PDA

View Full Version : Vitamin D and athletic performance.


Talker
12-14-2009, 06:59 PM
I've been keeping an eye on vitamin D for a few years. There's some very strong studies about the benefits. Google "vitamin d benefits".

One of the more interesting articles was the increase of athletic performance, reflexes, jumping height, etc. All of these increased with healthy doses of vitamin D. The old amounts of vitD requirements are being updated, in some cases calling for 10 to 20 times of the old amount (400IU).

Then there are other studies showing greatly reduced cancer rates, diabetes, etc.

Most of these studies have been recent, but others are relatively old but have been ignored.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2007-mar.shtml

One interesting area is the relation of vitD to the common cold, some doctors are saying that with a daily dose of 5000 IU they have not seen any of their patients come down with a cold/flu.

The best way to test your levels is with a 25(OH)D test.
The optimum levels are reported to be 50-80 ng/ml.

Here's another site for athletic performance.
http://www.tmuscle.com/free_online_article/sports_body_training_performance_nutrition/d_is_for_doping

charliefedererer
12-15-2009, 07:42 AM
Vitamin D usually is made naturally in the body by a process where sunlight converts a cholesteral-like molecule into Vitamin D.
Vitamin D deficiencies are becoming more common as more and more people intentionally avoid the sun, are using sunscreens or just stay inside working and playing on their electronic devices.
Also, with the widespread availability of Vitamin D testing, it has become better appreciated just how many have suboptimal levels of Vitamin D.
Vitamin D is not in many foods, although some is added to milk and it is plentiful in fish like salmon.
But my whole family supplements their Vitamin D intake with a daily multivitamin and a calcium/Vitamin D tablet.

Talker
12-15-2009, 08:46 AM
Usually in the summer around midday we can make 10,000 or so IU's of D, this is the natural amount made. Evolution had a good reason for making this amount.
-
If you had time to read the studies, there is a measurable increase in athletic performance.
Not to mention huge declines in many major diseases (cancers, diabetes, cardiovascular).
I take 8,000IU a day.
People need more if their overweight, dark skin, older.
It is very safe, some people have taken 50,000 IU a day for years. Everyone is different.
Always good to take calcium, magnesium and zinc, they go together well.

El Diablo
12-15-2009, 10:12 AM
One needs to remember that the fat soluble vitamins (A D E K) are stored in your body fat rather than readily excreted, so accumulation and toxicity can result from taking too much. High D levels can cause bone loss and kidney problems. Because of the fat storage and absence of a perfect equilibrium in going from fat to plasma, blood levels may not accurately reflect body levels.

OHBH
12-15-2009, 10:45 AM
One needs to remember that the fat soluble vitamins (A D E K) are stored in your body fat rather than readily excreted, so accumulation and toxicity can result from taking too much. High D levels can cause bone loss and kidney problems. Because of the fat storage and absence of a perfect equilibrium in going from fat to plasma, blood levels may not accurately reflect body levels.

Somebody is making sense over here. Basically what my old nutrition professor said. Vitamins can't do everything for you, no pill is going to make everything better.

r2473
12-15-2009, 12:06 PM
no pill is going to make everything better.

That's just crazy talk :)

Talker
12-15-2009, 01:42 PM
Somebody is making sense over here. Basically what my old nutrition professor said. Vitamins can't do everything for you, no pill is going to make everything better.

Water won't make everything better either.
I wouldn't listen to one old nutrition professor either.
Check out the studies, use the internet, there's a lot of new information that even your doctor may not know about.

One needs to remember that the fat soluble vitamins (A D E K) are stored in your body fat rather than readily excreted, so accumulation and toxicity can result from taking too much. High D levels can cause bone loss and kidney problems. Because of the fat storage and absence of a perfect equilibrium in going from fat to plasma, blood levels may not accurately reflect body levels.

Blood levels is the standard used always. You won't see any research done without stating blood levels.

But you are right, too much of anything can be toxic, even water.

High vit.D levels can cause bone loss if your calcium intake is VERY low.
It's best taken with calcium, magnesium, zinc and evein vitamin K.
There has never been a case of anyone dying from it however.
You can get up to 20,000 IU a day around the equater and people do and have for thousands of years with no ill effect.

Of course one pill won't help everything, but Vit. D does an amazing amout of things, don't ask me. Google "vitamin D benefits". Note the date on the articles too, it has been only lately that some solid science has been done.

Talker
12-20-2009, 09:27 PM
Other vitamin D news.



257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the United States were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels.


Cancer deaths due to inadequate vitamin D levels

The first San Diego speaker was Dr. William Grant. Since leaving NASA to begin a full-time career as a vitamin D researcher, Bill has published dozens of studies and has another dozen in the works. Using ecological studies (from Greek oikos: house + German -logie: study, or studying your own house) of UVB irradiance and cancer, Bill reported that 15 cancers (colon, esophageal, gallbladder, gastric, pancreatic, rectal, small intestinal, bladder, kidney, prostate, breast, endometrial, ovarian, Hodgkin's lymphoma, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) are associated with lower UVB light. He concluded that 257,000 cancer deaths in 2007 in the United States were accounted for by inadequate vitamin D levels. Of course the problem with ecological studies is that its easy to be vitamin D deficient in Miami, all you have to do is listen to your doctor's advice and stay out of the sun. Recently, a group from the Arizona Cancer Center found almost 80% of Arizonians had levels below 30 ng/mL. So much for sunny spots.

Full report here.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-may.shtml

WildVolley
12-20-2009, 10:04 PM
I'm going to side with the pro-Vitamin D people. It would be nice to have better studies, but the correlations found so far are intriguing. And the overwhelming majority of people don't have hypersensitivity to vitamin D.

It probably makes sense to supplement Vitamin D in the winter if you live much north of the latitude of Los Angeles (35North), as you probably aren't getting any from the sun. Vitamin D3 is inexpensive, too.

I've started supplementing it and I play some without my shirt in the summer to naturally produce more. I still haven't had a blood test, but I'd be interested to see what my blood levels are.

Tennis_Monk
12-21-2009, 04:18 AM
I am one of those that benefited from Vitamin D supplements. Until 07-08, i used to be extremely agile, fast, fit and etc in sports (tennis included). Towards late 08, i have developed some kind of problem. The only symptoms are that my knees feel energy less and even when i am not playing i feel nagging pain. Knees are like wheels and with it my sports performance took a nose dive.

I often used to take Tylenol before i played sports. I originally thought this was some allergy related and did all sorts of analysis.in early 2009, a blood test was followed by a recommendation to use Vitamin D + calcium supplement. Fast forward 6 months and i am back to normal.

mary fierce
12-21-2009, 07:04 AM
Data associating vitamin deficiency with an illness like cancer are notoriously problematic, since cancer often decreases appetite and thus various vitamin levels.

Talker
12-21-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm going to side with the pro-Vitamin D people. It would be nice to have better studies, but the correlations found so far are intriguing. And the overwhelming majority of people don't have hypersensitivity to vitamin D.

It probably makes sense to supplement Vitamin D in the winter if you live much north of the latitude of Los Angeles (35North), as you probably aren't getting any from the sun. Vitamin D3 is inexpensive, too.

I've started supplementing it and I play some without my shirt in the summer to naturally produce more. I still haven't had a blood test, but I'd be interested to see what my blood levels are.


I haven't had mine tested either. Basically nothing is guaranteed but it seems to be a safe bet. I've checked out 100's of studies already.
With most drugs, the more studies the more side effects found.
Just the opposite here, only more benefits are being found.
Some multi vitamins now have 2000 IU.

Tennis_Monk:
Always good to hear stories like that about my fellow tennis players.
I got all my relations up to date on it too, I think their tired of me talking about it though. :)

WildVolley
12-21-2009, 07:29 AM
Data associating vitamin deficiency with an illness like cancer are notoriously problematic, since cancer often decreases appetite and thus various vitamin levels.

Good point. But many of these studies are more general epidemiological studies that are looking at large populations and then trying to find statistical correlations. Correlation isn't causation, the quality of your data really matters, you might not be tracking relevant factors, etc. The studies seem to suggest that populations with lower Vitamin D blood levels have a higher incidence of cancer and heart disease. I'd hope that the researchers would attempt to control for the known cancer rate.

So the relationship isn't proven (I'd prefer to see a matched identical twin study or something, a double-blind placebo study, or even a longer term supplementation tracking study) but it is probably worth getting an blood test if you think you might be low on Vitamin D.

The anti-vitamin D crowd is driven by the dermatologists and the sun-block industry who freak out over any advice that people need some sunlight on their skin.

Talker
12-21-2009, 07:42 AM
Data associating vitamin deficiency with an illness like cancer are notoriously problematic, since cancer often decreases appetite and thus various vitamin levels.

It does decrease appetite, and not really that much of a problem because vitamin D is not found in hardly any foods to a meaningful degree.

You get vitamin D from sun (UVB) or supplements.
With those who already have cancer, given meaningful amounts of vitamin D greatly increases survival rates.
Little comes from the diet as opposed to a lot of other vitamins.

El Diablo
12-21-2009, 08:50 AM
A larger percentage comes from diet in industrialized nations as a consequence of less sun exposure.

Soul
12-21-2009, 08:51 AM
Another vitamin D3 fan here. Don't have much to add to what has already said, other than I've been taking between 6000 to 8000 ius of D3 a day for a couple years and feel great for it. That amount keeps my D3 testing level between 60 to 70 ng/ml year round. My tennis play has never been better.

I just received a brief e-mail from Dr Cannell's vitamin D3 news letter the other day. Thought to post it here:

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December 19, 2009.



Everyone should read the January editorial by Bill Faloon of Life Extension Foundation:

Faloon B: Millions of Needless Deaths, Life Extension Magazine, January, 2009

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/jan2009_Millions-of-Needless-Deaths_01.htm


Also, please note the new address below.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

1241 Johnson Ave. # 134

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

EikelBeiter
12-21-2009, 09:03 AM
how much would 2000 iu be in micrograms miligrams? Supplements around here don't use iu's.

Talker
12-21-2009, 09:53 AM
how much would 2000 iu be in micrograms miligrams? Supplements around here don't use iu's.

40 IU = 1 mcg (microgram)
so 2000IU = 50 mcg.

Talker
12-21-2009, 10:00 AM
Another vitamin D3 fan here. Don't have much to add to what has already said, other than I've been taking between 6000 to 8000 ius of D3 a day for a couple years and feel great for it. That amount keeps my D3 testing level between 60 to 70 ng/ml year round. My tennis play has never been better.

I just received a brief e-mail from Dr Cannell's vitamin D3 news letter the other day. Thought to post it here:

The Vitamin D Newsletter

December 19, 2009.



Everyone should read the January editorial by Bill Faloon of Life Extension Foundation:
Faloon B: Millions of Needless Deaths, Life Extension Magazine, January, 2009

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/jan2009_Millions-of-Needless-Deaths_01.htm


Also, please note the new address below.

John Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D Council

1241 Johnson Ave. # 134

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

I've read it, the evidence is astounding and increasing daily.

Here's the latest from the life extension foundation, a not for profit organization.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/dec2009_So-Many-Needless-Cancer-Deaths_01.htm

EikelBeiter
12-21-2009, 10:15 AM
40 IU = 1 mcg (microgram)
so 2000IU = 50 mcg.

hmm, the softgels I can buy are 5 mcg each. It would feel like taking an overdose if I have to shove down 10 softgels down my throat every day :)

MNPlayer
12-21-2009, 12:45 PM
I've read it, the evidence is astounding and increasing daily.

Here's the latest from the life extension foundation, a not for profit organization.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/dec2009_So-Many-Needless-Cancer-Deaths_01.htm

Here's a quote from that article:
"Suzanne Somers Exposes the Cancer Establishment’s Failings"

I was skeptical before. But with experts like Suzanne Somers on the case, I'm sold.

El Diablo
12-21-2009, 12:53 PM
The vitamin D council website seems to be missing something -- a council. He lists other scientists who do research in Vit D but what is the "council"? There is of course a way to send money (Paypal accepted).

Kevin T
12-21-2009, 01:14 PM
Don't worry, everyone. Next year there will be a new "super vitamin" and "super food". I'm going with Vitamin K (since I'm Kevin). I mean, it's involved in blood clotting so who knows what else it's capable of! My new "super food" is the lowly rutabaga. You'll start to see rutabaga shakes, bars, concentrated pills, a la acai/pomegranates/blueberries/etc. Just like my old mentor in grad school used to say..."the reason there's a new diet every year is because the last one didn't work". You could apply the same logic to vitamins/minerals/super foods.

jswinf
12-21-2009, 01:26 PM
How about Kale or Kumquats or special-K or sourKraut or...? Actually kale is a monsterly-nutritious food, but it's hard to figure out what to do with it.

WildVolley
12-21-2009, 01:29 PM
Don't worry, everyone. Next year there will be a new "super vitamin" and "super food". I'm going with Vitamin K (since I'm Kevin). ...Just like my old mentor in grad school used to say..."the reason there's a new diet every year is because the last one didn't work". You could apply the same logic to vitamins/minerals/super foods.

It's fine to be skeptical, but there is a real problem with vitamins as potential cures - that is they are not patentable.

The pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions testing new drugs for FDA approval in the US. Does that mean that they are better than very inexpensive vitamins? No. Vitamins are less studied because they are inexpensive and publicly available. Expensive studies can't be recovered in terms of higher profits if they favorably show the effects of vitamins.

All we have to go on is available information and personal judgment. I'm willing to supplement D3 because it is inexpensive and potentially helpful. During the summer I don't supplement because there's plenty of sun in Southern California.

In the end, most people aren't great at judging whether a food or vegetable is good for their health. Most nutritionists still believe that getting nine servings of vegetables and fruit a day prolongs life and helps with health, yet most people don't even make an effort.

On the other hand, people often feel great on Meth, but the evidence it destroys your body is all too visible.

Talker
12-21-2009, 01:41 PM
A larger percentage comes from diet in industrialized nations as a consequence of less sun exposure.

Do you have a link to your source?

El Diablo
12-21-2009, 01:45 PM
The notion that compounds that are not patentable are kept from us is enticing but unsupported by the evidence. Lithium carbonate is found in nature and could not be patented but has been available from drug companies for over 40 years for bipolar disorder (though some believe it might have come to market a little quicker had it been patentable.) Digoxin, an extract of the foxglove plant, similarly occurs in nature but has been a mainstay of cardiac treatment since long before any of us was born.

Talker
12-21-2009, 01:59 PM
Here's a quote from that article:
"Suzanne Somers Exposes the Cancer Establishment’s Failings"

I was skeptical before. But with experts like Suzanne Somers on the case, I'm sold.

I guess you didn't read the article, it has little to do with vitamins.

This is a more broadbased article about the ingrained cancer establishment and ways to improve it.

r2473
12-21-2009, 02:07 PM
It's fine to be skeptical, but there is a real problem with vitamins as potential cures - that is they are not patentable.

It's all in the marketing, baby!!!

http://shop.usana.com/shop/jsp/onlineServices/shop/products/ProductsByCategory.jsp?ts=1261433655423&sessionId=C7169837A496669D69DFAEC473DAEF7D.worker3

http://www.nuskin.com/nuskin/us/en/products/pharmanex1/nutritionals.html

MNPlayer
12-21-2009, 02:14 PM
It's fine to be skeptical, but there is a real problem with vitamins as potential cures - that is they are not patentable.

The pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions testing new drugs for FDA approval in the US. Does that mean that they are better than very inexpensive vitamins? No. Vitamins are less studied because they are inexpensive and publicly available. Expensive studies can't be recovered in terms of higher profits if they favorably show the effects of vitamins.

All we have to go on is available information and personal judgment. I'm willing to supplement D3 because it is inexpensive and potentially helpful. During the summer I don't supplement because there's plenty of sun in Southern California.

In the end, most people aren't great at judging whether a food or vegetable is good for their health. Most nutritionists still believe that getting nine servings of vegetables and fruit a day prolongs life and helps with health, yet most people don't even make an effort.

On the other hand, people often feel great on Meth, but the evidence it destroys your body is all too visible.

I would feel better about these things if all the "information" which people have posted here was not produced by folks selling vitamins ("non-profit" or not).

Talker
12-21-2009, 02:17 PM
The notion that compounds that are not patentable are kept from us is enticing but unsupported by the evidence. Lithium carbonate is found in nature and could not be patented but has been available from drug companies for over 40 years for bipolar disorder (though some believe it might have come to market a little quicker had it been patentable.) Digoxin, an extract of the foxglove plant, similarly occurs in nature but has been a mainstay of cardiac treatment since long before any of us was born.

There are always exceptions, many cardiac doctors are recommending COQ-10 to patients now, as well as omega 3's found in fish oils.
This is good, a move in the right direction.

Talker
12-21-2009, 02:24 PM
I would feel better about these things if all the "information" which people have posted here was not produced by folks selling vitamins ("non-profit" or not).


I had a some links, some from prestigeous journals, some from Harvard medical. There are now so many I can't keep up.
They are coming in from everywhere around the world and saying the same thing.

I completely understand any skeptism, it took me over a year of reading reports to finally be convinced.
My problem was that everyone claims something to be great and it flops.
It has happened so many times.
So, just keep in touch with it.
The cost is ridiculously low, I bought 100 (5,000IU) pills for five dollars.

WildVolley
12-21-2009, 02:28 PM
I would feel better about these things if all the "information" which people have posted here was not produced by folks selling vitamins ("non-profit" or not).

It's not difficult these days to do a google search and get descriptions of research by scientists and physicians and there are a number of peer-reviewed nutritional journals.

The potential conflict of interest problem with vitamin sellers is not unique. It exists for the pharmaceutical manufacturers and for doctors. It's actually disheartening to look at the studies and see how little effect some of the best selling pharmaceuticals (e.g., statins) have on disease. Doctors make more money by convincing you more treatment is needed.

One of my favorite vitamin D researchers is Dr. Hollick from Boston University, but critics will note that he has taken money from the tanning industry. On the other hand, many of his critics have taken money from the sun block industry.

As Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Or in this case, you pay your money and take your chances.:)

Talker
12-21-2009, 02:39 PM
Don't worry, everyone. Next year there will be a new "super vitamin" and "super food". I'm going with Vitamin K (since I'm Kevin). I mean, it's involved in blood clotting so who knows what else it's capable of! My new "super food" is the lowly rutabaga. You'll start to see rutabaga shakes, bars, concentrated pills, a la acai/pomegranates/blueberries/etc. Just like my old mentor in grad school used to say..."the reason there's a new diet every year is because the last one didn't work". You could apply the same logic to vitamins/minerals/super foods.

Kevin, I understand where your coming from, there has been so many scams for the self interest of making money.
William Faloon has sent a letter to the president to go on the air for a half an hour to declare a national emergency. All of this about the damage of low vitamin D and disease related to it.
In every article he writes he has numerous references to the research to back it up, from respected sources. I've followed this guy for years, he only wants to end a lot of needless suffering.

I'm only asking to keep yourself open on the issue.

MNPlayer
12-21-2009, 02:39 PM
I had a some links, some from prestigeous journals, some from Harvard medical. There are now so many I can't keep up.
They are coming in from everywhere around the world and saying the same thing.

I completely understand any skeptism, it took me over a year of reading reports to finally be convinced.
My problem was that everyone claims something to be great and it flops.
It has happened so many times.
So, just keep in touch with it.
The cost is ridiculously low, I bought 100 (5,000IU) pills for five dollars.

If you have read the original research in the medical journals and arrived at your conclusions based on that, I definately respect that. Most people just swallow the marketing.

Usually what happens with these things is that a study finds some effect related to a vitamin or whatever under some fairly narrow circumstances, and the people selling that product exaggerate the study or misinterpret it far beyond all reason.

Or, because journalists usually have little scientific training, the media encourages these massive shifts in public opinion (i.e. margarine is good, margarine is bad, etc). Reality is a little more subtle.

Soul
12-21-2009, 02:51 PM
Just making the Dr blog rounds this evening and saw Dr Eades had a link to a new small weight loss study with vitamin D3 called "Can you tan your self thin?". it can be seen at.

http://twitter.com/DrEades

And talking about heart disease specialists, Dr Davis a cardiologist with a successful track record of stopping plaque growth in his patients uses vitamin D3 as one of his main tools for fighting heart disease.
Here are the doctors latest blog writings on the sunshine vitamin.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/search/label/vitamin%20D

MNPlayer
12-21-2009, 02:56 PM
It's not difficult these days to do a google search and get descriptions of research by scientists and physicians and there are a number of peer-reviewed nutritional journals.

The potential conflict of interest problem with vitamin sellers is not unique. It exists for the pharmaceutical manufacturers and for doctors. It's actually disheartening to look at the studies and see how little effect some of the best selling pharmaceuticals (e.g., statins) have on disease. Doctors make more money by convincing you more treatment is needed.

One of my favorite vitamin D researchers is Dr. Hollick from Boston University, but critics will note that he has taken money from the tanning industry. On the other hand, many of his critics have taken money from the sun block industry.

As Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." Or in this case, you pay your money and take your chances.:)

You can't really compare pharmaceuticals to vitamins or other supplement products. Although there is a conflict of interest just as you say, new drugs must also pass a fairly rigorous standard set by the FDA for efficacy and safety. It usually takes years to get a new drug on the market, and the claims that can be made about it are narrowly constrained.

Supplement manufacturers make all kinds of fishy claims about their products and are barely regulated at all. They have sold some pretty dangerous stuff (i.e. ephedra) under this regime, just because it's "natural".

Talker
12-21-2009, 02:57 PM
If you have read the original research in the medical journals and arrived at your conclusions based on that, I definately respect that. Most people just swallow the marketing.

Usually what happens with these things is that a study finds some effect related to a vitamin or whatever under some fairly narrow circumstances, and the people selling that product exaggerate the study or misinterpret it far beyond all reason.

Or, because journalists usually have little scientific training, the media encourages these massive shifts in public opinion (i.e. margarine is good, margarine is bad, etc). Reality is a little more subtle.


I can't say your wrong, all I can really do is ask to keep an open mind.
As of now the medical community are considering upping the level required based on the research, at least in the USA. What this means is that the research is convincing.

MNPlayer
12-21-2009, 03:04 PM
I can't say your wrong, all I can really do is ask to keep an open mind.
As of now the medical community are considering upping the level required based on the research, at least in the USA. What this means is that the research is convincing.

Do you have a reference for this? I would be curious what kind of change they are talking about. I assume you mean the RDA numbers...

Talker
12-21-2009, 03:09 PM
Do you have a reference for this? I would be curious what kind of change they are talking about. I assume you mean the RDA numbers...

I'll try find the link, yes the RDA numbers.

Here's one link I found. using google "vitamin d rda increase".
This is one of the first links that came up.

http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/01200454472009_How_much_vitamin_D_should_be_recomm ended.shtml

Soul
12-21-2009, 03:12 PM
I've read it, the evidence is astounding and increasing daily.

Here's the latest from the life extension foundation, a not for profit organization.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/dec2009_So-Many-Needless-Cancer-Deaths_01.htm

Yeah, I liked it. Thanks for the article link. I don't normally read LE's articles, but know that one of my favorite doctors writes there from time to time.

Kevin T
12-21-2009, 04:30 PM
Kevin, I understand where your coming from, there has been so many scams for the self interest of making money.
William Faloon has sent a letter to the president to go on the air for a half an hour to declare a national emergency. All of this about the damage of low vitamin D and disease related to it.
In every article he writes he has numerous references to the research to back it up, from respected sources. I've followed this guy for years, he only wants to end a lot of needless suffering.

I'm only asking to keep yourself open on the issue.

I'm always open but always skeptical. This is my field and I"ve been researching and teaching nutrition for nearly 10 years now. I don't get that excited about a hanful of studies...but I do get excited about dozens of well-done, placebo-controlled, double blind studies. I eat well, so I haven't taken vitamins in years. It's hard to link specific nutrients to cancer rates/etc. because it's so multi-factorial. The one thing I DO KNOW is that any time you megadose one vitamin or mineral, you are diminishing the activity/effectiveness of another (possible multiple) vitamin/mineral. The human body likes balance.

Many studies looking at entire populations note that decreased sun exposure/decreased vitamin D=increased rates of heart disease and colon cancer. Less sunlight= usually colder = tend to eat high fat/high animal product/high dairy/low fruit and veg diets with limited activity. People in warmer climates tend to eat less total fat/dairy/animal products/more fruit and veg/more activity. More studies are coming out and the recs will likely be increased. Definitely promising but I'm not holding my breath.

Talker
12-21-2009, 10:43 PM
I'm always open but always skeptical. This is my field and I"ve been researching and teaching nutrition for nearly 10 years now. I don't get that excited about a hanful of studies...but I do get excited about dozens of well-done, placebo-controlled, double blind studies. I eat well, so I haven't taken vitamins in years. It's hard to link specific nutrients to cancer rates/etc. because it's so multi-factorial. The one thing I DO KNOW is that any time you megadose one vitamin or mineral, you are diminishing the activity/effectiveness of another (possible multiple) vitamin/mineral. The human body likes balance.
Many studies looking at entire populations note that decreased sun exposure/decreased vitamin D=increased rates of heart disease and colon cancer. Less sunlight= usually colder = tend to eat high fat/high animal product/high dairy/low fruit and veg diets with limited activity. People in warmer climates tend to eat less total fat/dairy/animal products/more fruit and veg/more activity. More studies are coming out and the recs will likely be increased. Definitely promising but I'm not holding my breath.

Sounds like a great profession, interesting too.

Just wanted to add that though it's called vitamin D it is not a vitamin, it ends up being a powerful hormone.

And true that the body likes balance, at least the balance that has been the norm for thousands of years.
The norm being that evolution has set up a system to produce plenty of vitamin D which has been cut short.

Our ancient ancestors moved from around the equator where sun is plentiful, generating up to 20,000 IU a day.
This is where it seems evolution set up the need for vitamin D. And when we moved away from the equator the skin became whiter and was able to absorb more of this vitamin easier from the sun. Apparantly there was a good reason for this.

Dark skinned people have a tough time in northern climates getting this vitamin from the sun, proven from blood tests, and their cancer rates and other problem areas are much higher.
All the evidence is interlinked and fitting together nicely, very little or none contradicting evidence.

This is the imbalance we have now, vitamin D levels are too low as compared to the levels of 1000's of years past. At least that's the theory out there now.

We can wait for 10 years to see what happens to be sure.
That's up to the individual and I have no problem with that, I'm on the bandwagon myself.

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 08:26 AM
Sounds like a great profession, interesting too.

Just wanted to add that though it's called vitamin D it is not a vitamin, it ends up being a powerful hormone.

And true that the body likes balance, at least the balance that has been the norm for thousands of years.
The norm being that evolution has set up a system to produce plenty of vitamin D which has been cut short.

Our ancient ancestors moved from around the equator where sun is plentiful, generating up to 20,000 IU a day.
This is where it seems evolution set up the need for vitamin D. And when we moved away from the equator the skin became whiter and was able to absorb more of this vitamin easier from the sun. Apparantly there was a good reason for this.

Dark skinned people have a tough time in northern climates getting this vitamin from the sun, proven from blood tests, and their cancer rates and other problem areas are much higher.
All the evidence is interlinked and fitting together nicely, very little or none contradicting evidence.

This is the imbalance we have now, vitamin D levels are too low as compared to the levels of 1000's of years past. At least that's the theory out there now.

We can wait for 10 years to see what happens to be sure.
That's up to the individual and I have no problem with that, I'm on the bandwagon myself.

It's actually a "prohormone" with no hormonal activity until conversion to active hormone 1, 25-D. Man has been living in cold climates for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (depending on whose fossil record you believe) which is plenty of time for genetic adaptation. Man's life expectancy was also much shorter then, only ~35-40 years as late as 1800. Chronic diseases/most cancers/heart disease generally don't talk hold by then. There is zero comparison. That's the problem with bogus diet plans like the Paleo diet (not to mention the fact that archaeological evidence shows that early man did eat a number of high carb foods and did suffer from the same dental carries we do)...we were kicking the bucket far earlier because of a much harder/stressful life, not because of chronic disease. The human body also reaches equillibrium at ~20 minutes UV sunlight exposure (light-skinned people). After that, any D produced is basically degraded/broken down.

If you and the longevity institute want a lifespan increasing diet, go with calorie restriction. Lab rats fed low kcal/low macro and micronutrient diets live much longer than normally fed or overfed rats.

We've been here before. Anyone remember the Vitamin E craze? Selenium? Vitamin C? As I said, the Vitamin D research looks promising and I have no doubt the DRI/RDI/RDA/whatever you want to use will be increased.

ollinger
12-22-2009, 08:57 AM
Actually, we were "kicking the bucket" earlier back then not so much because life was harder, but because of infection, which commonly killed children and young adults as well as the elders. Antibiotics didn't exist until the middle of the 20th century.

ollinger
12-22-2009, 09:06 AM
Ah, the vitamin E craze. Every double blind study I'm aware of has shown no longevity, anti-cancer, or anti-heart disease effect, and at least one study showed a SHORTER longevity in the 400 IU vitamin E group, most likely because of a bleeding diathesis.

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 09:11 AM
Actually, we were "kicking the bucket" earlier back then not so much because life was harder, but because of infection, which commonly killed children and young adults as well as the elders. Antibiotics didn't exist until the middle of the 20th century.

True, but I don't think megadoses of D were going to cure TB, pneumonia, smallpox, influenza, typhoid. And I would say poor hygiene, access to clean water, malnutrition/undernutrition, back-breaking labor, poor sewage management and inadequate shelter and heat would all qualify as "life was harder". At least by my metro-sexual standards. :)

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 09:13 AM
Ah, the vitamin E craze. Every double blind study I'm aware of has shown no longevity, anti-cancer, or anti-heart disease effect, and at least one study showed a SHORTER longevity in the 400 IU vitamin E group, most likely because of a bleeding diathesis.

Yep. And Selenium was going to make us skinnier and cure diabetes. And megadoses of Vitamin C were going to cure the common cold. :)

Soul
12-22-2009, 09:25 AM
It's actually a "prohormone" with no hormonal activity until conversion to active hormone 1, 25-D. Man has been living in cold climates for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years (depending on whose fossil record you believe) which is plenty of time for genetic adaptation. Man's life expectancy was also much shorter then, only ~35-40 years as late as 1800. Chronic diseases/most cancers/heart disease generally don't talk hold by then. There is zero comparison. That's the problem with bogus diet plans like the Paleo diet (not to mention the fact that archaeological evidence shows that early man did eat a number of high carb foods and did suffer from the same dental carries we do)...we were kicking the bucket far earlier because of a much harder/stressful life, not because of chronic disease. The human body also reaches equillibrium at ~20 minutes UV sunlight exposure (light-skinned people). After that, any D produced is basically degraded/broken down.

If you and the longevity institute want a lifespan increasing diet, go with calorie restriction. Lab rats fed low kcal/low macro and micronutrient diets live much longer than normally fed or overfed rats.

We've been here before. Anyone remember the Vitamin E craze? Selenium? Vitamin C? As I said, the Vitamin D research looks promising and I have no doubt the DRI/RDI/RDA/whatever you want to use will be increased.

Woo, hold de horses, early man had dental problems? I saw recently the information on Egyptian mummies being found to have aortic atherosclerosis, and dental issues but then again Egyptians 1000 years ago ate a diet similar to what we eat today. Egyptians grew grains, ate breads and honey, along with dried fruits, etc.

The Weston Price Foundation has found malocclusion and other dental issues to be rare in hunter gather societies - the paleo diet. Dr Guyenet has a nice summery of the data that is out there on dental issues concerning paleo cultures verses grain eating at:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/malocclusion-disease-of-civilization.html

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 09:35 AM
Woo, hold de horses, early man had dental problems? I saw recently the information on Egyptian mummies being found to have aortic atherosclerosis, and dental issues but then again Egyptians 1000 years ago ate a diet similar to what we eat today. Egyptians grew grains, ate breads and honey, along with dried fruits, etc.

The Weston Price Foundation has found malocclusion and other dental issues to be rare in hunter gather societies - the paleo diet. Dr Guyenet has a nice summery of the data that is out there on dental issues concerning paleo cultures verses grain eating at:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/malocclusion-disease-of-civilization.html

The Weston Price Foundation has been debunked a million times. They have zero credibility in the academic/research community. Part of my graduate training involved nutritional anthropology and I have a BS in anthropology. Carbs from berries, fruits, roots and tubers have been found in numerous fire pits/sites related to hunter-gatherer man.

Just one example from the American Dental Association.

http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/642

Soul
12-22-2009, 09:57 AM
The Weston Price Foundation has been debunked a million times. They have zero credibility in the academic/research community. Part of my graduate training involved nutritional anthropology and I have a BS in anthropology. Carbs from berries, fruits, roots and tubers have been found in numerous fire pits/sites related to hunter-gatherer man.

Just one example from the American Dental Association.

http://jada.ada.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/642

Interesting, to be honest I had not heard that before. Thanks the information.

Here is another article, this one from Dr Eades that supports my position that hunter gathers, who walked in the sun all day, were healthier than when man began growing grains. In your anthropology work have you seen the same weak bone issues mentioned in this article?

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

I can saw from my own experience, I had many dental issues growing up. Nearly every tooth has a cavity. It was not until I began taking vitamin D3 and eating a paleo diet that my dental health changed for the better. After making the changes, truly my dentist became amazed at how healthy my gums and teeth became. Last visit with Dr Hill, he really seemed to be in shock and asked many questions of what I did.

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 10:24 AM
Interesting, to be honest I had not heard that before. Thanks the information.

Here is another article, this one from Dr Eades that supports my position that hunter gathers, who walked in the sun all day, were healthier than when man began growing grains. In your anthropology work have you seen the same weak bone issues mentioned in this article?

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-diets/nutrition-and-health-in-agriculturalists-and-hunter-gatherers/

I can saw from my own experience, I had many dental issues growing up. Nearly every tooth has a cavity. It was not until I began taking vitamin D3 and eating a paleo diet that my dental health changed for the better. After making the changes, truly my dentist became amazed at how healthy my gums and teeth became. Last visit with Dr Hill, he really seemed to be in shock and asked many questions of what I did.


I read Protein Power probably 15 years ago, so I'm not totally up on it. It's definitely not a diet I would recommend long term and I can't name a single athlete that successfully follows a paleo/protein power/Atkins-type diet. There are so many variables that could have affected the two tribes mentioned in the link...famine, outbreak of disease, flood, war, who knows. The tribes are separated by 3500 years, so it's not a true "all things being equal" comparison. It's also a single study. One thing the bulk of worldwide research shows is that man's lifespan and quality of life improved when he/she switched to an agricultural lifestyle. High protein diets work for some people but they are not idea/sustainable on a global scale.

Soul
12-22-2009, 11:33 AM
Hahah, well our paleo ancestor's might have been formable athletes.

From Dr Briffa's blog:

http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/page/13/

Could our ancient ancestors have given today’s champion athletes a run for their money?


Anyone familiar with my health ‘philosophy’ will know that I am a big believer in using our ancient past to inform our modern-day dietary and lifestyle habits. Logic dictates that, say, the foods we’ve eaten for longest in terms of our time on this planet are the foods that we’re generally going to be the best adapted to, and are therefore the best foods for us. But this is not just theory, because there is abundant scientific evidence, I think, which demonstrates that ‘primal foods’ such as meat, fish, eggs, fruit, vegetables, nuts and seeds are genuinely the healthiest foodstuffs on offer. Relative nutritional newcomers (such as refined sugar and vegetables oils, grain and milk), are not.

One question that often comes up from this concept concerns longevity. If our ancient ancestors ate so well back then, how come the average life expectancy was a fraction of what it is now? The explanation probably relates to the fact that life was a precarious business for our early ancestors, with weather conditions, predatory animals, accidents and infectious diseases being much more likely causes of death then than they tend to be now.

One could argue that a better judge of the health effects of our early diet is its apparent impact on health. We know, for example, that dental disease was rare until we morphed from hunter-gatherers to growers of crops and herders of animals about 10,000 years ago. It was at this time that our ancestors also experienced a sudden drop in height (of about 4-6 inches/10-15 cm).

What other clues do we have, though, regarding the health of primitive hunter-gatherers?

Earlier this week I came across a newspaper piece here about a book written by Australian anthropologist Peter McAllister. This book – entitled Manthropology - makes the claim that our ancient ancestors were stronger, faster and altogether healthier than we are now. For example, Cro-Magnon man from 30,000-40,000 years ago was, apparently, bigger physically and bigger-brained too compared to modern-day man.

Peter McAllister also draws our attention to the presence of 20,000 year-old footprints in the Australian outback, analysis of which reveals that ancient Aboriginals were capable of running at 23 miles an hour – a speed close to the World’s most accomplished sprinters. This feat, bear in mind, was achieved in bare feet (not spikes), on soft ground (not a running track), and with (we assume) no formal sprint training. The suggestion here is that our ancient ancestors were blessed with physical attributes that meant they would not only give Usain Bolt (Olympic champion and World record holder over 100 and 200 metres) a run for his money, but might even beat him at a canter.

It seems that McAllister attributes the relative frailty of modern-day man, at least in part, to the industrial revolution, and the fact that this led to a general reduction in the need for strenuous physical work and activity. Of more interest to me, however, is McAllister’s assertion that a more ancient turning point in the physical fortunes of our species came when we invented farming – an event he describes as “the worst mistake in the history of the human race.” I’m inclined to agree with McAllister: what may appear at first sight to have been a leap forward in terms of the development of human civilisation, may well have been a huge retrograde step in terms of our health and wellbeing.

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 11:53 AM
I heard that piece on NPR last month. Changing from hunting and gathering to an agricultural lifestyle is the reason we're on this message board, gone to the moon, live to our 80's, drive cars, talk on cell phones, developed modern medicine, you name it. Hunter-gatherer cultures don't have an excellent track record of advancing civilization.

Soul
12-22-2009, 12:47 PM
I don't think anyone is advocating that we go back to a hunter gather life style completely. And when you look at history right now we are lucky to be living during a time of cheap energy. Once the oil runs out what is going to feed the crops? What about the top soil blowing away, or the pollution pesticides and herbicides create? There is a dead zone the size of New Jersey at the mouth of the Mississippi right now. There are areas of he world have too much salt in the soil to allow crops due to agriculture. Agriculture brought us slavery and wide spread wars.....

Anyway the main argument is what foods are our genes designed for - and as the OP wrote the sunshine vitamins athletic value?

Kevin T
12-22-2009, 01:52 PM
There was no slavery or war before the advent of farming? I think the good people of NC will tell you that waste from pig farms is a much bigger problem. Soy crops yield more protein per acre than beef cattle. We really need to look at hemp as it yields a great deal of cellulose (compared to trees) and high quality protein with essential fatty acids.

But you are correct, the OP was talking about vitamin D and athletic performance. Just go outside with nothing but your shorts on for 20 minutes every day. You'll be fine.

Talker
12-22-2009, 02:46 PM
Just go outside with nothing but your shorts on for 20 minutes every day. You'll be fine.


Good one Kevin. But it's 30F here. :)



A lot of good input here, thanks.

There's many new trials in a lot of areas on the subject, what I'm looking for is failures, I haven't seen any yet.
Usually when claims are made with a decent amount of research someone wants to put a feather in their cap and find a problem.
So it's wait and see for now.

A few videos on the subject.

http://www.ucsd.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16940

From the vitamin D council
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/releases.shtml

General benefits.
http://www.perciavalle.com/wiki/Vitamin_D

Excellent presentation, takes in account evolution. About 1 hour.
http://wildhorse.insinc.com/directms13oct2005/

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 12:03 AM
...

But you are correct, the OP was talking about vitamin D and athletic performance. Just go outside with nothing but your shorts on for 20 minutes every day. You'll be fine.

In my neck of the woods (SF Bay area) the UV index of the mid-day sun is only about 1 or 2 on most days this time of the year. Probably not going produce much natural vit D from sun exposure at all -- even with extended nude sunbathing (in 55F weather).

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 02:04 AM
I've some across some references to a water-soluble version of vitamin D. Anyone have any info on this? Just as ascorbyl palmitate is a fat-soluble version of vitamin C (which is normally considered a water-soluble vitamin), there appears to be (a) water-soluble version(s) of vitamin D.

It once thought that that a water-soluble version of vit D was responsible for much of the vit D (activity) present in human breast milk. This has been shown not to be the case. Any other clues about water-soluble vit D?

Talker
12-23-2009, 03:37 AM
I've some across some references to a water-soluble version of vitamin D. Anyone have any info on this? Just as ascorbyl palmitate is a fat-soluble version of vitamin C (which is normally considered a water-soluble vitamin), there appears to be (a) water-soluble version(s) of vitamin D.

It once thought that that a water-soluble version of vit D was responsible for much of the vit D (activity) present in human breast milk. This has been shown not to be the case. Any other clues about water-soluble vit D?

I did find a respected reference on the matter.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2009-march.shtml

Question:
Dr. Cannell: I am confused as to what type of vitamin D3 to use. I am currently using the dry powder tablet, but I have read that oil-based D3 is better and the dry is of no value at all because it is hard to absorb. Can you just clear this up for me?
Andrew,
Arizona

Answer:
Water-soluble dry vitamin D absorbs just fine unless you have bowel disease with steatorrea (fat malabsorption) and then no oral products work very well. I am unaware of any controlled head-to-head absorption studies on the effectiveness of water versus fat-soluble vitamin D. If anyone knows of such a study, let me know. If you are concerned about absorption, take the vitamin D with a meal, although I am unaware this improves absorption.

Talker
12-23-2009, 03:46 AM
In my neck of the woods (SF Bay area) the UV index of the mid-day sun is only about 1 or 2 on most days this time of the year. Probably not going produce much natural vit D from sun exposure at all -- even with extended nude sunbathing (in 55F weather).

Good point, areas away from the equator have periods during the year where you can't get any UVB rays for months. Even in the summer the sun has to be withen a few hours of midday either way to get the benefit.

Dark skinned people may need many times the 20 minutes to get the same benefit.
Older people's skin don't absorb or convert the sun as well as young either.

Soul
12-23-2009, 04:11 AM
Thought to mention that I have seen both Dr Davis at http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ and Dr T at http://nephropal.blogspot.com/ mention in frustration that from their experience with patients, the best D3 supplement to take is the oil form. The dry tablet form sometimes works for their patients but sometimes it does not. The oil form always works at increasing testing circulating levels of D3.

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 08:17 AM
I've some across some references to a water-soluble version of vitamin D. Anyone have any info on this? Just as ascorbyl palmitate is a fat-soluble version of vitamin C (which is normally considered a water-soluble vitamin), there appears to be (a) water-soluble version(s) of vitamin D.

It once thought that that a water-soluble version of vit D was responsible for much of the vit D (activity) present in human breast milk. This has been shown not to be the case. Any other clues about water-soluble vit D?

Systemic,

ADEK is a common supplement used in pediatric hospitals (and adult) and my practice, particularly for kids with fat malabsorption diseases (cystic fibrosis/HIV/pancreatic insufficiency). A, D, E and K are in water-miscible form.

http://www.americarx.com/products/18010.html

Here's an interesting study about water-soluble forms of fat-soluble vitamins in infants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17157660

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 08:21 AM
In my neck of the woods (SF Bay area) the UV index of the mid-day sun is only about 1 or 2 on most days this time of the year. Probably not going produce much natural vit D from sun exposure at all -- even with extended nude sunbathing (in 55F weather).

Then go out naked for 60 minutes! :) Seriously, our northern latitude friends were always able to get plenty of vitamin D from natural sources, such as:

Fish liver oils, such as cod liver oil, 1 Tbs. (15 ml) provides 1,360 IU (one IU equals 25 ng)
Herring, 85 g (3 ounces (oz)) provides 1383 IU
Salmon, cooked, 100 g (3.5 oz]) provides 360 IU
Mackerel, cooked, 100 g (3.5 oz]), 345 IU
Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 50 g (1.75 oz), 250 IU
Tuna, canned in oil, 85 g (3 oz), 200 IU

I'm a big believer in whole foods vs. vitamins and I eat fatty fish 2-3 times/week.

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 08:28 AM
I did find a respected reference on the matter.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2009-march.shtml

Question:
Dr. Cannell: I am confused as to what type of vitamin D3 to use. I am currently using the dry powder tablet, but I have read that oil-based D3 is better and the dry is of no value at all because it is hard to absorb. Can you just clear this up for me?
Andrew,
Arizona

Answer:
Water-soluble dry vitamin D absorbs just fine unless you have bowel disease with steatorrea (fat malabsorption) and then no oral products work very well. I am unaware of any controlled head-to-head absorption studies on the effectiveness of water versus fat-soluble vitamin D. If anyone knows of such a study, let me know. If you are concerned about absorption, take the vitamin D with a meal, although I am unaware this improves absorption.

Are we supposed to deduce that the dry powder D3 is a water-soluble form? I don't see it explicitly stated anywhere.

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 08:33 AM
What's the point in taking a water soluble form of a fat soluble vitamin if you DON'T have fat malabsorption issues? Dr. Cannell then goes on to say "just take it with a meal, though I'm unaware this improves absorption". Huh?! I suggest we all trust a source with no affiliation to the 'viamin d council'.

Talker
12-23-2009, 08:33 AM
Are we supposed to deduce that the dry powder D3 is a water-soluble form? I don't see it explicitly stated anywhere.

yes, that is what it appears to me.

Answer:
Water-soluble dry vitamin D absorbs just fine unless you have bowel disease with steatorrea (fat malabsorption) and then no oral products work very well.

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 08:40 AM
Then go out naked for 60 minutes! :) Seriously, our northern latitude friends were always able to get plenty of vitamin D from natural sources, such as:

Fish liver oils, such as cod liver oil, 1 Tbs. (15 ml) provides 1,360 IU (one IU equals 25 ng)
Herring, 85 g (3 ounces (oz)) provides 1383 IU
Salmon, cooked, 100 g (3.5 oz]) provides 360 IU
Mackerel, cooked, 100 g (3.5 oz]), 345 IU
Sardines, canned in oil, drained, 50 g (1.75 oz), 250 IU
Tuna, canned in oil, 85 g (3 oz), 200 IU

I'm a big believer in whole foods vs. vitamins and I eat fatty fish 2-3 times/week.

Cod liver oil = yuck! Considering the function of the liver, wouldn't fish liver oils tend to contain Hg, PCBs, & other contaminants? As for eating fish, do you need to eat the skin to derive much of the vitamin D? Is much of it present in the "meat" of the fish? I'll eat sardine skin but not too keen on eating the skin of salmon & other fish.

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 08:51 AM
Cod liver oil = yuck! Considering the function of the liver, wouldn't fish liver oils tend to contain Hg, PCBs, & other contaminants? As for eating fish, do you need to eat the skin to derive much of the vitamin D? Is much of it present in the "meat" of the fish? I'll eat sardine skin but not too keen on eating the skin of salmon & other fish.

Hey, if cod liver oil was good enough for your grandma, it's good enough for you! :) It's usually purified with the contaminants removed. Sardines are one of the cheapest foods on Earth and full of omega 3's, calcium and vitamin D. If you go to a good Italian restaurant with sardines on the menu, do yourself a favor and order. Yummie! You don't necessarily need to eat the skin, as the fish mentioned above are considered "oily" with good amounts of fat in the flesh. Plus, fried fish skin is a delicacy, so go for it. :)

Talker
12-23-2009, 02:03 PM
Hey, if cod liver oil was good enough for your grandma, it's good enough for you! :) It's usually purified with the contaminants removed. Sardines are one of the cheapest foods on Earth and full of omega 3's, calcium and vitamin D. If you go to a good Italian restaurant with sardines on the menu, do yourself a favor and order. Yummie! You don't necessarily need to eat the skin, as the fish mentioned above are considered "oily" with good amounts of fat in the flesh. Plus, fried fish skin is a delicacy, so go for it. :)

This is not a good source of vitamin D, the problem is vitamin A.
Vitamin A nuetralizes vitamin D, taking away the vitamin D's effectiveness.
There is about 1200 IU's vitamin A to only 125 IU's of vitamin D.
To get a decent dose of vitamin D you would be getting a whopping dose of vitamin A.
The current data shows that you should have no more than 1000 IU's vitamin A so as not to conflict with the vitamin D's benefits.

This was a well known problem testing vitamin D's effects using cod liver oil.
If you want vitamin A use beta carotene.

Nothing wrong with a natural diet but as you see above, you have more to consider.

Just take the pill, oil or water soluble, no problems there and that is what most of the research is based on.

Almost forgot to include a link.
http://www.westonaprice.org/Vitamin-A-On-Trial-Does-Vitamin-A-Cause-Osteoporosis.html

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 02:38 PM
This is not a good source of vitamin D, the problem is vitamin A.
Vitamin A nuetralizes vitamin D, taking away the vitamin D's effectiveness.
There is about 1200 IU's vitamin A to only 125 IU's of vitamin D.
To get a decent dose of vitamin D you would be getting a whopping dose of vitamin A.
The current data shows that you should have no more than 1000 IU's vitamin A so as not to conflict with the vitamin D's benefits.

This was a well known problem testing vitamin D's effects using cod liver oil.
If you want vitamin A use beta carotene.

Nothing wrong with a natural diet but as you see above, you have more to consider.

Just take the pill, oil or water soluble, no problems there and that is what most of the research is based on.

Our difference is you believe the vitamin D "council's" (and I'm using the term 'council' loosely, as they aren't recognized by the medical/academic/research communities) and debunked westonprice's info and I don't. However, I do believe these guys:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminA/

Where is this "current data" that one should only get 1000IU Vitamin A? What is the proper ratio of A to D? The safe upper limit for Vitamin A is 5000-10000IU, depending on the source. Why didn't I, the NIH, USDA, etc. learn these things in grad school? Is there an organization holding the truth? Vitamin A content of cod liver oil is dependent on the brand, age of the cod source, etc. It's not a constant. And by the way, I'm not encouraging people to start drinking cod liver oil but it's a good source of A and D. I prefer eating salmon, mack, herring, etc.

Do you know that folic acid is the only micronutrient more absorbable in the synthetic form? Where are the studies showing supplements are more effective than whole food forms?

By the way, you need to look at the board of directors of Weston Price. It's not exactly a "Who's Who" of academics and nutrition experts. And board certified "clinical nutritionists" can't even practice in hospitals, clinics, public health offices, etc. It's not a recognized certification. And the refs from the provided link contain a number of "self-published" articles, Journal of Poultry and many journals I've never even heard of. Sorry, but I'll stick with Oregon St, Penn St, Cal, Harvard, NIH, etc.

Kevin T
12-23-2009, 03:03 PM
By the way, here's a good example from Carlson Labs, a pretty popular supplement brand of fish oils.

Cod liver oil with low vitamin A

http://www.carlsonlabs.com/p-232-cod-liver-oil-with-low-vitamin-a.aspx

You cold take 10 soft gels and get 1000IU D and 2500IU A.

Their regular version is also acceptable, even at a double dose.

http://www.carlsonlabs.com/p-31-cod-liver-oil.aspx

I'm off for Christmas, so Merry Christmas to you Talker and all in this thread. It's kept me interested during a slow week of work.

Talker
12-23-2009, 03:06 PM
Our difference is you believe the vitamin D "council's" (and I'm using the term 'council' loosely, as they aren't recognized by the medical/academic/research communities) and debunked westonprice's info and I don't. However, I do believe these guys:

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminA/

Where is this "current data" that one should only get 1000IU Vitamin A? What is the proper ratio of A to D? The safe upper limit for Vitamin A is 5000-10000IU, depending on the source. Why didn't I, the NIH, USDA, etc. learn these things in grad school? Is there an organization holding the truth? Vitamin A content of cod liver oil is dependent on the brand, age of the cod source, etc. It's not a constant.

Do you know that folic acid is the only micronutrient more absorbable in the synthetic form? Where are the studies showing supplements are more effective than whole food forms?

In grad school there's enough to teach, and they are very conservative.
Most of these studies are relatively recent.

After grad school people are busy making money, not much time to keep abreast of current issues, though some do and I applaud them for it.

Then there are lawsuits, no one wants to jump on the bandwagon till it's almost 100%, drug prescriptions are the answer for these folks, then they have protection.

I believe in research, the vitamin D council is built on research and studies they reference them all the time. It's not a belief for them, just what the data says. Believe them or not, the studies are there.

No one has to show studies that vitamin D is better than food forms, it doesn't matter.
All that matters is the results of taking vitamin D. The results are coming in all the time and they are positive, there has been no downside and there has been no one refuting the evidence. The only thing there is now is caution which isn't bad.

The proper ratio of A to D? I've only read a few articles addressing this, see the link I posted above, it's long and dry reading though.
Through another article that the Life Extension wrote, Vitamin A intake should not be higher that 1000 IU of preformed vitamin A. No limits on beta carotene.
All of this backed up by references to studies.

I think one of the first references to the vitamin A and D conflict was a study to duplicate a study done around seventy years ago with cod liver oil.
The cod liver oil used now didn't replicate the results!! IIRC the cod liver oil used in the old study had less vitamin A and more vitamin D. Then the link between these 2 vitamins was established.

Talker
12-23-2009, 03:16 PM
By the way, here's a good example from Carlson Labs, a pretty popular supplement brand of fish oils.

Cod liver oil with low vitamin A

http://www.carlsonlabs.com/p-232-cod-liver-oil-with-low-vitamin-a.aspx

You cold take 10 soft gels and get 1000IU D and 2500IU A.

Their regular version is also acceptable, even at a double dose.

http://www.carlsonlabs.com/p-31-cod-liver-oil.aspx

I'm off for Christmas, so Merry Christmas to you Talker and all in this thread. It's kept me interested during a slow week of work.

Didn't even see this post, have yourself a nice Christmas too and likewise I've found your posts interesting.

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 03:45 PM
Hey, if cod liver oil was good enough for your grandma, it's good enough for you! :) It's usually purified with the contaminants removed. Sardines are one of the cheapest foods on Earth and full of omega 3's, calcium and vitamin D. If you go to a good Italian restaurant with sardines on the menu, do yourself a favor and order. Yummie! You don't necessarily need to eat the skin, as the fish mentioned above are considered "oily" with good amounts of fat in the flesh. Plus, fried fish skin is a delicacy, so go for it. :)

Caveat emptor (buyer beware)! Some manufacturers are better than others about removing contaminants & other impurities from their fish oils. Some also start out with cleaner sources than others as well. I tend to trust most products from Now (Foods) and Source Naturals & a few others. I tend to shy away from cheap products that don't provide much info. I'll have to look further into Carlson labs products.

SystemicAnomaly
12-23-2009, 05:28 PM
Have seen some references to vitamin D sulfate and Cholecalciferol (D3) sulfate with regards to water-soluble versions of D. Are the dry forms of vit D a sulfate form or something else?


Systemic,

ADEK is a common supplement used in pediatric hospitals (and adult) and my practice, particularly for kids with fat malabsorption diseases (cystic fibrosis/HIV/pancreatic insufficiency). A, D, E and K are in water-miscible form.

http://www.americarx.com/products/18010.html

Here's an interesting study about water-soluble forms of fat-soluble vitamins in infants:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17157660

Have seen some sources use the terms water-miscible and water-soluble interchangeably while others do not. Your 1st link (above) appears to make a distinction but does not actually explain it. Another term that I've seen is water-dispersible vitamin D with regards to dry forms. Are these 3 terms really interchangeable? I suspect not.

Talker
12-23-2009, 07:17 PM
Have seen some references to vitamin D sulfate and Cholecalciferol (D3) sulfate with regards to water-soluble versions of D. Are the dry forms of vit D a sulfate form or something else?




Have seen some sources use the terms water-miscible and water-soluble interchangeably while others do not. Your 1st link (above) appears to make a distinction but does not actually explain it. Another term that I've seen is water-dispersible vitamin D with regards to dry forms. Are these 3 terms really interchangeable? I suspect not.


Do you have the links? There's a lot of information out there to look at.

SystemicAnomaly
12-24-2009, 06:00 AM
Do you have the links? There's a lot of information out there to look at.

The links for the sulfate references or for the various "water" terms? What I've seen on this stuff thus far raises more questions than they answer. I was hoping that someone had some links or info that would shed more light on the subject.

Talker
12-24-2009, 06:19 AM
The links for the sulfate references or for the various "water" terms? What I've seen on this stuff thus far raises more questions than they answer. I was hoping that someone had some links or info that would shed more light on the subject.

I don't know anything thing about it to be truthful. :dunno:

Talker
12-28-2009, 10:01 AM
A little bit about the swine flu, common colds and the CDC as it relates to vitamin D.

Dr. Mercola gives his opinions about the swine flu shot and the dangers.
Also how the CDC misinforms the public, and why.

As always, it's just a viewpoint and everyone needs to make their own decision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ycdbSsnAU

spacediver
12-28-2009, 10:42 AM
I'm a big believer in whole foods vs. vitamins and I eat fatty fish 2-3 times/week.

you may enjoy this gem from michael pollan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Kevin T
12-29-2009, 08:46 AM
you may enjoy this gem from michael pollan:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Thanks. I remember reading that article. I've pretty much always lived by (and recommend to my patients) a similar approach to eating. We're (meaning the US) basically the only country on earth (though our "diseased" way of looking at food is unfortunately spreading) with such a tortured relationship with food/nutrients. Big Agriculture and western sensibilities are destroying food.

Talker
02-21-2010, 09:14 PM
Maybe Nadal should read this.

Loss of knee cartilage and vitamin D levels.

Serum levels of vitamin D, sunlight exposure, and knee cartilage loss in older adults: The Tasmanian older adult cohort study.
Arthritis Rheumatism. 2009 Apr 29;60(5):1381-1389
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, and Monash University Medical School, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

In the vitamin D Cure we talk about optimizing vitamin D to prevent osteoarthritis or loss of cartilage. This study is confirmation of its importance over time. A total of 880 randomly selected subjects (average age 61 years, 50% women) were studied at baseline, and 353 of these subjects were studied 2.9 years later. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) were assessed, and sunlight exposure was assessed by questionnaire. MRI of the right knee was performed to determine knee cartilage volume and defects. Knee x-rays and knee pain were also assessed. RESULTS: The mean 25(OH)D serum level was 21.1 ng/mL (52.8 nmoles/liter) at baseline. Winter sunlight exposure and serum 25(OH)D level were both positively associated with medial and lateral tibial cartilage volume (the lower the D level the less the cartilage volume), and a serum 25(OH)D level <20 ng/mL was associated with more medial joint space narrowing (all P < 0.05). Over time, baseline serum 25(OH)D level predicted change in cartilage volume (P < 0.05), and change in serum 25(OH)D level was positively associated with change in medial tibial cartilage volume. These associations were consistent in subjects with radiographic OA and knee pain and/or in women, but not in men or in subjects without radiographic OA or knee pain.

CONCLUSION: Less sunlight exposure and lower serum 25(OH)D levels are both associated with loss of knee cartilage (assessed by radiograph or MRI). This implies that achieving vitamin D sufficiency may prevent and/or ****** cartilage loss in knee OA.

ollinger
02-22-2010, 05:39 AM
Talker
the study is worse than useless. Correlation studies are generally considered to be essentially of no value since they don't control for other factors (e.g. there may have some OTHER aspect of the diets or lifestyles of the subjects with higher D levels that actually resulted in the difference). Also, the study has a dropout rate of about 60% (only 353 of 880 subjects were still around to be assessed after 3 years), an enormous rate that would cause most journals to not accept a study for publication.

Talker
02-22-2010, 07:41 AM
Talker
the study is worse than useless. Correlation studies are generally considered to be essentially of no value since they don't control for other factors (e.g. there may have some OTHER aspect of the diets or lifestyles of the subjects with higher D levels that actually resulted in the difference). Also, the study has a dropout rate of about 60% (only 353 of 880 subjects were still around to be assessed after 3 years), an enormous rate that would cause most journals to not accept a study for publication.

I'll start out with the dropout rate you mentioned, it doesn't matter how many drop out, only how many were left.

If you have people who couldn't comply with the study, say their vitamin D level was too low then they have to be dropped. This makes the study better because they were checked against baseline.

The correlation studies can be good depending on the study. In this case not only was the answer an yes/no but the volume of the cartilage was greater as the level of vitamin D was greater. This makes the study much better with this correlation.

Tobacco was linked to lung cancer with correlation studies only as an example of your statement.

ollinger
02-22-2010, 07:56 AM
Huh? Dropouts don't matter? What if all the dropouts were people who had the most cartilage loss, didn't want to go for data collection, and they happened to have good D levels? That level of dropouts generally renders a study worthless unless there is some chance to analyze the dropouts later.

Talker
02-22-2010, 08:24 AM
Huh? Dropouts don't matter? What if all the dropouts were people who had the most cartilage loss, didn't want to go for data collection, and they happened to have good D levels? That level of dropouts generally renders a study worthless unless there is some chance to analyze the dropouts later.

It's all random.
If those people never were picked in the beginning we wouldn't know either. You could also say the people who dropped out might of had no cartilage loss and strenghthened the study. It's random.

Of course the more subjects in the study the better, so in this way the study would have been better if all or most of the people would have been around at the end. The loss of subjects in a random study means little, only that the study is now smaller.

But the study is far from worthless, you're being to hard here.

Another area to look at is there were no negative findings, this isn't conclusive proof but pointing in the positive direction.

All studies don't have to be a "gold standard" study, they can vary in importance. This one here is not a top notch study but is suggestive.

Since Vitamin D is very safe under 10,000 IU a day and dirt cheap it could be a great aid. Not to mention all the other studies from other areas regarding health being published all the time.

tennytive
03-15-2010, 08:50 PM
How about Kale or Kumquats or special-K or sourKraut or...? Actually kale is a monsterly-nutritious food, but it's hard to figure out what to do with it.

I eat kale on sandwiches, great texture and crunch in every bite. Break off the stem and eat the leaf instead of lettuce with turkey or roast beef, cheese and coleslaw or tomato (otherwise it's too dry) with dijon mustard and/or mayo on heavy bread or a roll. You can also use it in salads. Powerful stuff.