Vitamin D 'slashes cancer risk'

In a tropical region at midday, an exposure of 20 mins to direct sunlight can lead to the production of 2000 IU of vitamin D.
That seems like a lot...it could be that the body stops making it when a certain quota is reached, because dietary doses are thought to be toxic exceeding 2000-3000 IU, over a number of years.

From the wiki article:

"Vitamin D isstored in the human body as calcidiol and has a large volume of distribution and a long half-life. However, the synthesis of bioactive vitamin D hormone is tightly regulated and vitamin D toxicity usually occurs only if excessive doses are taken.

The U.S. Dietary Reference Intake Tolerable Upper Intake Level of vitamin D for childern and adults is 2000 IU/day. In adults, sustained intake of 100,000 IU can produce toxicity within a few months, and, if taken for years, as little as 2000 to 3000 IU can produce toxicity."
 
In adults, sustained intake of 100,000 IU can produce toxicity within a few months, and, if taken for years, as little as 2000 to 3000 IU can produce toxicity

Reference?
 
http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

Goddess of a thousand links!

Thats a very good site with solid credentials. I read several pages of it this morning and I'll read the rest later.

Havent seen anything there yet which addresses the question of why a relatively tiny dietary increase in vitamin D will resolve deficiencys when even a short time in the sun produces such HUGE amounts.

A ten minute walk in the sun with your clothes on should provide as much as a moderate supplement pill.

What about these women in Iran who dress up with only their eyes and hands showing...and no cold water fish anywhere in sight? Are they all suffering from rickets?

Or nuns even. There used to be a convent not far from here and I almost never saw the nuns walking around outside.
 
http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

Goddess of a thousand links!

Thats a very good site with solid credentials. I read several pages of it this morning and I'll read the rest later.

Havent seen anything there yet which addresses the question of why a relatively tiny dietary increase in vitamin D will resolve deficiencys when even a short time in the sun produces such HUGE amounts.

A ten minute walk in the sun with your clothes on should provide as much as a moderate supplement pill.

What about these women in Iran who dress up with only their eyes and hands showing...and no cold water fish anywhere in sight? Are they all suffering from rickets?

Or nuns even. There used to be a convent not far from here and I almost never saw the nuns walking around outside.

You need only a tiny amount on a daily basis to resolve rickets. Other functions of vitamin D (cell growth and differentiation) are implicated in cancer and other chronic diseases and indicate that we may not be getting enough to prevent deficiency, we just don't know it yet because of insufficient knowledge regarding the markers of these diseases and their relationship to vitamin D.

And yes, you are right to be worried about women who cover up a great deal. In Saudi Arabia though the women had high walls around their houses and open courtyards within so they did get exposure to sunlight. Not certain if this is the case elsewhere in the ME. But it is a very good point.

And I'm called the Literature Lady, btw. But I like Goddess of a Thousand Links better!!!:D


Bob Heaney and Mike Holick are both well known names in vitamin D research.
 
And yes, you are right to be worried about women who cover up a great deal. In Saudi Arabia though the women had high walls around their houses and open courtyards within so they did get exposure to sunlight. Not certain if this is the case elsewhere in the ME. But it is a very good point.
Yes, historically most cities in the middle east and mediterrerean were composed of narrow streets and internal courtyards with high walls. Labyrinths of lanes fragrant with aromatic secrets...mostly none too pleasant.

This was done to keep cool I suppose, to block out the sun...and the evil eye of covetousness.
 
Whoops! It may be that *ingested* vitamin D doesnt have the same effect as sunlight:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.

In a new report Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.

"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body’s ultimate response to infection," Marshall said.

"Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."

"Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness," Marshall added. "Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively."

Marshall's research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the opposite effect to that of Sunshine. Instead of a positive effect on gene expression, Marshall reported that his own work, as well as the work of others, shows that quite nominal doses of ingested vitamin D can suppress the proper operation of the immune system. It is a different metabolite, a secosteroid hormone called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which activates the VDR to regulate the expression of the genes. Under conditions that exist in infection or inflammation, the body automatically regulates its production of all the vitamin D metabolites, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the metabolite which is usually measured to indicate vitamin D status.

Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D often makes the disease worse. "Dysregulation of vitamin D has been observed in many chronic diseases, including many thought to be autoimmune," said J.C. Waterhouse, Ph.D., lead author of a book chapter on vitamin D and chronic disease.

"We have found that vitamin D supplementation, even at levels many consider desirable, interferes with recovery in these patients."

"We need to discard the notion that vitamin D affects a disease state in a simple way," Marshall said. "Vitamin D affects the expression of over 1,000 genes, so we should not expect a simplistic cause and effect between vitamin D supplementation and disease. The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier."
 
carcano said:
What about these women in Iran who dress up with only their eyes and hands showing...and no cold water fish anywhere in sight? Are they all suffering from rickets?
This is a serious problem with Muslim immigrants to places like Minnesota - that hood thing they wear prevents sufficient sun exposure even in summer, and the winters are long. A lot of them don't drink milk, either. Docs are seeing various symptoms.

If you look at a stats table, there are a few places on earth men outlive women, or the margin is less than a couple of years. Disproportionately, they are places of very modest dress and restricted behavior for women. Oppression has its price.

AFAIK most of the risk from moderate sun exposure is from burn - if you have ever been badly sunburned, say in childhood, your lifetime risk of skin cancer is much higher. Kids who pick up a tan in the spring, and keep it all summer, don't run that much extra risk.

If Vitamin D helped with depression, I wouldn't be surprised. I've known people to get sort of addicted to tanning beds - where the original goal of cosmetic or whatever is forgotten, and they feel strongly drawn to the experience. The tanning rays make them feel better.
 
If Vitamin D helped with depression, I wouldn't be surprised. I've known people to get sort of addicted to tanning beds - where the original goal of cosmetic or whatever is forgotten, and they feel strongly drawn to the experience. The tanning rays make them feel better.
Of course tanning bed are dangerous long term. Better to get non-UV blue light light therapy lamps. They are expensive but you do not increase skin cancer possibilities and you can eliminate SAD about 85% of the time. You get no Vitamin D so the best thing to do is supplement if you need more.
 
Here is an interesting piece of history indirectly related to vitamin D:

Herodotus observes the differences between skulls of the Egyptians and the Persians-
On the field where this battle was fought I saw a very wonderful thing
which the natives pointed out to me. The bones of the slain lie scattered
upon the field in two lots, those of the Persians in one place by
themselves, as the bodies lay at the first- those of the Egyptians
in another place apart from them. If, then, you strike the Persian
skulls, even with a pebble, they are so weak, that you break a hole
in them; but the Egyptian skulls are so strong, that you may smite
them with a stone and you will scarcely break them in. They gave me
the following reason for this difference, which seemed to me likely
enough:- The Egyptians (they said) from early childhood have the head
shaved, and so by the action of the sun the skull becomes thick and
hard. The same cause prevents baldness in Egypt, where you see fewer
bald men than in any other land. Such, then, is the reason why the
skulls of the Egyptians are so strong. The Persians, on the other
hand, have feeble skulls, because they keep themselves shaded from
the first, wearing turbans upon their heads.

Link

Could it be that keeping their heads covered made the Persians vitamin D deficient and led to poor bone density and mineralisation?
 
Then wouldn't that mean that peopel who are bald have better skulls than people with hair?

Can't vitamin D be absourbed through the skin all over your body?
 
Back
Top