that it's mostly correlational but then don't put it into context for you

http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=1336

The few large, controlled intervention studies done with vitamin D to date have not produced significant benefits[0] and the pro-Vit D crowd is now (suspiciously, IMHO) shifting the goal posts, saying higher intake is needed. They may be right of course, but that's a question for good research. Until GOOD proof comes in IMHO it should not be promoted so heavily, and should be promoted with prudent caution, realizing that a lot of people will think if 1,000 is good then 10,000 will be better.

A lot of what you read is like the article dlew22 links to below: those guys ASSUME the correlation is completely valid, and are telling everyone they have to take 4kIU

I personally would not take more than 400 IU per day during the summer and no more than 2,000 in winter.

If you're taking D supplements, take small amounts of A, E and K as well; vit A supplementation was found, empirically, to increase osteoporosis, because (in theory, not yet empirically verified in vivo AFAIK) these vitamins interact, and an excess of one can clobber another. to clarify further: the osteoporosis was observed, the theory's yet to be proven to the best of my memory.

http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=765

[0] Some small intervention studies have found limited benefits

Sun exposure and daily supplement dosages don't always create optimal blood levels. When I was taking 2,000 IU per day I was extremely deficient. A young man, a teenage girl building bone, and a post-menopausal woman trying to keep bone have very different physiologies and different needs, so there is no one correct daily dose. Probably the best route to follow is to get tested and adjust daily intake based upon those results.