I take Vitamin D3. This article has me thinking.
http://experiencelife.com/article/new-r ... mentation/
Article about vitamin D
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
From that article:
Here's a link to the actual article in the Lancet. Note that the authors (all apparently academicians), didn't actually do anything, to prove anything, they merely expressed an opinion, based on a claimed review of existing literature:
Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review
Now note this does not apply (obviously) in rare cases such as Linda's, where special circumstances apparently affect vitamin D tolerance, but I would like to take this opportunity to point out that:
Ever since a widespread vitamin D deficiency epidemic was discovered in the general population, mainstream medicine has been vehemently opposing any increases in the recommendations for RDAs for vitamin D. (And we all know that those recommendations are ridiculously low.) This opposition has existed right from the start (long before that article ever came to light), so obviously mainstream medicine has a long-standing bias against vitamin D supplementation. We should ask ourselves, "Why?"
The entire medical industry has a lot at stake in this issue — much more than meets the eye. IMO, the answer to that question lies in one or all of these possibilities:
1. The medical community has always been reluctant to adopt new concepts that inherently prove that previous treatment methods were incorrect. As proof of this, old, obsolete (and incorrect) research articles are virtually never recanted, despite their inaccuracies. And as a result, doctors continue to cite those incorrect articles as proof that what they are doing is valid.
2. The medical community has always denied culpability, and especially in today's litigious society, they are almost never willing to voluntarily accept responsibility for mistakes in their methods, because to do so would shatter the "do-no-harm" image they strive to present.
3. In view of the massive amount of research evidence that demonstrates that an adequate vitamin D level ensures optimum immune system health, and definitely helps to prevent many/most/(possibly all) diseases, a single article (which apparently mostly amounts to nothing more than an expression of an opinion), is hardly something to get excited about. We should expect this type of propaganda, as part of an attempt to salvage their position.
The point is, if everyone kept his or her vitamin D level high enough, we would have way too many doctors because of the reduced demand for their services, and the value of medical services would go way down. But much more importantly, we would have way too many drugs and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing and promoting drugs. And the need for medical insurance would dramatically decline rather quickly, because the risk of expensive treatments, and the need for overpriced drugs would collapse to minimal levels virtually overnight. Don't think for a minute that this is not on the minds of everyone in the industry. Not only are their exorbitant profits at stake, but their very existence might have to be completely restructured, if all consumers were to get on board, and get their vitamin D level up to where it needs to be.
Our paleo ancestors spent most of their time running around in the blazing sun, wearing a loincloth. Their vitamin D levels had to be much, much higher than the vitamin D level of modern humans. It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. And the medical community feels obligated to try to convince us that Mother Nature didn't know what she was doing. That's a fool's game, IMO.
Tex
Well duh! Sure vitamin D deficiency is caused by those diseases. And that's exactly why we need to take a vitamin D supplement to replace the lost vitamin D. Because if we don't replace that vitamin D, then our immune system is eventually going to crash and burn, or otherwise swarm on us. That's a no-brainer.In other words, low vitamin D levels are an effect — not a cause — of conditions including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, depression, and certain cancers.
Here's a link to the actual article in the Lancet. Note that the authors (all apparently academicians), didn't actually do anything, to prove anything, they merely expressed an opinion, based on a claimed review of existing literature:
Vitamin D status and ill health: a systematic review
Now note this does not apply (obviously) in rare cases such as Linda's, where special circumstances apparently affect vitamin D tolerance, but I would like to take this opportunity to point out that:
Ever since a widespread vitamin D deficiency epidemic was discovered in the general population, mainstream medicine has been vehemently opposing any increases in the recommendations for RDAs for vitamin D. (And we all know that those recommendations are ridiculously low.) This opposition has existed right from the start (long before that article ever came to light), so obviously mainstream medicine has a long-standing bias against vitamin D supplementation. We should ask ourselves, "Why?"
The entire medical industry has a lot at stake in this issue — much more than meets the eye. IMO, the answer to that question lies in one or all of these possibilities:
1. The medical community has always been reluctant to adopt new concepts that inherently prove that previous treatment methods were incorrect. As proof of this, old, obsolete (and incorrect) research articles are virtually never recanted, despite their inaccuracies. And as a result, doctors continue to cite those incorrect articles as proof that what they are doing is valid.
2. The medical community has always denied culpability, and especially in today's litigious society, they are almost never willing to voluntarily accept responsibility for mistakes in their methods, because to do so would shatter the "do-no-harm" image they strive to present.
3. In view of the massive amount of research evidence that demonstrates that an adequate vitamin D level ensures optimum immune system health, and definitely helps to prevent many/most/(possibly all) diseases, a single article (which apparently mostly amounts to nothing more than an expression of an opinion), is hardly something to get excited about. We should expect this type of propaganda, as part of an attempt to salvage their position.
The point is, if everyone kept his or her vitamin D level high enough, we would have way too many doctors because of the reduced demand for their services, and the value of medical services would go way down. But much more importantly, we would have way too many drugs and pharmaceutical companies manufacturing and promoting drugs. And the need for medical insurance would dramatically decline rather quickly, because the risk of expensive treatments, and the need for overpriced drugs would collapse to minimal levels virtually overnight. Don't think for a minute that this is not on the minds of everyone in the industry. Not only are their exorbitant profits at stake, but their very existence might have to be completely restructured, if all consumers were to get on board, and get their vitamin D level up to where it needs to be.
Our paleo ancestors spent most of their time running around in the blazing sun, wearing a loincloth. Their vitamin D levels had to be much, much higher than the vitamin D level of modern humans. It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. And the medical community feels obligated to try to convince us that Mother Nature didn't know what she was doing. That's a fool's game, IMO.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
The line that got my attention was:
"In other words, low vitamin D levels are an effect — not a cause — of conditions including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, depression, and certain cancers."
It just never occurred the me that low D could be an effect and not a cause. It is that whole chicken or egg question. In either case maintaining an optimal D level makes sense to me. I will continue my 5000 mgs a day.
Lindylou, do you have a parathyroid involvement, in your calcium blood levels?
Lori
"In other words, low vitamin D levels are an effect — not a cause — of conditions including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, depression, and certain cancers."
It just never occurred the me that low D could be an effect and not a cause. It is that whole chicken or egg question. In either case maintaining an optimal D level makes sense to me. I will continue my 5000 mgs a day.
Lindylou, do you have a parathyroid involvement, in your calcium blood levels?
Lori
-
Gabes-Apg
- Emperor Penguin
- Posts: 8332
- Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 3:12 pm
- Location: Hunter Valley NSW Australia
In line with Tex's points, of course they would say that Vit d3 deficiency is effect, not cause, so they can justify prescribing useless meds and keep in with their big pharma buddies...
There is a bit of unsettlement regarding nutrition.. The proof starting to come into the public arena about heart disease, diabetes, depression
The nutrition triangle being questioned....
The foundation of the past ?20 -?30 years of general medicine is starting to crack and weaken.
The health systems in all the major countries is built on the same foundation...
Are we (the countries) ready to look at these cracks????
There is a bit of unsettlement regarding nutrition.. The proof starting to come into the public arena about heart disease, diabetes, depression
The nutrition triangle being questioned....
The foundation of the past ?20 -?30 years of general medicine is starting to crack and weaken.
The health systems in all the major countries is built on the same foundation...
Are we (the countries) ready to look at these cracks????
Gabes Ryan
"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
"Anything that contradicts experience and logic should be abandoned"
Dalai Lama
Remember that like virtually everything else, it's always possible to be allergic to vitamin D, or to another ingredient in a vitamin supplement. And unlike natural vitamin D from sunlight, it's possible to overdose on a vitamin D supplement. For example, research shows that taking 40,000 IU or more per day, for several months will result in toxic symptoms for many people.Lori wrote:I will continue my 5000 mgs a day.
And Gabes is quite correct. The internet and the way that it allows patients to compare notes, is revolutionizing healthcare. Doctors might as well acknowledge that fact, and incorporate it into their practices, because they can't stop people from becoming educated about their health care.
Doctors (and clinics and hospitals) will be less likely to be able to just ignore certain research reports, trends, etc., that they don't like, because now many of their patients read those reports before they do, and discuss them online with their peers. This implies that doctors will be more likely to stay abreast of recent developments in the future, because their patients will demand it (or shame them into keeping up).
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Jonas, the vitamin d helps our bodies to absorb more calcium. Normally this would be a terrific thing however, I have a malfunction with my parathyroid glands. They are excreting excessive parathyroid hormone and this causes calcium to be pulled out of my bones and float freely throughout my body. The source of the malfunction is usually a adenoma in one of the glands or hyperplasia of the glands. For now, I have had to stop all supplementation until this problem is surgically corrected. We are not sure yet what the cause is. I will be seeing a surgeon next Tuesday and go from there. Next time you have any labs drawn, ask the doctor to check your calcium levels. If they are in the normal range then I don't believe the supplemental D would be the cause of your joint pains. If it is elevated, then your doctor will want to check your PTH levels.