PDA

View Full Version : Does Vitamin D protect against Swine Flu or Cancer?



William
2009-Jul-31, 04:34 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--NqqB2nhBE

Does vitamin D protect against Swine Flu, common flu, colds, cancer, …

This is an interesting talk from Dr. John Cannell on vitamin D.

Vitamin D apparently helps to regulate both the body's immune response and the body's over reaction to flu.

William
2009-Jul-31, 04:47 AM
This is interesting.

50% reduction in cancer with increased Vitamin D. Direct correlation of types of cancers with latitude.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsyaYNX1dw

Argos
2009-Jul-31, 01:59 PM
Obviously NO. Avoid crowded spaces, wash your hands regularly, and hope for the best.

William
2009-Jul-31, 04:11 PM
Obviously NO. Avoid crowded spaces, wash your hands regularly, and hope for the best.

Good news Argos.

Vitamin D in addition to reducing cancer rates by up to 75% does also provide protection against swine flu by improving the body's immune response and inhibiting the immune system over response to swine flu which is what is sometimes fatal.

I have researched this issue in detail (Vitamin D's regulation of the body's immune system) as my daughter's immune system over reacts which causes breathing difficulty. The highest deaths for swine flu in the UK has been to young adults of 20 years of age. I am also interested in the link in Vitamin D deficiency as my mother in law has breast cancer.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/91441-does-vitamin-d-protect-against-swine-flu.html#post1541064

Medical research over whelming supports the statement that immune deficiency, immune over reaction, and many cancers are caused by vitamin D deficiency.

As many people now work indoors and/or live in high latitude regions the majority of the population is chronically Vitamin D deficient.

The research indicates the entire US and Canadian population (adults and children) should be taking conservatively (the actual optimum amount of vitamin D supplement is likely higher however 2000 IU is 1/3 of the maximum level that is considered to be safe without medical monitoring) 2000 IU units of Vitamin D supplements daily.

The current recommended daily Vitamin D supplement is 400 IU. Cow's milk is fortified (vitamin D is added to the cow's milk) with vitamin D. Cow's milk is not a good source of vitamin D as the small cow proteins in the cow's milk directly enters the human body and causes damage and immune related diseases (The body's immune system treats the small cow proteins as an invader. The cow protein is small as it enters the calf's blood stream directly to enable a calf to increase its weight by 100 lbs in a year. A second problem is the cow's milk has too much protein in it. The human kidney unlike a carnivore's kidney cannot process high levels of protein, so there are chronic heath problems created by too high protein levels in the majority of the US population.)

Vitamin D3 supplements are cheap. The research indicates that cancer rates can be reduced by up to 75% by taking vitamin D supplements.

As an interesting aside, the US medical industry makes money when people get sick. Cheap solutions that reduce cancer by 50% to 75% are therefore slow to get disseminated as there is no capitalistic motivation to reduce illness.

Gillianren
2009-Jul-31, 04:23 PM
There is no evidence that "superdoses" of vitamins do anybody any good, and obviously, you want to be careful of your Vitamin A intake. None of the much-hyped benefits of any given vitamin supplement have been scientifically demonstrated in multiple studies.

Argos
2009-Jul-31, 04:34 PM
As many people now work indoors and/or live in high latitude regions the majority of the population is chronically Vitamin D deficient.

The problem is that sunlight exposure can also lead to cancer.

I´m aware of studies attempting to correlate Vitamin D to cancer prevention. But none of them has presented conclusive evidences.

Swift
2009-Jul-31, 04:47 PM
A little googling on H1N1 and Vitamin D found a lot of websites trying to sell something :rolleyes:. And I found this:

Scientific American (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-more-2009-02-23)

In a study that will be published tomorrow, people with low levels of vitamin D — also known as the "sunshine vitamin" — were more likely to catch cold and flu than folks with adequate amounts. The effect of the vitamin was strongest in people with asthma and other lung diseases who are predisposed to respiratory infections.

But, the fact that a vitamin D deficiency could weaken the immune system is very different than saying excess dosages can protect against some disease.

nokton
2009-Jul-31, 04:58 PM
Good news Argos.

Vitamin D in addition to reducing cancer rates by up to 75% does also provide protection against swine flu by improving the body's immune response and inhibiting the immune system over response to swine flu which is what is sometimes fatal.

I have researched this issue in detail (Vitamin D's regulation of the body's immune system) as my daughter's immune system over reacts which causes breathing difficulty. The highest deaths for swine flu in the UK has been to young adults of 20 years of age. I am also interested in the link in Vitamin D deficiency as my mother in law has breast cancer.

http://www.bautforum.com/science-technology/91441-does-vitamin-d-protect-against-swine-flu.html#post1541064

Medical research over whelming supports the statement that immune deficiency, immune over reaction, and many cancers are caused by vitamin D deficiency.

As many people now work indoors and/or live in high latitude regions the majority of the population is chronically Vitamin D deficient.

The research indicates the entire US and Canadian population (adults and children) should be taking conservatively (the actual optimum amount of vitamin D supplement is likely higher however 2000 IU is 1/3 of the maximum level that is considered to be safe without medical monitoring) 2000 IU units of Vitamin D supplements daily.

The current recommended daily Vitamin D supplement is 400 IU. Cow's milk is fortified (vitamin D is added to the cow's milk) with vitamin D. Cow's milk is not a good source of vitamin D as the small cow proteins in the cow's milk directly enters the human body and causes damage and immune related diseases (The body's immune system treats the small cow proteins as an invader. The cow protein is small as it enters the calf's blood stream directly to enable a calf to increase its weight by 100 lbs in a year. A second problem is the cow's milk has too much protein in it. The human kidney unlike a carnivore's kidney cannot process high levels of protein, so there are chronic heath problems created by too high protein levels in the majority of the US population.)

Vitamin D3 supplements are cheap. The research indicates that cancer rates can be reduced by up to 75% by taking vitamin D supplements.

As an interesting aside, the US medical industry makes money when people get sick. Cheap solutions that reduce cancer by 50% to 75% are therefore slow to get disseminated as there is no capitalistic motivation to reduce illness.
Hi William, enjoyed your post, and your aside.
Watched a news programme about prostate cancer and how diet can alleviate and also
cure the disease. The question was asked, if this is so, where is the research on this?
Answer, there is none, because its about food and not drugs, so no profit.
On learning this, had to come to terms with the fact of my shame of being a member
of the human race. I have always believed in a Family of Man, a mistaken emotion.
History is determined by the writer, not the events. The facts are, we are a pernicious
life form that feeds on itself, and ultimately sows the seeds of it's own destruction.
Global warming will not kill us, we will kill ourselves by our lack of understanding a
concept of the brotherhood of Man.
Nokton.

Swift
2009-Jul-31, 05:45 PM
The question was asked, if this is so, where is the research on this?
Answer, there is none, because its about food and not drugs, so no profit.

I have heard or read such statements many times, that there is some conspiracy of the pharmaceutical industry to hide or stop such research because it would decrease their profits. Except that I read about such work all the time, in both the popular press and in science literature, a quick search of Google Scholar for "diet disease" gets 174,000 hits in just recent work, and I've never seen any proof of such a conspiracy.

William
2009-Jul-31, 07:24 PM
There is no evidence that "superdoses" of vitamins do anybody any good, and obviously, you want to be careful of your Vitamin A intake. None of the much-hyped benefits of any given vitamin supplement have been scientifically demonstrated in multiple studies.

Gillianren,

I completely support your statement concerning mega doses of vitamins. This thread is not in any manner a recommendation for mega doses of vitamins. Do not throw the baby out with the bath water. This is the most significant preventable health problem in the US and Canada today.

The US population is chronically vitamin D deficient. The strongly researched based recommendation that the entire population of the US and Canada should take supplementary Vitamin D of 2000 IU is not an avocation of non-scientific and very likely dangerous mega vitamins. 2000 IU is not a mega dosage. It should be noted the placebo study with breast cancer and Vitamin D deficiency was stopped, due to ethical considerations. The results showed a 50% to 75% reduction in the occurrence of breast cancer which is essentially a cure.

This is the presentation that shows the majority of the US and Canadian population is chronically vitamin D deficient.

As this and other researchers notes there is no commercial advantage to the researchers concerning resolving the population's chronic vitamin D deficiency.

What are you thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsyaYNX1dw&feature=channel

This is the presentation of Garland’s research in a formal presentation that the US and Canadian population's chronic vitamin D deficient increases the incidences of breast, colon, and so on,.... It is interesting that there is 10 years of research that support Garland’s and others research.

Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsyaYNX1dw


This is a simplified version of one of the researcher’s results. Garland’s paper and results were published in the Annals of Epidemiology.

Possible 75% cancer mortality reduction with Vitamin D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQ-qekFoi-o&feature=channel

William
2009-Jul-31, 07:33 PM
The problem is that sunlight exposure can also lead to cancer.

I´m aware of studies attempting to correlate Vitamin D to cancer prevention. But none of them has presented conclusive evidences.

Argos,

This is a presentation of the paper that outlines the data that shows vitamin D deficiency causes up to 75% of breast cancer, colon cancer, and so on. The researcher also outlines a possible mechanism that explains these results.

Vitamin D and Cancer Prevention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsyaYNX1dw

BigDon
2009-Aug-03, 06:49 AM
The facts are, we are a pernicious
life form that feeds on itself, and ultimately sows the seeds of it's own destruction.
Global warming will not kill us, we will kill ourselves by our lack of understanding a
concept of the brotherhood of Man.
Nokton.

Sez you. How many times have we exterminated ourselves in the 2 million odd years humanlike things have been running around the Earth? Three, maybe four times? Forcing us to completely re-evolve from paramecia each time? I hate it when that happens.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Aug-03, 12:41 PM
Argos,

This is a presentation of the paper that outlines the data that shows vitamin D deficiency causes up to 75% of breast cancer, colon cancer, and so on. The researcher also outlines a possible mechanism that explains these results.
That lack of vitamin D causes some cancers is not the same as vitamin D cures cancers.

That vitamin D deficiency is a factor in 75% of the cancers is a clear argument for making sure you're getting enough vitamin D, but it doesn't say anything about what happens once you have enough and get more.

It's the same fallacy that resulted in the Vitamin C megadosage fad.

BTW, I changed the title to actually reflect the subject discussed.

formulaterp
2009-Aug-03, 01:00 PM
Where are the actual medical studies? This story dated June 22, 2009:

http://www.physorg.com/news164898427.html

suggests that a major study is just beginning. Interestingly it also says :

"Vitamins C, E, folic acid, beta carotene, selenium and even menopause hormone pills once seemed to lower the risk of cancer or heart disease - until they were tested in big studies that sometimes revealed risks instead of benefits.

In October, the government stopped a big study of vitamin E and selenium pills for prostate cancer prevention after seeing no evidence of benefit and hints of harm.

Vitamin D is one of the last major nutrients to be put to a rigorous test."


If anyone can find a reputable study, I would appreciate a link.

Failing that, perhaps someone can link to that exact same Youtube video for the fifth time in this thread.

William
2009-Aug-03, 05:31 PM
That lack of vitamin D causes some cancers is not the same as vitamin D cures cancers.

That vitamin D deficiency is a factor in 75% of the cancers is a clear argument for making sure you're getting enough vitamin D, but it doesn't say anything about what happens once you have enough and get more.

It's the same fallacy that resulted in the Vitamin C megadosage fad.

BTW, I changed the title to actually reflect the subject discussed.

Hello Henrik,

We both live in Northern countries. Vitamin D deficiency is a serious problem in all Northern countries. What are your thoughts concerning the following? (Vitamin D deficiency being the cause of many cancers, autoimmunity diseases, and so forth. )


Vitamin D and Diabetes – Can we prevent this autoimmunity disease?

Why does Finland have the highest incident of type 1 diabetes in the world? Why is percentage occurrence of type 1, diabetes in Finland, Norway, Canada, and so forth increasing year by year? Why is type 1 diabetes increasing in other Northern countries? Why is a disease increasing by latitude?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTtmvMvgfl0&feature=related


There is no logical reason why miss-information concerning Vitamin C discounts strong statistical and mechanism research that shows incidences of many cancers can be reduced by 75% and a large number of other immune system problems can be reduce by more than 50% by ensure the population has optimum levels of Vitamin D, rather than be chronically vitamin D deficient.


What do you disagree with? It appears the research has moved from A through B and is now in C and D.

A) Is the human population Vitamin D deficient?
B) What is the consequence of Vitamin D deficiency?
C) What is the optimum level of Vitamin D levels in the human body?
D) How practically and safely can the optimum level in the human body be reached?



1) Those people that work inside and/or live in northern latitudes are all chronically Vitamin D deficient. Does that seem logical based on how Vitamin D is produced in the body?

2) Statistical evidence indicates that getting Vitamin D levels (and calcium) back to optimum levels reduces the incidence of cancer by 75%. The benefit of optimum Vitamin D levels is not limited to cancer. The research shows that an optimum level of Vitamin D significantly improves the immune system’s response to protect against diseases such as flu, colds, and so forth. In addition Vitamin D regulates the immune system to stop immune system over reaction and in appropriate reaction diseases such as type 1 diabetes.


3) The human body can reach optimum Vitamin D levels by taking cheap Vitamin D supplements or by exposure to sun. (Dietary sources of Vitamin D are not sufficient.) The human body produces around 7000 to 10000 UI from exposure to sunlight UV B. The problem with sunlight UV B is that it also damages skin cells so people use sunscreens and avoid sun exposure.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PsyaYNX1dw

Garland’s presentation “Dosage response to Vitamin D and a mechanism for the prevention of Cancer” provides a summary of the research that shows how Vitamin D deficiencies cause a large number of Cancers.

There are multiple studies that all support the same conclusion. This is just one.

In a standard study of a 1000 woman incidence of cancer was 4 times greater for those who took a placebo as compared to those that took vitamin D and calcium. The Vitamin D protection effect is long term (i.e. It is not just in the first year.).

Avoiding chronic Vitamin D deficiency in addition to protecting against getting cancer, also increases survive rates among those who have had cancer from a re occurrence of cancer.

William
2009-Aug-03, 07:28 PM
I have heard or read such statements many times, that there is some conspiracy of the pharmaceutical industry to hide or stop such research because it would decrease their profits. Except that I read about such work all the time, in both the popular press and in science literature, a quick search of Google Scholar for "diet disease" gets 174,000 hits in just recent work, and I've never seen any proof of such a conspiracy.

Swift,

There must be some explanation for inaction.

The research data and logic seems to be indisputable. There is data from multiple long term studies that has been published in the top medical research journals, all of which supports the same conclusion. There is understanding of the mechanisms by which the deficiency causes the diseases.

The incidence of many cancers can be reduced by 75%, type 1 diabetes by 90%, and so on by eliminating chronic Vitamin D deficiency. Why has that problem not been addressed?

Is the population stupid or ignorant? Is the problem economic? Billions of dollars each year are spent on treating preventable diseases. Is there a connection to the billion of dollars spent each year and the inaction?

The researcher who makes this presentation is the technical Director of Naval Health, a researcher at the University of Santa Diego, and a practicing physician at the John Moore’s cancer centre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTtmvMvgfl0&feature=related

The research shows 90% of type 1 diabetes can be eliminated by providing 2000 IU Vitamin D supplements to all infants.

1.5 million children in the US have type 1 diabetes.

BigDon
2009-Aug-03, 08:46 PM
Swift,

There must be some explanation for inaction.

The research data and logic seems to be indisputable. There is data from multiple long term studies that has been published in the top medical research journals, all of which supports the same conclusion. There is understanding of the mechanisms by which the deficiency causes the diseases.

The incidence of many cancers can be reduced by 75%, type 1 diabetes by 90%, and so on by eliminating chronic Vitamin D deficiency. Why has that problem not been addressed?

Is the population stupid or ignorant? Is the problem economic? Billions of dollars each year are spent on treating preventable diseases. Is there a connection to the billion of dollars spent each year and the inaction?

The researcher who makes this presentation is the technical Director of Naval Health, a researcher at the University of Santa Diego, and a practicing physician at the John Moore’s cancer centre.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTtmvMvgfl0&feature=related

The research shows 90% of type 1 diabetes can be eliminated by providing 2000 IU Vitamin D supplements to all infants.

1.5 million children in the US have type 1 diabetes.

What action do you suggest William? The information seems to be out there.
Are you suggesting making people comply?

Swift
2009-Aug-03, 09:13 PM
What action do you suggest William? The information seems to be out there.
Are you suggesting making people comply?
Well, I take my multi-vitamin everyday, drink a couple of glasses of milk (no-fat) and try to eat a balanced diet. And I do a lot of outdoor stuff, so I get my sunshine. The rest of you are on your own. ;)

nauthiz
2009-Aug-03, 09:33 PM
Short of telling each and every person exactly what to eat, it would be all but impossible to pass any laws or regulations that can safely ensure that everyone's getting adequate vitamin D. That's because the tolerable upper intake limit for vitamin D is only about five times its recommended daily intake. Fortifying a foodstuff with an amount of vitamin D that provides adequate nutrition for someone who eats a small amount of the foods that are selected for fortification each day could result in someone who eats a large amount of fortified foods (or takes a supplement) getting a toxic dose.

Giving 2000 IU a day to all infants strikes me as a particularly disconcerting proposal - it might reduce their risk of developing diabetes later in life, but it could also increase their risk of cardiovascular and neurological problems.

William
2009-Aug-04, 03:02 AM
Short of telling each and every person exactly what to eat, it would be all but impossible to pass any laws or regulations that can safely ensure that everyone's getting adequate vitamin D. That's because the tolerable upper intake limit for vitamin D is only about five times its recommended daily intake. Fortifying a foodstuff with an amount of vitamin D that provides adequate nutrition for someone who eats a small amount of the foods that are selected for fortification each day could result in someone who eats a large amount of fortified foods (or takes a supplement) getting a toxic dose.

Giving 2000 IU a day to all infants strikes me as a particularly disconcerting proposal - it might reduce their risk of developing diabetes later in life, but it could also increase their risk of cardiovascular and neurological problems.

Hi nauthiz,

Humans of course once lived outdoors rather than indoors in heated buildings. Humans evolved light skin color to make better use of sunlight to produce Vitamin D. The scientific evidence supports 2000 IU of vitamin D supplements for all adults. (It is not possible to get 2000 IU of vitamin D from dietary sources. Cow's milk is fortified with Vitamin D (100 IU per 8 ounces) to try to stop the disease rickets.)

Humans that work indoors and/or live above 30 degree latitude are vitamin D deficient for periods of each year. Studies show that from 65% to 95% of the population is Vitamin D deficient which weakens the immune system, causes an increase in cancer rates (50% to 75% of some types of cancer), and so on.

Everyone is aware that winter is the flu season. In addition, incidents of heart attaches, strokes, and so forth increase in the winter.

In addition to cancers, diabetes, here is another disease that has been linked to Vitamin D, deficiency.

Vitamin D and Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJHfdUKSD2A&feature=related

There is strong correlation of cardiovascular diseases and vitamin D deficiency.

From this lecture on Vitamin D and Cardiavascular disease prevention.


“The public implication of addressing vitamin D deficiency is enormous.”

I am not sure what action is required to solve this problem. Billions of dollars of health care costs are spent to treat diseases that are due to vitamin D deficiencies.

Vitamin D supplements work. The cost for the recommended 2000 IU/daily Vitamin D supplement is roughly $15/year.

Jens
2009-Aug-04, 06:00 AM
I have heard or read such statements many times, that there is some conspiracy of the pharmaceutical industry to hide or stop such research because it would decrease their profits. Except that I read about such work all the time, in both the popular press and in science literature, a quick search of Google Scholar for "diet disease" gets 174,000 hits in just recent work, and I've never seen any proof of such a conspiracy.

I think it can be exaggerated, but I have heard researchers (part of my work is editing presentations by doctors) admit that there is a bias. I don't think it's a conspiracy, but the fact is that clinical trials are very expensive to do, and it is mostly pharmaceutical companies that have money to fund them. It's hard for any company to do a clinical trial on a vitamin, because vitamins are not patentable so it is difficult to get funding. Here (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1167), for example, is an article published in the British Medical Journal. So a lot of people in the industry do recognize this as a problem, and it's not something that's really covered up (i.e., not really a conspiracy, but rather an effect of economics).

William
2009-Aug-05, 01:03 AM
Where are the actual medical studies? This story dated June 22, 2009:

http://www.physorg.com/news164898427.html

suggests that a major study is just beginning. Interestingly it also says :

"Vitamins C, E, folic acid, beta carotene, selenium and even menopause hormone pills once seemed to lower the risk of cancer or heart disease - until they were tested in big studies that sometimes revealed risks instead of benefits.

In October, the government stopped a big study of vitamin E and selenium pills for prostate cancer prevention after seeing no evidence of benefit and hints of harm.

Vitamin D is one of the last major nutrients to be put to a rigorous test."


If anyone can find a reputable study, I would appreciate a link.

Failing that, perhaps someone can link to that exact same Youtube video for the fifth time in this thread.

Hello formulaterp,

Attached are a couple of papers advocating change in Canadian and US Health care policy, to address Vitamin D deficiency in the general population.

The first paper was written in 2006 and advocated 1000 IU Vitamin D supplement to all Americans and Canadians.


http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/AJPH.2004.045260v1

The Role of Vitamin D in Cancer Prevention by “Cedric F. Garland, DrPH, Frank C. Garland, PhD, Edward D. Gorham, PhD, MPH, Martin Lipkin, MD, Harold Newmark, ScD, Sharif B. Mohr, MPH, and Michael F. Holick, PhD, MD”

Supplemental vitamin D intake could address the high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in the United States.1,55,198,225 Strong evidence indicates that intake or synthesis of vitamin D is associated with reduced incidence and death rates of colon, breast, prostate, and ovarian cancers. More than 1000 laboratory and epidemiological studies have been published concerning the association between vitamin D and its metabolites and cancer. Long-term studies have demonstrated the efficacy of moderate intake of vitamin D in reducing cancer risk and, when administered with calcium, in reducing the incidence of fractures.226 Despite these reassuring studies, the public health and medical communities have not adopted use of vitamin D for cancer prevention.


As noted above there are 100's of papers all supporting this conclusion.

At the public health care conference where a group of researchers and Public Health care physicians presented the papers and their own clinical finding they advocated 2000 IU Vitamin D supplements, as that is 1/3 of the maximum safe supplement and there are measurable benefits up to around 2000 IU.

I found articles that interviewed the researchers. The researchers all personally take 2000 IU of Vitamin D supplements.


http://www.oncologystat.com/journals/review_articles/AEP/Vitamin_D_for_Cancer_Prevention_Global_Perspective .html

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year- round serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100–150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D3, or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium.

William
2009-Aug-05, 01:25 AM
Short of telling each and every person exactly what to eat, it would be all but impossible to pass any laws or regulations that can safely ensure that everyone's getting adequate vitamin D. That's because the tolerable upper intake limit for vitamin D is only about five times its recommended daily intake. Fortifying a foodstuff with an amount of vitamin D that provides adequate nutrition for someone who eats a small amount of the foods that are selected for fortification each day could result in someone who eats a large amount of fortified foods (or takes a supplement) getting a toxic dose.

Giving 2000 IU a day to all infants strikes me as a particularly disconcerting proposal - it might reduce their risk of developing diabetes later in life, but it could also increase their risk of cardiovascular and neurological problems.


The following is the power point presentation of that discusses the 31 year Finish study (Northern Finland 1966 to 1997 Cohort Study) that found more the a factor of 7 reduction in the incident of type 1 diabetes for people when as infants were given 2000 IU daily of Vitamin D in the first year of life.

http://www.bibalex.org/Supercourse/SupercoursePPT/7011-8001/7101.ppt



From the Finish Cohort Study

At first we looked at the association between type 1 diabetes and frequency of giving vitamin D supplementation to the infants and observed on average a 80% reduction in the risk if the child had received at least some vitamin D.

Next we looked at the the dose of supplementation and found that diabetes risk was reduced a further 80% among participants who had received supplementation regularly if the dose had been at least the 2000 IU recommended at the time.



http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/135/2/323.pdf

mugaliens
2009-Aug-05, 08:51 AM
I find it rather unelievable as to how much info this elicited.

All good, mind you - no complaint.

All good!

nauthiz
2009-Aug-05, 01:58 PM
The scientific evidence supports 2000 IU of vitamin D supplements for all adults.

However, what you had suggested was 2000 IU/day for all infants. 2000 IU is twice the established tolerable upper intake limit for infants.

I really don't think I can agree that these results can safely be translated into a recommendation for the general public without seeing some further research that establishes that any negative side effects from such large doses so early in life wouldn't make the net effect be worst. Establishing the validity of a health intervention means showing that it is both effective and safe.

William
2009-Aug-05, 06:59 PM
However, what you had suggested was 2000 IU/day for all infants. 2000 IU is twice the established tolerable upper intake limit for infants.

I really don't think I can agree that these results can safely be translated into a recommendation for the general public without seeing some further research that establishes that any negative side effects from such large doses so early in life wouldn't make the net effect be worst. Establishing the validity of a health intervention means showing that it is both effective and safe.

Hi nauthiz,
For adults and children over the age of 12 in the US the recommend maximum Vitamin D supplement doseage is 2000 IU. There are for adults benefits (Up 75% reduction in the occurence of some cancers, higher survive rate for cancer, increased bone density, reduce arthritis, and so on.) up to and possibly beyond 2000 IU. (The research was only done up to 2000 IU and the benefits had not flatted out, so there may be additional benefits. There is risk at 10000 IU per day.)

In Finland the recommended doseage for infants in the first year of life (In Finland there in not sufficient sunlight in winter to produce the necessary Vitamin D) was 2000 IU. That was cut to 400 IU and some case no supplement. That change increased type 1 diabetes by a factor of 7 over the study period.

I cannot comment on what is the correct required doseage for infants, however, the current scientific research shows infants, children, and adults are chronically Vitamin D deficient.

The power point presentation attached below provides an explanation as to what Vitamin D is (it should be called a hormone rather than a Vitamin) and outlines some of the findings. The basic issue is humans no longer spend sufficient time outside, wear clothes, or live too far north to produce sufficient Vitamin D for periods in winter. The likely optimum dosage would be 2000 IU with some sun exposure and then higher in the winter.

Quote:

From the Finish Cohort Study

At first we looked at the association between type 1 diabetes and frequency of giving vitamin D supplementation to the infants and observed on average a 80% reduction in the risk if the child had received at least some vitamin D.

Next we looked at the the dose of supplementation and found that diabetes risk was reduced a further 80% among participants who had received supplementation regularly if the dose had been at least the 2000 IU recommended at the time.
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/135/2/323.pdf


Added quote from another study


ABSTRACT Limited data from human observational studies suggest that early supplementation with 10 g/d (400 IU/d) or less of vitamin D may not reduce the risk for type 1 diabetes but that doses of 50 g/d (2000 IU/d) and higher may have a strong protective effect. Current U.S. recommendations (5–25 g/d, 200-1000 IU/d) fall in the largely unstudied dose range in between. All infants and children should receive between 5 g/d and 25 g/d of supplemental vitamin D, particularly if they have limited sun exposure, live in northern areas, are exclusively breastfed, or are dark skinned. Caretakers of infants and children at increased risk of type 1 diabetes might wish to consider supplementation toward the upper end of that range or above. Additional studies are needed that 1) investigate the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and autoantibodies predictive of type 1 diabetes in infancy and beyond, 2) test the ability of vitamin D supplement doses between 5 and 50 g/d to prevent autoantibodies and/or type 1 diabetes in infancy and beyond, and 3) examine the safety of vitamin D intakes of 25 g/d and higher. Also, we need to consider the possible benefits of vitamin D supplementation when deciding whether or not to screen children for type 1 diabetes risk and to add type 1 diabetes to the growing list of outcomes that are considered when vitamin D recommendations are next revised. J. Nutr. 135: 323–325, 2005.

Maha Vailo
2009-Aug-06, 03:53 AM
How long do you have to sun yourself to get this dose, I wonder?

- Maha Vailo

William
2009-Aug-06, 06:48 PM
How long do you have to sun yourself to get this dose, I wonder?

- Maha Vailo

Hi Maha,

20 to 30 minutes of full body exposure. The option of relying on the sun, is not possible for those who live in North climates, however, in the winter. A supplement is preferred as there is no negative sun damage. The 2000 IU is 1/3 of the maximum safe supplement level of Vitamin D which takes into account sun produced vitamin D.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Aug-10, 06:04 PM
The 2000 IU is 1/3 of the maximum safe supplement level of Vitamin D which takes into account sun produced vitamin D.
For adults of average weight.