Health Salon

Lots of studies out there these days about the need for vitamin D to prevent cancer. I have increased by daily intake to 2,500 IU daily and I’m considering increasing even more. These links will provide just about everything you could ever want to know on Vitamin D…Arrow
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d_deficiency.htm

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040103

http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=75094-vitamin-d-breast-cancer-dietary-recommendations

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

http://www.healthiertalk.com/viewtopic.php?t=7794&highlight=vitamin

http://www.lef.org/news/LefDailyNews.htm?NewsID=5038&Section=DISEASE

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi70.html
………………………………………..
Public release date: 6-Feb-2007

Contact: Nancy Stringer
nstringer@ucsd.edu
619-543-6163
University of California - San Diego
2 new studies back vitamin D for cancer prevention

Two new vitamin D studies using a sophisticated form of analysis called meta-analysis, in which data from multiple reports is combined, have revealed new prescriptions for possibly preventing up to half of the cases of breast cancer and two-thirds of the cases of colorectal cancer in the United States. The work was conducted by a core team of cancer prevention specialists at the Moores Cancer Center at University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and colleagues from both coasts.

The breast cancer study, published online in the current issue of the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, pooled dose-response data from two earlier studies - the Harvard Nurses Health Study and the St. George’s Hospital Study - and found that individuals with the highest blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, or 25(OH)D, had the lowest risk of breast cancer.

The researchers divided the 1,760 records of individuals in the two studies into five equal groups, from the lowest blood levels of 25(OH)D (less than 13 nanograms per milliliter, or 13 ng/ml) to the highest (approximately 52 ng/ml). The data also included whether or not the individual had developed cancer.

“The data were very clear, showing that individuals in the group with the lowest blood levels had the highest rates of breast cancer, and the breast cancer rates dropped as the blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D increased,” said study co-author Cedric Garland, Dr.P.H. “The serum level associated with a 50 percent reduction in risk could be maintained by taking 2,000 international units of vitamin D3 daily plus, when the weather permits, spending 10 to 15 minutes a day in the sun.”

The colorectal cancer study, published online February 6 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, is a meta-analysis of five studies that explored the association of blood levels of 25(OH)D with risk of colon cancer. All of the studies involved blood collected and tested for 25 (OH)D levels from healthy volunteer donors who were then followed for up to 25 years for development of colorectal cancer.

As with the breast cancer study, the dose-response data on a total of 1,448 individuals were put into order by serum 25(OH)D level and then divided into five equal groups, from the lowest blood levels to the highest.

“Through this meta-analysis we found that raising the serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to 34 ng/ml would reduce the incidence rates of colorectal cancer by half,” said co-author Edward D. Gorham, Ph.D. “We project a two-thirds reduction in incidence with serum levels of 46ng/ml, which corresponds to a daily intake of 2,000 IU of vitamin D3. This would be best achieved with a combination of diet, supplements and 10 to 15 minutes per day in the sun.”

Vitamin D3 is available through diet, supplements and exposure of the skin to sunlight, or ultraviolet B (UVB). In the paper, the researchers underscored the importance of limiting sun exposure such that the skin does not change color (tan) or burn. For a typical fair-skinned Caucasian individual, adequate vitamin D could be photosynthesized safely by spending 10 to 15 minutes in the noontime sun on a clear day with 50 percent of skin area exposed to the sun. Darker skinned individuals may require more time in the sun, such as 25 minutes. For people with photosensitivity disorders, or anyone with a personal or family history of nonmelanoma skin cancer, any amount of extra sun exposure would be inadvisable.

The meta-analysis on colorectal cancer includes data from the Women’s Health Initiative, which had shown in 2006 that a low dose of vitamin D did not protect against colorectal cancer within seven years of follow-up. However, the researchers wrote, the meta-analysis indicates that a higher dose may reduce its incidence.

“Meta-analysis is an important tool for revealing trends that may not be apparent in a single study,” said co-author Sharif B. Mohr, M.P.H. “Pooling of independent but similar studies increases precision, and therefore the confidence level of the findings.”

###

The authors recommend further research to study individuals for the effect of vitamin D from sunlight, diet and supplements on the risk of cancer.

Co-authors on both the breast cancer and colorectal meta-analysis papers are Edward D. Gorham, MPH, Ph.D., Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H.; Frank C. Garland, Ph.D.; Sharif B. Mohr, MPH; William B. Grant, Ph.D; Martin Lipkin, M.D.; Harold L. Newmark, ScD; Edward Giovannucci, M.D., ScD; and Michael F. Holick, M.D., Ph.D. Co-author on the colorectal meta-analysis paper only was Melissa Wei, B.S. Authors’ institutional affiliations are UCSD Department of Family and Preventive Medicine and Moores UCSD Cancer Center (Gorham, Garland, Garland); Naval Health Research Center, San Diego (Gorham, F.C. Garland, Mohr); SUNARC-Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center, San Francisco (Grant); Strang Cancer Prevention Center of Rockefeller University, New York, NY (Lipkin); Rutgers–The State University of New Jersey and Cancer Institute of New Jersey (Newmark); Harvard Schools of Public Health and Medicine (Giovannucci, Wei); and Boston University School of Medicine (Holick). Funding for this research was provided by a Congressional allocation to the Hollings Cancer Center of the Medical University of South Carolina through the Department of the Navy. weblink:www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/uoc–tns020207.php
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>\

Experts call for vitamin D level hike

By Stephen Daniells

12/01/2007 - The tolerable upper intake level for oral vitamin D3 should be increased five-fold, experts from the US-based Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) has said after a review of the science.

The risk assessment provides companies with a guide for safe upper levels for product formulations, and consumers with vital information on safe dosage levels from products.

“This risk assessment was needed to show that newer evidence supports the conclusion that vitamin D is much safer then previously thought, particularly because of all the emergence research that shows benefit for vitamin D at higher levels than consumers were traditionally taking,” lead author John Hathcock told NutraIngredients.com.

Currently, the tolerable upper intake level (UL) in Europe and the US is set at 2000 International Units (IU), equivalent to 50 micrograms per day. However, recent research, particularly from clinical trials, suggests that this should be raised. The CRN scientists state that this could be raised to 10,000 IU (250 micrograms per day).

“New data continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond its role in bone,” wrote the reviewers in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

“The intakes associated with those benefits suggest a need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that are higher than current levels.”

The reviewers, from the CRN, Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and Crieghton University in Nebraska, pooled data from 21 clinical trials using doses ranging from 10 to 2500 micrograms.

The risk assessment also included data from animal studies, some of which used “extraordinarily high doses of vitamin D3”.

“The lack of adverse effects in clinical trials that used intake up to 1250 micrograms vitamin D per day and the lack of adverse effects at lower doses inspires a high level of confidence in the data from the strongly designed clinical trials that used 250 micrograms vitamin D per day,” said the reviewers.

The researchers also note that for practically all the reported cases of vitamin D toxicity have involved doses that were in excess of those studied in the clinical trials.

“Newer clinical trial data are sufficient to show that vitamin D is not toxic at intakes much higher than previously considered unsafe,” said the reviewers.

“This demonstrated safety profile of vitamin D should safely permit increased intakes to achieve additional benefits of this vitamin at higher levels than previously recognised.”

Vitamin D is made by the body on exposure to sunshine, or can be consumed in small amounts in milk, fish, liver and egg yolk. However because of the low amounts present in the diet, and lack of sunshine in northern climates, with some estimates claiming that as much as 60 per cent of northern populations may be vitamin D deficient.

And since dietary intakes are small, the best method for getting adequate levels of the vitamin appears to be from supplements and/or fortified foods.

Indeed, the reviewers note that normal dietary sources provide about 2.5 micrograms per day, while this can be increased up to 10 micrograms with fortified foods. Dietary supplements would provide higher doses.

“Unfortified foods, fortified foods, and most dietary supplements, combined, do not contribute to a total exposure anywhere near the recommended vitamin D UL of 250 micrograms per day,” they said.

“We applied the same method to our risk assessment as the Food and Nutrition Board had used years ago, and our results concluded vitamin D could be safely taken in much higher amounts,” Hathcock told this website.

“We hope that the Food and Nutrition Board along with health professionals and regulators will take our assessment and recommendation seriously,” he said.

Source: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
January 2007, Volume85, Pages 6-18
“Risk assessment for vitamin D”
Authors: J.N. Hathcock, A. Shao, R. Vieth, R. Heaney
NutraIngredients