Vitamin D 'slashes cancer risk'

S.A.M.

S.A.M.

uniquely dreadful
Valued Senior Member
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5334534.stm


US scientists found taking the tablets cut the risk of a disease, which has a poor prognosis in almost half of cases.

There are more than 3,600 new cases of pancreatic cancer in women and more than 3,500 in men in the UK each year. Surgery is not often effective.

Vitamin D was examined as it previously showed promise in cutting the risk of prostate, breast and colon cancer.

Except for smoking, no environmental factors or dietary factors have been linked to the pancreatic cancer.

But previous studies have suggested that vitamin D might help to block the proliferation of cancer cells.

And pancreas tissue - both normal and cancerous - has been found to contain high levels of an enzyme that converts vitamin D into its active form.

For the new study, which was led by Northwestern University in Illinois and features in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers examined data on more than 120,000 people from two large, long-term health surveys.

Taking the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D (400 IU/day) was found to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43%.

Lead researcher Dr Hal Skinner said: "There is a growing body of information indicating that achieving higher levels of vitamin D through supplements, diet or prudent sun exposure may provide a range health benefits by preventing common chronic diseases."
 
If everything goes as normal in the world of medicine and research, then in a few years we'll discover that, while Vit D helps against pancreatic cancer, it promotes some other type of cancer or disease!

As I recall, ten or fifteen years ago, they were touting Vit E as a wonder pill against heart diesease. Then soon they discovered that too much Vit E causes other problems in the human body and so changed their "wonder drug" tune!

Sorry, but until there is sufficient and thorough studies done, I won't believe any of the bullshit that comes out in the news. The news is just too sensationalist to believe there days!!!

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Sorry, but until there is sufficient and thorough studies done, I won't believe any of the bullshit that comes out in the news. The news is just too sensationalist to believe there days!!!

Baron Max
Click to expand...

it often is. Isometimes check the original research. there is mostly a big difference between what they claim in the original paper and what is claimed in the news.
 
Baron Max said:
If everything goes as normal in the world of medicine and research, then in a few years we'll discover that, while Vit D helps against pancreatic cancer, it promotes some other type of cancer or disease!
As I recall, ten or fifteen years ago, they were touting Vit E as a wonder pill against heart diesease. Then soon they discovered that too much Vit E causes other problems in the human body and so changed their "wonder drug" tune!

Sorry, but until there is sufficient and thorough studies done, I won't believe any of the bullshit that comes out in the news. The news is just too sensationalist to believe there days!!!

Baron Max
Click to expand...

- It is hard to get vitamin D toxicity from diet or sunlight (it is made under your skin, given sufficient exposure and absence of sunscreens). Toxicity is usually from overconsumption of supplements.

- the data on vitamin E toxicity is not based on clinical studies but from meta-analysis of many studies.

I personally believe in holistic nutrition.

Increasing the consumption of some nutrients in isolation when we do not even know the complete functioning of all nutrients in the body seems like a short term solution to me. I believe in preventive nutrition, not therapeutic.

As for the relationship between vitamin D and cancer, it has been found that the active metabolite of vitamin D can be locally produced in some tissues when your intake of the vitamin is good. It has roles in inhibiting cell growth, and initiating cell differentiation and cell death, all of which are associated with anti-cancer action.

In the present study, they found a correlation between the vitamin D status and incidence of pancreatic cancer. Whether a true relationship exists or not is yet to be determined.

In the meantime you might want to make sure you are getting your daily requirement, through diet or some time spent out of doors.
 
Baron Max said:
If everything goes as normal in the world of medicine and research, then in a few years we'll discover that, while Vit D helps against pancreatic cancer, it promotes some other type of cancer or disease!

As I recall, ten or fifteen years ago, they were touting Vit E as a wonder pill against heart diesease. Then soon they discovered that too much Vit E causes other problems in the human body and so changed their "wonder drug" tune!
Click to expand...
Yes, Baron, too much. If you get too much, it is bad for ya. If you get enough but not too much, it's actually good for ya. ;)
 
samcdkey said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5334534.stm


US scientists found taking the tablets cut the risk of a disease, which has a poor prognosis in almost half of cases.

There are more than 3,600 new cases of pancreatic cancer in women and more than 3,500 in men in the UK each year. Surgery is not often effective.

Vitamin D was examined as it previously showed promise in cutting the risk of prostate, breast and colon cancer.

Except for smoking, no environmental factors or dietary factors have been linked to the pancreatic cancer.

But previous studies have suggested that vitamin D might help to block the proliferation of cancer cells.

And pancreas tissue - both normal and cancerous - has been found to contain high levels of an enzyme that converts vitamin D into its active form.

For the new study, which was led by Northwestern University in Illinois and features in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers examined data on more than 120,000 people from two large, long-term health surveys.

Taking the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D (400 IU/day) was found to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43%.

Lead researcher Dr Hal Skinner said: "There is a growing body of information indicating that achieving higher levels of vitamin D through supplements, diet or prudent sun exposure may provide a range health benefits by preventing common chronic diseases."
Click to expand...

Your source states:

"Taking the US Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of vitamin D (400 IU/day) was found to reduce the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43%. They said further work was necessary to determine if consuming vitamin D in the diet, or through sun exposure might have even more of an effect than taking supplements. Vitamin D helps the body to form and maintain strong bones by encouraging the body to absorb calcium. However, the researchers found no evidence of a link between risk of the cancer and calcium, or retinol, a vitamin which affects vitamin D's impact on calcium absorption.

MORE RESEARCH NEEDED."

Ironically, this is a BBS source referring to a US study and no studies are given! Cite the original scientific study sources - which would still be questionable depending on the type of study - or else this thread is junk. Did you see the flick last night on "Infocommercials" presented to the U.S. public on Dateline? Case closed.
 
These news stories never give the original source. Sometimes they mention the journal. Sometimes the researcher. Often it isn't published yet.

That's just how it is.
 
Vit D is provided by sunshine, so if this theory was correct it would mean that people living in sunny climes should suffer from far less cancers, but they don't.
 
tablariddim said:
Vit D is provided by sunshine, so if this theory was correct it would mean that people living in sunny climes should suffer from far less cancers, but they don't.
Click to expand...

They wear sunscreen.

And there are studies showing an association

"...an association between geographic location and an increased risk of dying from cancer. Those subjects living in the northern regions of the United States had an approximately 2-fold higher risk of dying of cancer than those living in southern regions (6). Recently, several more studies found an association between latitude and the risk of prostate, breast, and colon cancer in the United States and Europe (7–9). In these studies, living at higher latitudes was accompanied by a higher risk of dying of cancer. Presumably, the subjects living further north synthesized less vitamin D, which promoted tumor development. In another study, men with elevated levels of sunlight exposure had a later onset of prostate cancer than those with low levels of sunlight exposure (10). Solar UV-B exposure was inversely related to the risk of dying of cancer in men and women in the United States (11). This effect affected the risk of numerous cancers, such as prostrate, breast, colon, ovarian, non-Hogkins lymphoma, esophageal, stomach, pancreatic, rectal, kidney, corpus uteri, lung, and bladder. These studies provide indirect evidence of a possible causal relation between low vitamin D status and the risk of cancer."

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/2/326#B7
 
samcdkey said:
They wear sunscreen.
Click to expand...

Sunscreen was only invented a few years ago, Sam. What the fuck did they do before sunscreen was around? And why didn't they die of skin cancer in horrendous numbers?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Sunscreen was only invented a few years ago, Sam. What the fuck did they do before sunscreen was around? And why didn't they die of skin cancer in horrendous numbers?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

What is the skin cancer related to?
 
samcdkey said:
What is the skin cancer related to?
Click to expand...

Not wearing sunscreen.

Funny how Baron's sort of right. Exposure prevents one sort of cancer and causes another. Uh oh spaghetti-o.
 
Roman said:
Not wearing sunscreen.

Funny how Baron's sort of right. Exposure prevents one sort of cancer and causes another. Uh oh spaghetti-o.
Click to expand...

It may be something as simple as increased biopsies.

http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/NCI_Cancer_Bulletin_081605/page5

A new study by researchers from the Veterans Affairs Outcomes Group concludes that the dramatic increase in melanoma incidence seen over the past two decades is actually a consequence of increased skin biopsies and not a jump in true disease rates. Dr. H. Gilbert Welch and colleagues, relying on data from Medicare and NCI's SEER program, showed that skin biopsy rates for people 65 and older increased 2.5-fold during the 1986 to 2001 study period, while overall incidence rates increased 2.4-fold.

The article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), published online on August 4, concludes that the extra cases diagnosed were confined to early-stage cancer while mortality remained stable, suggesting overdiagnosis - the increased incidence being largely the result of increased diagnostic scrutiny and not an increase in the true incidence of disease.
Click to expand...
 
Baron Max said:
Geez, Sam, and you're studyin' to be a fuckin' scientist?

Baron Max
Click to expand...

Hey my field is energy metabolism, not cancer. I'm a specialist. :)

I wanted your input, that is all.
 
Sorry, Sam ....I was just havin' a little fun at your expense.

Skin cancer is apparently caused by "over-exposure" to sunlight ...although no one has ever defined for me/us what "over-exposure" means. And it's odd that they never mention anything about people who live in such hot climates, wearing very little, yet they don't get nearly the skin cancer that we do. Or they don't seem to think that's odd and/or strange????

But, Sam, I do wish you'd quit reading shit on the Internet and assuming that it's all factual and true. In fact, quite the contrary, it's NOT factual and true. Be very, very, very, very careful about what you find posted on the Internet ....and that includes just such "research" topics as you posted. Just remember, anyone, anywhere can gain access to such sites, posting things that are never checked or verified by anyone.

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top