Still More Evidence for High Vit. D Levels

[Polly]

Hi All,

Thought this would interest you. Of course, we have been on this bandwagon for some time now, haven't we? The rest of the world is beginning to catch up, finally.

Leading researchers find D intakes too low to consistently curb cancer

Compared to the intake levels thought adequate, researchers at the University of California and Omaha’s Creighton University found that markedly higher intakes of vitamin D are needed to reach blood levels that might cut the incidence of major cancers and other diseases.

While these levels are higher than traditional intakes, they are largely in a range deemed safe for daily use in a December 2010 report from the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine.

“We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4000-8000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases – breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes,” said Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at UC San Diego’s Moores Cancer Center. (UCSD 2011)

“I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high – much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century.” (UCSD 2011)

“This result was what our dose-response studies predicted, but it took a study such as this, of people leading their everyday lives, to confirm it”, said Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University, a distinguished scientist who’s studied vitamin D needs for decades. (UCSD 2011)

Garland, Heaney, and their co-authors analyzed data from a survey of several thousand volunteers who were taking vitamin D supplements in the dosage range from 1000 to 10,000 IU/day. Blood studies were conducted to determine the level of vitamin D circulating in their blood.

“Most scientists who are actively working with vitamin D now believe that 40 to 60 ng/ml is the appropriate target concentration of 25-vitamin D in the blood for preventing the major vitamin D-deficiency related diseases, and have joined in a letter on this topic,” said Garland.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “according a recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, only 10 percent of the US population has levels in this range, mainly people who work outdoors.” (UCSD 2011)

Recommended daily doses found too low ... even after being raised
Last year, a U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee identified 4000 IU per day as a safe supplemental intake level for adults and children nine years and older … with intakes in the range of 1000-3000 IU per day safe for infants and children through eight years of age.

While the IOM committee declared 4000 IU per day a safe dosage, their recommended minimum daily intake was only 600 IU.

“Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU per day,” Garland said. “This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU per day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial.”(UCSD 2011)

Garland added that people who may have contraindications should discuss their vitamin D needs with their family doctor.

“Now is the time for virtually everyone to take more vitamin D to help prevent some major types of cancer, several other serious illnesses, and fractures,” said Heaney. (UCSD 2011)

Polly

[Gloria]

Wow - that's very interesting. We certainly are ahead of the curve, aren't we?

Gloria

[tex]

Thanks, Polly.

As more and more evidence such as this, comes to light, eventually, the naysayers will have to give up, won't they. LOL.

Love,
Tex

[irisheyes13]

This is great news-thanks Polly.

My vitamin D level was 17 ng/ml in mid January and I began taking 7500 IU daily. It was checked again 2 weeks ago and I was at 53 ng/ml.

I think I'm going to get the whole family to add 2000 iu Vitamin D to their supplements asap. The teens are only taking multi vitamins currently. Does anyone have any thoughts as to whether this wouldn't be advisable?

[Polly]

Kelly,

I actually thought of your daughter when I read above that high D levels could reduce the risk of type I diabetes by 50%. Has Logan had a vitamin D level done? I would see no problem with increasing the D doses for your teens, especially with the diabetes risk in your family.

Hugs,

Polly

[Joefnh]

This is a timely topic, I just got back my vitamin D levels. Historically over the past 2 years I have been struggling to get my levels above 27 and at one point in September 2009 it was at 2. For the past 5 months I have been taking 5000 IU / day and was only able to bring my level up to 37.

My GI feels this is mostly due to the Crohns disease as it is active in my jejunum which is the middle portion of the small intestine and is apparently a key area for absorbing nutrients. He also feels this is why I have lost 51 pounds since about a year ago and he is concerned about the constant weight loss.

My current results are:

Vit D - 25 Hydroxy D = 37
25 Hydroxy D2 = 4.6
25 Hydroxy D3 = 32

What are the differences between these 3 measurements and what do they mean? I know I want to work on getting the first number up to at least 50

--Joe

[irisheyes13]

Polly,

When I read the detail regarding vitamin D and the prevention of type 1 diabetes, it cut right through me. I have second guessed so many decisions as a parent over the last couple of weeks to see if there is something I could have done to prevent this but I know there is no benefit in looking back-only doing what I can to prevent diabetes and other autoimmune diseases and cancer in all of them.

I'm still waiting on hard copies of her blood work during her stay in the hospital so I don't know if they checked her Vitamin D level or not. If not, I am going ask her pediatrician if she could check soon for a baseline. They ran celiac and thyroid testing but I don't know the specifics of which tests; only that they were negative.

Thanks for your thoughts on giving the kids higher doses. It makes sense based on the information you posted but your thoughts and professional opinion are even more valued!

[Zizzle]

My young kids (4 and 6) get about 1,000 IU/day from a variety of gummy vitamins, including a specific D3 gummy, although they don't take them every single day. Hubby and I take 2,000 IU plus whatever is in our multi or calcium.

[tex]

Joe,

The first number is simply the total of the other two , (D2 + D3), and it's your total 25(OH)D.

• 25-hydroxy Vitamin D is the major circulating metabolite of the vitamin. It has only modest biological activity, but it is the best indicator of Vitamin D status. It is produced in the liver and is present in the blood in ng/mL quantities.

• 1,25-dihydroxy Vitamin D is the biologically active form of the vitamin. It has very limited usefulness as an indicator of Vitamin D status, but measuring it does have some clinical applications. It is produced in the kidneys and is present in the blood in pg/mL quantities (1000-fold less than 25-hydroxy Vitamin D). The reference range is 15 – 75 pg/mL.

• Both 25-hydroxy Vitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxy Vitamin D come in two forms: D2 and D3. The difference between the D2 and D3 forms is the location of a methyl group in the molecule. D2 is derived from plant sources and D3 is derived from animal sources. Recently published papers suggest there is no clinical benefit in differentiating between the two forms. However, some clinicians like to monitor the levels of 25-hydroxy Vitamin D2 and D3, especially in patients receiving pharmacotherapy.

The red emphasis is mine, of course.

http://www.paml.com/Files/TestUpdates/A ... 0_paml.pdf

Obviously, (except for any rats who might be reading this), taking D3 is preferable to taking D2, as per the results of the study at the following link:

http://www.ajcn.org/content/68/4/854.full.pdf

Tex

[Polly]

Kelly,

Please don't beat yourself up. Type I diabetes in most cases has multifactorial causes - genetic/environmental, and who knows what else? I don't believe that a low vitamin D level can cause D.M. by itself. Also, even if her level is low, that's probably the case for almost every teen. There is no way you would have been expected to have known about this. And it might not have mattered anyway.

Joe,

I'm sure your level has not risen quickly because the vitamin A supplement you are (were?) taking surely interfered with the absorption of the D.

Love,

Polly

[Coach Polly]

Well I'm the one with the doctor that has prescribed the really high dosage of fish oil (13 grams a day!) and his reasoning is the same for what this Vit D study was about. He believes the recommended daily dosages that we all follow for Omega 3 are waaaaay lower that what the average adult needs. He believes everyone should take between 1/2 to 1 gram per 10 lbs of body weight. I know this is just one doc's opinion but you never know!! I'm going to go take some Vitamin D right now.

[tex]

He believes the recommended daily dosages that we all follow for Omega 3 are waaaaay lower that what the average adult needs.

That's probably true, but the problem is that we can't take anywhere near that much fish oil without having D, and for those of us with MC, avoiding having D is our ultimate goal in life, (at least for the short term). The guy advising you to take all that fish oil doesn't have MC, so it's easy for him to talk about lofty goals. Right now, though, the goal of healing our gut is of paramount importance. Long-term goals can be renegotiated later, but for the short-term, we have to worry about eliminating D, for at least a year or two, so that our gut can heal. After that, then we have the freedom to fine-tune our diet for long-term health goals, in whatever ways we see fit.

Fortunately, we can take all the vitamin D we want, (as long as we keep it under an average of about 15,000 IU per day), without running the risk of exacerbating the D.

At least that's the way I see it.

Tex

[sarkin]

Tex,

I like that line of thinking. I recently read a book about the omega oils, focusing on the ratio of n-6s to n-3s. It seems to me that a diet that excludes soy, wheat and other grains/legumes would greatly lower omega-6 intake, so the need for huge fish oil to increase omega-3 would be lower.

Having said that, if I "needed" more fish oil, and more fish oil gave me D, I would wait to up my fish oil till a time when my gut could handle it, and increase slowly with a sharp eye on my symptoms. In fact, I've been feeling pretty good, but far from motivating me to risk upsetting the apple cart, I'm feeling kind of protective of my healing gut.

Even people without MC often have to increase fish oil gradually.

Sara

[Polly]

Hi All,

I know I have said this before but it bears repeating. Too much of ANY oil (even our beloved olive oil) can cause D. Large doses of mineral oil are often used to treat constipation in kiddies. MCers are wise to keep any oil to a minimum, IMHO, at least until the gut is healed.

Love,

Polly

[Joefnh]

I agree Polly, learned that lesson the hard way...

Joe