WOW! Look at this article!
Nebraska team delivers good vitamin D news
Last week, researchers at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska reported the results of the first rigorous clinical trial to test daily doses of vitamin D high enough to raise blood levels substantially above the US average (i.e., to 80 nmol/L, which still falls considerably short of optimal).
The objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to determine whether calcium supplements alone or calcium plus vitamin D would reduce the risk of bone fractures and the risk of any or all types of cancer.
They recruited 1,179 women aged 55 or older, randomly selected from among all of the healthy post-menopausal women living in a nine-county rural area of Nebraska.
The women were assigned to one of three groups, and were instructed to take the pills given them every day for four years:
1.) Placebo (inactive) vitamin D and calcium pills (“control” group = 288 women);
2.) Calcium* plus a placebo vitamin D pill (“Calcium-Only” group = 445 women)
3.) Calcium* plus 1100 IU of vitamin D3 (“Calcium + D” group = 446 women)
*1400–1500 mg of calcium citrate or carbonate, respectively.
As we noted at the beginning of this article, the results showed that rates of cancer were 60 percent lower in the Calcium + D group, compared with the placebo control subjects.
Vitamin D awarded lion’s share of anti-cancer credit.
But the positive anti-cancer impact of the vitamin D-calcium combo was actually better than it appeared at first blush.
When the researchers excluded cancers that appeared within the first 12 months of the study, the Calcium + D group had 77 percent fewer cancers. (They presumed that any cancers diagnosed within the first 12 months of the study were probably present before the study began.)
And the researchers gave vitamin D most of the credit. While rates of cancer were 47 percent lower in the Calcium-Only group compared with the placebo control group, those women did no better than the placebo control group when early-appearing cancers were excluded.
The researchers concluded that the calcium part of the combo had little to do with the 60 to 77 percent cancer-rate reductions seen in the Calcium + D group.
ISN'T THIS AMAZING? For those who just want a summary:
In a well-designed study of women, researchers found a reduction in cancers of up to 77% which they believe to be due to vitamin D supplementation.
Love,
Polly
More Incredible News About Vitamin D
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
More Incredible News About Vitamin D
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
I apologize for being a wet blanket, but it really bugs me that so many "researchers" feel obligated to spoil perfectly good projects, by drawing "creative" conclusions from the results. While I agree with the basic premise of the conclusions from this research project, (I'm a firm believer in the benefits of vitamin D), I am appalled at the methods they used to draw those conclusions.
The results of experiments with one sample group, cannot be claimed to influence the results of another, separate, sample group. IOW, they claim that since removing all data from cancer diagnosed in the first year of a four-year trial, made no statistical difference in the outcome for the group taking vitamin D placebos, while it did make a statistical difference in the outcome of the sample group actually taking a vitamin D supplement; ergo, the vitamin D was responsible for "all" the improvement. That sounds good, (and it even sounds logical), when they say it, but that's pseudo science.
First off, vitamin D wasn't responsible for 60%, or 77% of the improvement, as they infer. The calcium-only group showed a 47% improvement, so the vitamin D was only responsible for a 13%, or a 30% improvement, depending on whether or not you exclude the first year cancer diagnosis data.
Instead of playing games with the "conclusions" from the study, by using twisting logic, they should have just admitted what they were doing, if they wanted to embellish the results. Here's what I think happened:
Personally, I think that the fact that removing the first year of cancer diagnosis data made no difference in the "long-term" benefits for the calcium-only group, implies that the test subjects did something to adversely affect their long-term cancer risks, IOW, they did something that caused their cancer rates to rise, over time, during the four year trial. If that were not the case, then there should have been a 25% improvement indicated, when the first year cancer data were removed from the database, (one year's data, out of four). My guess is that the adverse event that caused this effect was the discontinuance of the sample groups normal vitamin D supplement intake. IOW, I'm guessing that the researchers required that all test subjects discontinue their prior vitamin D supplementation program, so that they, (the researchers), would know exactly how much vitamin D everyone was taking, so that they could accurately report the results. The consequence of this was a time-metered increase in the cancer risk for the calcium-only group, as their stored vitamin D supply, slowly dwindled away.
In reality, of course, the researchers almost certainly should have been aware of this effect, (hell, I spotted it immediately, so surely they were aware of it), but they chose to report it in the way that they did, so as to not tip off the test subjects that they were guinea pigs in a test that might increase their cancer risk. They proved their point, of course, (that vitamin D helps to ward off cancer), but I wouldn't have wanted to be in one of the sample groups without vitamin D.
I may be all wet, with my shade-tree analysis, but how else can you explain the fact that the calcium-only group's cancer risk, actually increased, during the trial?
Love,
Tex
I apologize for being a wet blanket, but it really bugs me that so many "researchers" feel obligated to spoil perfectly good projects, by drawing "creative" conclusions from the results. While I agree with the basic premise of the conclusions from this research project, (I'm a firm believer in the benefits of vitamin D), I am appalled at the methods they used to draw those conclusions.
The results of experiments with one sample group, cannot be claimed to influence the results of another, separate, sample group. IOW, they claim that since removing all data from cancer diagnosed in the first year of a four-year trial, made no statistical difference in the outcome for the group taking vitamin D placebos, while it did make a statistical difference in the outcome of the sample group actually taking a vitamin D supplement; ergo, the vitamin D was responsible for "all" the improvement. That sounds good, (and it even sounds logical), when they say it, but that's pseudo science.
First off, vitamin D wasn't responsible for 60%, or 77% of the improvement, as they infer. The calcium-only group showed a 47% improvement, so the vitamin D was only responsible for a 13%, or a 30% improvement, depending on whether or not you exclude the first year cancer diagnosis data.
Instead of playing games with the "conclusions" from the study, by using twisting logic, they should have just admitted what they were doing, if they wanted to embellish the results. Here's what I think happened:
Personally, I think that the fact that removing the first year of cancer diagnosis data made no difference in the "long-term" benefits for the calcium-only group, implies that the test subjects did something to adversely affect their long-term cancer risks, IOW, they did something that caused their cancer rates to rise, over time, during the four year trial. If that were not the case, then there should have been a 25% improvement indicated, when the first year cancer data were removed from the database, (one year's data, out of four). My guess is that the adverse event that caused this effect was the discontinuance of the sample groups normal vitamin D supplement intake. IOW, I'm guessing that the researchers required that all test subjects discontinue their prior vitamin D supplementation program, so that they, (the researchers), would know exactly how much vitamin D everyone was taking, so that they could accurately report the results. The consequence of this was a time-metered increase in the cancer risk for the calcium-only group, as their stored vitamin D supply, slowly dwindled away.
In reality, of course, the researchers almost certainly should have been aware of this effect, (hell, I spotted it immediately, so surely they were aware of it), but they chose to report it in the way that they did, so as to not tip off the test subjects that they were guinea pigs in a test that might increase their cancer risk. They proved their point, of course, (that vitamin D helps to ward off cancer), but I wouldn't have wanted to be in one of the sample groups without vitamin D.
I may be all wet, with my shade-tree analysis, but how else can you explain the fact that the calcium-only group's cancer risk, actually increased, during the trial?
Love,
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.