Brain Tumour Survivor

[kenobewan]

What Do You Lack? Probably Vitamin D

Vitamin D promises to be the most talked-about and written-about supplement of the decade. While studies continue to refine optimal blood levels and recommended dietary amounts, the fact remains that a huge part of the population — from robust newborns to the frail elderly, and many others in between — are deficient in this essential nutrient.

If the findings of existing clinical trials hold up in future research, the potential consequences of this deficiency are likely to go far beyond inadequate bone development and excessive bone loss that can result in falls and fractures. Every tissue in the body, including the brain, heart, muscles and immune system, has receptors for vitamin D, meaning that this nutrient is needed at proper levels for these tissues to function well.

Studies indicate that the effects of a vitamin D deficiency include an elevated risk of developing (and dying from) cancers of the colon, breast and prostate; high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease; osteoarthritis; and immune-system abnormalities that can result in infections and autoimmune disorders like multiple sclerosis, Type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.

Most people in the modern world have lifestyles that prevent them from acquiring the levels of vitamin D that evolution intended us to have. The sun’s ultraviolet-B rays absorbed through the skin are the body’s main source of this nutrient. Early humans evolved near the equator, where sun exposure is intense year round, and minimally clothed people spent most of the day outdoors.

“As a species, we do not get as much sun exposure as we used to, and dietary sources of vitamin D are minimal,” Dr. Edward Giovannucci, nutrition researcher at the Harvard School of Public Health, wrote in The Archives of Internal Medicine. Previtamin D forms in sun-exposed skin, and 10 to 15 percent of the previtamin is immediately converted to vitamin D, the form found in supplements. Vitamin D, in turn, is changed in the liver to 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the main circulating form. Finally, the kidneys convert 25-hydroxyvitamin D into the nutrient’s biologically active form, 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, also known as vitamin D hormone.

A person’s vitamin D level is measured in the blood as 25-hydroxyvitamin D, considered the best indicator of sufficiency. A recent study showed that maximum bone density is achieved when the blood serum level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D reaches 40 nanograms per milliliter or more.

“Throughout most of human evolution,” Dr. Giovannucci wrote, “when the vitamin D system was developing, the ‘natural’ level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was probably around 50 nanograms per milliliter or higher. In modern societies, few people attain such high levels.”

A Common Deficiency

Although more foods today are supplemented with vitamin D, experts say it is rarely possible to consume adequate amounts through foods. The main dietary sources are wild-caught oily fish (salmon, mackerel, bluefish, and canned tuna) and fortified milk and baby formula, cereal and orange juice.

People in colder regions form their year’s supply of natural vitamin D in summer, when ultraviolet-B rays are most direct. But the less sun exposure, the darker a person’s skin and the more sunscreen used, the less previtamin D is formed and the lower the serum levels of the vitamin. People who are sun-phobic, babies who are exclusively breast-fed, the elderly and those living in nursing homes are particularly at risk of a serious vitamin D deficiency.

Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University, a leading expert on vitamin D and author of “The Vitamin D Solution” (Hudson Street Press, 2010), said in an interview, “We want everyone to be above 30 nanograms per milliliter, but currently in the United States, Caucasians average 18 to 22 nanograms and African-Americans average 13 to 15 nanograms.” African-American women are 10 times as likely to have levels at or below 15 nanograms as white women, the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found.

Such low levels could account for the high incidence of several chronic diseases in this country, Dr. Holick maintains. For example, he said, in the Northeast, where sun exposure is reduced and vitamin D levels consequently are lower, cancer rates are higher than in the South. Likewise, rates of high blood pressure, heart disease, and prostate cancer are higher among dark-skinned Americans than among whites.

The rising incidence of Type 1 diabetes may be due, in part, to the current practice of protecting the young from sun exposure. When newborn infants in Finland were given 2,000 international units a day, Type 1 diabetes fell by 88 percent, Dr. Holick said.

The current recommended intake of vitamin D, established by the Institute of Medicine, is 200 I.U. a day from birth to age 50 (including pregnant women); 400 for adults aged 50 to 70; and 600 for those older than 70. While a revision upward of these amounts is in the works, most experts expect it will err on the low side. Dr. Holick, among others, recommends a daily supplement of 1,000 to 2,000 units for all sun-deprived individuals, pregnant and lactating women, and adults older than 50. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that breast-fed infants receive a daily supplement of 400 units until they are weaned and consuming a quart or more each day of fortified milk or formula.

Given appropriate sun exposure in summer, it is possible to meet the body’s yearlong need for vitamin D. But so many factors influence the rate of vitamin D formation in skin that it is difficult to establish a universal public health recommendation. Asked for a general recommendation, Dr. Holick suggests going outside in summer unprotected by sunscreen (except for the face, which should always be protected) wearing minimal clothing from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. two or three times a week for 5 to 10 minutes.

Slathering skin with sunscreen with an SPF of 30 will reduce exposure to ultraviolet-B rays by 95 to 98 percent. But if you make enough vitamin D in your skin in summer, it can meet the body’s needs for the rest of the year, Dr. Holick said.

Can You Get Too Much?

If acquired naturally through skin, the body’s supply of vitamin D has a built-in cutoff. When enough is made, further exposure to sunlight will destroy any excess. Not so when the source is an ingested supplement, which goes directly to the liver.

Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness and weight loss, as well as dangerous amounts of calcium that can result in kidney stones, confusion and abnormal heart rhythms.

But both Dr. Giovannucci and Dr. Holick say it is very hard to reach such toxic levels. Healthy adults have taken 10,000 I.U. a day for six months or longer with no adverse effects. People with a serious vitamin D deficiency are often prescribed weekly doses of 50,000 units until the problem is corrected. To minimize the risk of any long-term toxicity, these experts recommend that adults take a daily supplement of 1,000 to 2,000 units.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/health/27brod.html?_r=2&src=me&ref=homepage

[kenobewan]

Prescription: More sun

Gene Stubbs will admit that just a few years ago he might have laughed at the very research he’s now involved in. He might have thought the theory he’s been testing would have been better suited for zealots desperate for a simple explanation where none existed.

Here’s the theory: Autism might be caused by mothers not getting enough sunlight or Vitamin D supplementation during their pregnancies.

Now, Stubbs isn’t a parent of an autistic child grasping at straws. He’s a respected associate professor emeritus of psychiatry and pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University who has turned into a researcher in his retirement. And he’s well aware that plenty of people have claimed to know why autism rates have skyrocketed in recent years, and that most of their explanations had little to do with hard science.

But if Stubbs is right about the autism/Vitamin D link, he and a growing legion of scientists across the country might also be right about their larger theory – that lack of sun exposure and Vitamin D explains Oregon’s high rates of depression, multiple sclerosis, bone disease, cancers and dozens of other maladies, including colds and flu.

In short, if sun exposure is necessary for good health, Portland residents are in a boatload of trouble. Vitamin D pills may help, but nobody is certain the pills are as effective as sun exposure.

Vitamin D deficiency may be the latest medical fad, but this one has a fair amount of scientific evidence to support it. Even skeptics, who remember the grandiose claims made about Vitamin E a couple decades ago, are reluctant to say there’s nothing to the Vitamin D theory. Instead, they preach caution to colleagues who appear too quick to rush to judgment.

But consider that in researching this story the Tribune interviewed more than a dozen physicians and scientists with an interest in Vitamin D, and every single one, including skeptics, said they take daily Vitamin D supplements themselves.

The basic theory goes like this: for the past 20 years or so, fear of skin cancer and an increasingly indoor culture have kept us out of the sun, or lathered with sun block when we do go outside. We get most of our Vitamin D, which is really more a hormone than a vitamin, from exposure to the sun. So nationally, Vitamin D blood levels have been plummeting.

In fact, they have been dropping so much that even people in Arizona and Florida now have Vitamin D levels nearly as low as people who live in Oregon, where it’s almost impossible to get enough sun exposure.

That’s why Michael Holick, professor of medicine at Boston University Medical Center, author of “The Vitamin D Solution,” and the unofficial godfather of Vitamin D theory, says that he expects southerly climes to see a rise in the rates of diseases that historically have been more prevalent in Oregon.

One of those diseases is autism. In November 2008, a well-publicized study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine revealed that areas of Oregon, Washington and California with the most rain had much higher rates of autism than the rest of the country – and higher rates than dryer regions in those three states.

At the time, researchers thought the explanation might come from behaviors. Maybe children in rainier areas such as Portland were spending too much time indoors, exposed to toxic chemicals, or too much television. But other studies have had researchers looking elsewhere. Among them were two studies that looked at Somali immigrants who had settled in Sweden and Minnesota.

In sun-bleached Somali, autism isn’t even identified; there isn’t even a word for it, according to Stubbs and others. But the Somali refugees in northern cities are having children with autism at incredibly high rates, in numbers even greater than the white-skinned residents of Sweden and Minnesota. In Sweden, Stubbs says, autism among Somali refugees is called “the Swedish disease.”

It just might be a Vitamin D-linked disease, say Stubbs and others. Black skin doesn’t absorb the sun’s rays nearly as well as white, so dark-skinned people in northern climates are most Vitamin D deficient of all. In fact, many diseases, including hypertension and diabetes, are more common among African Americans, and some researchers believe their lower levels of Vitamin D might be at least partially responsible.

Most of the evidence linking Vitamin D deficiency and diseases is epidemiological – looking at large numbers of people and correlating their disease rates with measurable factors. And that’s the primary problem with Vitamin D theories: They lack the more substantial proof that comes with double-blind, controlled clinical studies.

But what Stubbs has been doing for the past two years is slowly recruiting women from across the country who have given birth to an autistic child, and who anticipate having another child. Because autism has a genetic component, about one in 10 or slightly fewer of those second children should be autistic, all else being equal, Stubbs says.

Stubbs is giving those pregnant women 5,000 international units (IUs) of Vitamin D pills a day, and expecting that few if any of the children will develop autism.

So far, Stubbs has 14 women enrolled, 10 of whom have given birth. All the babies appear normal, but autism often takes as long as three years to be diagnosed. He knows he has to wait, and enroll many more women to have convincing evidence. But Stubbs says when he looks at the 10 newborn children and how they respond to those around them, he can’t help but feel he’s on to something.

“As a scientist I have to say, I don’t know. Emotionally, I believe there is a connection between Vitamin D deficiency during pregnancy and autism,” Stubbs says.

And count Stubbs among those who believe the autism connection is only a small part of a larger Vitamin D story.

“The whole world is Vitamin D deficient,” he says. “It’s a pandemic.”

Miracle prevention

Michael Holick is the man most responsible for sounding alarms about the possible Vitamin D link to maladies that include osteoporosis, arthritis, diabetes, dementia and even premature birth. He says that overall, the U.S. population is 20 percent more D deficient than it was 20 years ago due to overblown fears of sun exposure. About one in four Americans take Vitamin D supplements, he says, but “everybody needs it.”

Holick concedes that much of the evidence for the Vitamin D effect comes from epidemiological studies showing, for instance, higher rates from colon, breast, ovarian and prostate cancers in northern regions with diminished sun exposure. But, he says, there are a growing number of randomized clinical trials proving D has a role in causing or triggering disease.

Among Holick’s favorites is a 2007 study by researchers at Creighton University School of Medicine, who followed 1,179 healthy women for four years. Half received daily doses of Vitamin D and calcium (which helps the body absorb D), and half received a placebo. After four years, the women taking the Vitamin D had a 77 percent lower cancer rate.

Holick is unabashed in proclaiming Vitamin D’s role in health.

“It’s not a miracle, it’s a miracle prevention that mother nature designed 750,000 years ago,” he says.

In Charleston, S.C., researcher Carol Wagner studied 494 pregnant women, almost all of whom were Vitamin D deficient despite living in a sunny state. Some received a placebo during their pregnancy and others received varying doses of Vitamin D. The women receiving the highest doses of D – 10 times the standard dose in most prenatal vitamins – had half as many premature births and lower rates of infection.

Wagner, a professor of pediatrics at the medical center, says she’s recommending pregnant women start taking 4,000 International Units (IUs) of Vitamin D a day, not the 400 IUs most obstetricians prescribe. And she’s frustrated that acceptance of the Vitamin D effect is so slow.

“People say we don’t want this to get out of hand, but it’s amazing,” Wagner says. “As a society we will take all these other pills, which have so many more side effects, without even hesitating. And little old Vitamin D has to prove itself.”

In Corvallis, Adrian Gombart, assistant professor at the Oregon State University Linus Pauling Institute, is using animal studies to figure out how Vitamin D deficiency can be linked to so many diseases. D plays a role in regulating thousands of genes, Gombart says, but it’s hard to study because many of its effects take place over a long period of time, rather than as a direct cause and effect.

In some cases, Gombart says, it appears childhood exposure to sunlight and Vitamin D correlate with diseases decades later. Gombart thinks the answer might lie in the immune system, and his research is focusing on genes that are regulated by Vitamin D and that help fight infection.

Holick and Gombart estimate that seven of 10 Americans have insufficient Vitamin D levels, but nobody is precisely certain what constitutes a sufficient level.

‘Is it truth yet?’

At Oregon Health & Science University, professor of medicine Eric Orwoll has studied variations in Vitamin D levels around the country. Orwoll analyzed blood samples from 5,995 elderly men in Birmingham, Ala., Minneapolis, Palo Alto, Calif., Pittsburgh, San Diego and Portland. Not surprisingly, the men in Portland, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh had the lowest levels of Vitamin D. But only San Diego men had significantly higher levels. The men in Alabama and Palo Alto had levels just a little higher than those in Portland.

And that helps explain why Orwoll says he maintains a “healthy skepticism” about all the claims being made about Vitamin D. He says there have been too many miraculous discoveries based on epidemiological data that turned out to be mistaken.

“Everybody jumps on a bandwagon and proclaims truth and knowledge until five years later, something happens and you have to change your mind,” Orwoll says. “I think we have to be careful about how much we jump on this bandwagon.”

Orwoll, an endocrinologist, says he’s convinced that Vitamin D deficiency can lead to bone disease. Without clinical trials he’s less sure about the connection to immune system diseases such as multiple sclerosis, which has been linked to Vitamin D and which has a high rate of occurrence in Oregon.

“It’s a really intriguing hypothesis,” Orwoll says. “Is it truth yet? No. If I had MS, would I make sure my Vitamin D levels were good? I would.”

Count David Leffell among the Vitamin D skeptics. Leffell, professor of dermatology and surgery at Yale University School of Medicine, represents the group most at odds with Holick and his followers – dermatologists.

Leffell, the author of “Total Skin: The Definitive Guide to Whole Skin Care For Life,” has for decades been one of the loudest voices warning people about the risk of skin cancer from unblocked sunlight. People shouldn’t go out in the sun during midday hours unprotected, he says. And they definitely shouldn’t use tanning beds.

“While we don’t know the truth about Vitamin D, we do know the truth about ultraviolet radiation,” Leffell says. “It’s the only EPA-documented environmental carcinogen.”

Leffell calls the Vitamin D/cancer connection “intriguing.” He recognizes D has some therapeutic effects. But all those diseases?

“When it comes to therapies, as a general rule if a pill or a vitamin or a supplement does a dozen different things, the odds are it does nothing,” Leffell says.

Adequate doses

Moving from station to station in an expansive laboratory in Beaverton, Mark Newman has no such doubts.

Newman is the vice president of Laboratory Operations for ZRT Laboratory, a company on the leading edge of Vitamin D research. ZRT has developed a mail-order Vitamin D test that requires only a pin prick and a drop of blood.

A scientist in Jordan wanted to test the Vitamin D levels of 2,000 babies in a country where women, including pregnant women, stay covered head to toe. Simple heel sticks will yield 2,000 drops of blood on collection cards mailed to ZRT in Beaverton, and the researcher will have her answer. So far, 50 samples have been analyzed and all the children had negligible Vitamin D levels.

“I can’t even imagine the issues those kids must have,” Newman says.

Newman says he works with a Canadian researcher who is using Vitamin D supplements in an attempt to get the serum levels of cancer patients up to 100 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL) – more than three times the conventionally recommended level for adults.

ZRT employs 85 people and virtually all test their own levels and take Vitamin D supplements. This is a company focused on Vitamin D’s health impact.

The bathroom at ZRT even includes a Vitamin D light, so employees can take off their shirts and get a few minutes of D-producing rays on their breaks.

“We’re very competitive with our levels,” says Amy Paoletti, the company’s business development manager.

Newman says after working with scientists studying Vitamin D, he’s convinced that if everyone in Oregon and elsewhere took adequate doses of Vitamin D supplements, cancer rates would drop dramatically. He also says there would be a lot less flu going around in the winter, due to D’s effect on immune systems.

“If this were a pharmaceutical product, there would be a movement to put it in the drinking water like fluoride,” Newman says.

Vital information on Vitamin D

• In Oregon, the summer sun is high enough for people to produce significant Vitamin D from about 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

• November through February, even sunbathing Oregonians can't get rays to produce Vitamin D because the sun's angle is too low in the sky.

• Vitamin D is stored in fat cells and later released, so that sun exposure in the summer can yield higher blood levels of D in the winter.

• Dark-skinned people need at least twice as much (and possibly more) sun exposure to produce the same amount of Vitamin D. Researchers speculate that early humans living near the equator developed dark skin to protect against overexposure to the sun. As humans migrated away from the equator, natural selection dictated they lose their protective darker skin so they could process adequate Vitamin D from a less potent sun.

• Most tanning beds and special Vitamin D home lights can help people raise their blood levels of Vitamin D.

• Sunlight coming through glass will not yield any Vitamin D.

• Sunlight destroys excess Vitamin D made in the body, making overdosing impossible, according to Michael Holick, author of “The Vitamin D Solution.” Physicians disagree on potential overdose thresholds from D supplements, though Holick says adult “Vitamin D intoxication” would require at least 10,000 IU of D a day for six months.

• Even foods rich in Vitamin D generally won't raise blood concentrations to the levels most researchers are recommending. But foods that help the body produce Vitamin D include salmon, mushrooms and fortified foods such as milk products.

• Researchers disagree on an adequate level of Vitamin D, but nearly all agree that the current government supplement recommendation of 400 International Unit's a day is much too low. Scientists interviewed for this story reported they took daily supplements ranging from 1,000 IUs a day up to 10,000 IUs a day.

http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128035439115067600

[kenobewan]

Calcium supplements play an important role in maintaining bone health

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 29, 2010 – A broad range of scientific research has demonstrated that an adequate intake of calcium plays an important role in building and maintaining optimum bone mass, and a recent meta-analysis published online in the British Medical Journal should not cause consumers to doubt the value of calcium supplements for maintaining bone health.

"Adequate calcium intake is vital to building and maintaining healthy bones, and to preventing osteoporosis—which is caused by a failure to build adequate bone mass or by bone loss that occurs as we age. Most people do not get enough calcium from diet alone, and this is where a calcium supplement can be important to consumers of all ages," said Andrew Shao, Ph.D., senior vice president, scientific & regulatory affairs, Council for Responsible Nutrition. "The results from this meta-analysis does not undermine the value calcium supplements offer to those concerned with maintaining or increasing bone density, as years of research shows these products do."

The authors of the meta-analysis examined the effects of calcium supplements on the risk of cardiovascular events, concluding there is an increased risk, and calling for a reassessment of the role of calcium supplements for osteoporosis. According to CRN, these conclusions are dramatically overstated, considering the limitations of meta-analysis, in general, and this meta-analysis, specifically.

For example, the analysis could have potentially included over 300 scientific studies on calcium supplementation's effect on bone, but only 15 randomized clinical trials were deemed "eligible for analysis."

Further, seven of the 15 trials evaluated had no, or incomplete, data on cardiovascular outcomes, and only five of the 15 studies accounted for almost all of the cardiovascular outcomes. Further, because the researchers chose to exclude any trials administering calcium plus vitamin D, many large, important trials—including the Women's Health Initiative, which found calcium plus vitamin D had no effect on the risk of coronary heart disease or stroke—were not included.

"The authors characterize these findings as though all of the selected studies suggest increased risk. In fact, the opposite is true: most of the studies do not suggest increased risk," says Dr. Shao. "Bone health is one of the most common reasons why healthcare professionals recommend calcium supplements; there are other health benefits that may be associated with calcium supplementation, such as reduction of colon cancer risk. This is not even considered by the authors. It's unfortunate that these researchers are making sweeping judgments about the value of calcium supplements by only assessing a handful of handpicked studies."

Dr. Shao also pointed out that none of the original studies included in the meta-analysis were designed to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes. Additionally, the data on cardiovascular events was never previously published, so the meta-analysts had to track the information down separately, in some cases, 10 even 20 years after the original study was published.

"Meta-analysis can be a useful tool for scientific evaluation, but we have to recognize its limitations, and keep in mind that its findings are based on a collection of past studies that may have different designs, doses and study populations," says Dr. Shao. "This analysis should not dissuade consumers, particularly young women, from taking calcium supplements. They should talk with their doctors about their current and long-term needs and determine how much calcium they are getting from their diets, and supplement accordingly—likely in combination with vitamin D."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-07/cfrn-csp072910.php

[kenobewan]

Vitamin D deficiency linked to Parkinson's disease, cognitive decline

Studies of vitamin D have been on the rise in recent years, and with good reason—a 2009 estimate suggests that nearly three quarters of teens and adults in the U.S. are deficient in this vital nutrient. Vitamin D deficiency not only causes rickets, a skeletal disorder in which the bones are soft and weak, but has also been associated with a rapidly increasing range of chronic conditions like cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes. Now, two new studies suggest a link between vitamin D and neurological disorder: Older people with insufficient vitamin D levels may be more likely to develop Parkinson's disease and experience cognitive decline.

The first, led by Paul Knekt and colleagues at the National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland, examined levels of vitamin D in the blood of 3,173 Finnish men and women aged 50 to 79 determined to be free of Parkinson's disease at the start of the study. The researchers then examined the incidence of Parkinson's disease in these participants over a 29-year follow-up period. They found that participants with the highest levels of vitamin D (more than 50 nmol/L) had a 65 percent lower risk of developing Parkinson's disease than those with the lowest vitamin D levels (less than 25 nmol/L). The researchers accounted for potentially confounding variables such as age, sex, marital status, education, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity and month of blood draw.

Parkinson's disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that leads to impaired movement and speech, and is thought to result from insufficient dopamine levels in the brain. How vitamin D may protect against Parkinson's is not understood, although there is limited evidence from cell-based and animal models that vitamin D may prevent the loss of dopaminergic neurons (cells that produce dopamine).

One important limitation to the study is that the average vitamin D concentration of all the study participants (approximately 40 nmol/L) falls well below what is considered to be optimal (more than 75 nmol/L). Therefore, whether supplementation with vitamin D would further lower the risk for Parkinson's remains unknown. Nevertheless, the study suggests that not having enough vitamin D may predispose individuals to Parkinson's, and provides a starting point for further investigation. The results were published online July 12 in the Archives of Neurology.

In the second study, David Llewellyn of the University of Exeter and colleagues examined vitamin D levels among 858 Italian men and women age 65 and older. They found that more than half of the participants with dementia were vitamin D deficient (less than 50 nmol/L). What's more, cognitive tests revealed that severely deficient individuals (less than 25 nmol/L) were 60 percent more likely to undergo cognitive decline over the six-year follow-up period. This study appears online July 12 in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Humans can obtain vitamin D by eating oily fish or fortified foods, and it is also photosynthesized in the skin upon exposure to adequate amounts of ultraviolet B (UVB) rays in sunlight. Major factors that influence vitamin D status in humans include season, latitude, age, skin tone, diet and supplement use. The U.S. Institute of Medicine currently recommends that adult men and women aim for a daily intake of 200 to 600 International Units (IU) of vitamin D.

New guidelines for vitamin D intake were published online July 12 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by scientists from Osteoporosis Canada, a nonprofit organization. Because vitamin D influences calcium absorption and may protect against osteoporosis, the authors advise an increased daily intake of 400 to 1000 IU for healthy Canadians under age 50, and up to 2000 IU for those older than 50. The researchers state the changes are necessary because winter sunlight north of the 35th parallel (which coincides with the southern border of Tennessee) provides insufficient UVB for people living in that region to adequately make vitamin D.

The studies by Knekt and Llewellyn are not the first to link vitamin D deficiency with neurological problems, however. A role for vitamin D has previously been suggested in multiple sclerosis, autism and schizophrenia.

Some experts advise interpreting the results of these and other observational studies of vitamin D with caution. The above studies relied on participants from specific geographic areas, so more study is needed to determine whether the findings apply to other regions. Furthermore, "low vitamin D levels may simply be a marker for lower health status rather than a cause of it," Andrew Grey, professor of medicine at the University of Auckland, wrote in an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine. This is because vitamin D levels are directly related to sunlight exposure and physical activity; less healthy individuals are therefore likely to be less active and more sunlight-deprived, and have lower levels of vitamin D.

"It is now time to test the various hypotheses generated by observational studies of vitamin D…in adequately designed and conducted randomized controlled trials," Grey concluded. "We should invest in trials that provide the best possible evidence on the benefits and risks of vitamin D before we invest in costly, difficult, and potentially unrewarding interventional strategies."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=vitamin-d-deficiency-linked-to-park-2010-07-12

[kenobewan]

Vitamin D more effective than vaccines at preventing flu infections

(NaturalNews) A vitamin D supplement is more effective at reducing the risk of flu infection than vaccines or antiviral drugs, according to a study conducted by researchers from Jikei University School of Medicine in Tokyo and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Researchers conducted the double-blind, randomized study on 354 children between the ages of six and 15 during the winter of 2008-2009. Half the children were assigned to take a daily supplement of 1,200 IU of vitamin D, while the other half were given a placebo pill.

After one month, influenza infection rates in the two groups remained the same. By the second month, however, participants in the vitamin D group were 50 percent less likely to become infected than participants in the control group. This drop in infection rate corresponded with an increase in vitamin D blood levels.

In contrast, antiviral drugs such as oseltamivir and zanamivir reduced rates of infection by only 8 percent. Even vaccines had success rates significantly lower than the 50 percent achieved by vitamin D.

When the analysis excluded children who were being given vitamin D supplements at home, supplementation was found to reduce the risk of infection by 67 percent.

Because vitamin D is an essential nutrient, it poses no side effects if given in appropriate doses. In contrast, both drugs and vaccines can produce negative side effects in many people.

In addition, higher vitamin D levels lead to stronger bones and teeth, a more well-regulated immune system, and an overall lower risk of infection, heart disease, cancer and autoimmune disorders.

Vitamin D is synthesized naturally by the body upon exposure to sunlight, but a decrease in time spent outdoors plus growing use of sunscreen due to skin cancer fears has contributed to widespread deficiency. Vitamin D levels tend to hit their lowest point in most people during the winter, when the sun is at its weakest. This corresponds with the time period during which flu infections peak.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029333_vitamin_D_flu_vaccines.html

[kenobewan]

The sunshine vitamin

More than a handful of health experts believe there is a way to reduce the nation’s health care costs by 25 to 30 percent by helping to prevent and treat many of the sicknesses that trouble humanity including cancer, obesity, asthma, sore backs and joints, psoriasis, osteoporosis, diabetes, mental illness and even that most pesky of ailments -- the common cold.

But it’s not a medical procedure, a wonder drug or an administrative fix. It is something that is created naturally in the body when the sun’s ultraviolet B rays strike human skin, converting cholesterol into ... vitamin D.

Some health professionals have stated on the record that up to 85 percent of people in the United States, even healthy people, have vitamin D deficiency.

Low levels of the vitamin have been found to contribute to heart disease and heart attacks, hypertension, rickets, chronic pain, depression and several autoimmune diseases.

According to Cedric Garland, an epidemiologist and professor of family and preventive medicine at UC Sand Diego School of Medicine, 600,000 cases of breast and colorectal cancer could be prevented around the world if vitamin D levels were increased.

Garland, who reviewed more than 200 epidemiological and 2,500 laboratory studies, concluded that increased vitamin D levels can cut overall cancer risks by 60 percent or more.

Dr. Michael F. Holick, Boston University School of Medicine, who, 40 years ago, discovered the active form of vitamin D, believes there is no downside to increasing intake to 1,000 or 1,500 international units a day (IU/d).
"It is estimated that there is a 30 to 50 percent reduction in risk for developing colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer by either increasing vitamin D intake to least 1,000 IU/d ... or increasing sun exposure to raise blood levels ..." he stated. "Recent studies suggested that women who are vitamin D deficient have a 253 percent increased risk for developing colorectal cancer ...."

An optimist could conclude that taking vitamin D is the single most effective method of preventing cancer and maintaining good health.

Why does it appear that vitamin D is so effective? Because it’s not really a vitamin at all. It’s actually a secosteroid, a potent "repair and maintenance" hormone that has receptors in almost every type of cell in the human body.

However, caution some experts, the health effects of increasing vitamin D dosage require more study.

Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of preventive medicine at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women’s Hospital, is leading a five-year study of 20,000 older adults to determine if high dose of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids from fish-oil supplements can lower the risks for heart disease and cancer.

She reminds the vitamin D cheerleaders that so many of the same things were said about vitamins E and B, selenium and beta carotene, promises that didn’t pan out.

But what all health experts agree on is that each and every American should get their blood tested to determine if they are vitamin-D deficient and if so, to increase their intake.

According to the American Dietetics Association, sun exposure to hands, arms and face for 10 to 15 minutes per day, depending on its intensity, is believed to be adequate to provide sufficient amounts of vitamin D.

However, for those of us who live in the northern latitudes, especially in the winter months, it’s almost impossible to get the necessary sunshine for the natural production of the vitamin.

Other than from dietary supplements, sources for vitamin D are seafood (especially cod liver oil), beef liver, fortified milk, cereals and juices and eggs.

While our federal government and our care providers search for ways to get health care costs under control there are simple things we can do to reduce our own costs without having to wait for them to come up with a solution -- eat healthy, don’t smoke and take more vitamin D.

http://www.reformer.com/ci_15645433?source=most_emailed

[kenobewan]

Up to 95 percent of infants are vitamin D deficient but only 1 percent get vitamin D supplements

(NaturalNews) Two studies published in the journal Pediatrics highlight that although vitamin D deficiency is widespread among infants in the United States, most pediatricians remain unaware of the problem.

The first study, conducted by researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found that only 5 to 13 percent of breast-fed infants were receiving at least 400 IU of vitamin D per day, the amount currently recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics. Human breast milk is actually relatively low in vitamin D, probably because during our evolutionary history most babies got plenty of exposure to sunlight.

Although formula-fed infants were not included in the study, researchers noted that an infant would need to drink 32 ounces of fortified formula per day to get 400 IU of vitamin D, an amount that is probably unrealistic for young children.

The body produces vitamin D when exposed to UV-B radiation from sunlight. The nutrient is essential for the development and maintenance of bones and the immune system, and deficiency can increase the risk of soft or brittle bones, infection, cancer, heart disease and autoimmune disorders. Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that infants get no direct sunlight at all for the first six months of life, and that they wear protective clothing and sunscreen beyond that age - effectively ruling out the healthiest, most reliable source of this essential nutrient.

Making matters worse, according to the CDC study, only 1 to 13 percent of children under the age of one take a vitamin D supplement.

A second study in the same issue found a lower (but still high) rate of vitamin D deficiency, with 58 percent of newborns and 36 percent of mothers testing deficient. A full 30 percent of mothers who took prenatal vitamins were still deficient in vitamin D.

Although increased sun exposure improved mothers' vitamin D levels, it did not raise those of their infants. This further suggests that breast milk is a poor source of vitamin D and that infants need to be exposed to sunlight directly in order to synthesize the vitamin for themselves.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029341_vitamin_D_infants.html

[kenobewan]

Vitamin D Boosts Male Sex Drive?

If you needed any more reasons to pursue a UV vitamin D boost, news out of Austria may do the trick. Research that appeared in Clinical Endocrinology indicates a connection between increased UV light exposure and male libido.

Based on the research, a representative from the Sunlight Research Forum suggests that men with proper vitamin D levels tested with favorable amounts of testosterone. Several thousand men participated in the study, which noted correlations between fluctuating vitamin D and testosterone levels through a designated time period. When vitamin D was elevated, so was testosterone – as well as the inverse relationship.

The source article mentions some researchers’ recommendations for daily UV light exposure in order for the body to help produce vitamin D; the necessary time varies based on skin tone. It’s noted that the body can complete the vitamin D stimulation process long before any adverse result such as a sunburn would occur.

According to Cancer Research UK’s Jessica Harris, “Enjoying the sun safely while taking care not to burn should help people strike a balance between making enough vitamin D and avoiding a higher risk of skin cancer.”

Also mentioned are: the reported widespread health benefits of vitamin D, the increase in vitamin D deficiency worldwide, and the problems sunscreen causes in prohibiting vitamin D production.

http://www.lookingfit.com/hotnews/vitamin-d-boosts-male-sex-drive.html

[kenobewan]

High dose vitamin D prevents bone breaks in elderly: Study

High-dose vitamin D supplements could reduce fractures in the elderly by more than 20%, UK researchers said.

The brittle-bone disease osteoporosis is common among the elderly, but scientists at the University of Cambridge in England have shown that large doses of vitamin D, taken only every four months, can cut the risk of broken bones among 65 to 85 year olds. "Total fracture incidence was reduced by 22 percent and fractures in major osteroporotic sites by 33 percent," Kay Tee Khaw, a professor of clinical gerontology, reports in the March 1st issue of the British Medical Journal.

Fractures of the hip, wrist and spine are most closely linked to osteoporosis.

Khaw and her team said the result has important implications for public health policy-makers because they show vitamin D supplements can prevent fractures on their own.

Previous research had found that vitamin D was effective when patients took it with calcium. Studies have also tended to focus on women, who are four times more likely than men to suffer from osteoporosis.

"Many interventions effective in high-risk groups are not feasible in the general population owing to poor compliance or side effects or are not cost effective," Khaw and her colleagues write in the report.
"In contrast, the cost of four-monthly oral 100,000 IU vitamin D is minimal (less than one pound annually)," they add.

Khaw's team found the vitamin supplement, taken every four months for five years, helped women more than men. Women taking the supplement were 32% less likely to have a fracture, while only 17% fewer men broke bones if they took the supplement.

Khaw and her colleagues followed 2,686 people--2,037 men and 649 women--for five years. Half were given vitamin D tablets, while the other half received placebos.

Although osteoporosis affects both men and women, it is much more common in women, mainly because of the decreased production of the hormone oestrogen after menopause. In the first five years after the menopause women can lose up to 15% of their total bone mass.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/04-Aug-2010/High-dose-vitamin-D-prevents-bone-breaks-in-elderly-Study

[kenobewan]

Some evidence vitamin D might fight colds

(Reuters Health) - A daily vitamin D supplement may help young men enjoy more sick-free days during cold and flu season, a small study suggests.

Vitamin D has been the subject of much research of late, with studies linking low vitamin D levels in the blood to higher risks of type 1 diabetes and severe asthma attacks in children and, in adults, heart disease, certain cancers and depression.

But whether vitamin D is the reason for the excess risks -- and whether taking supplements can curb those risks -- has yet to be shown.

The body naturally synthesizes vitamin D when the skin is exposed to sunlight. Because rates of vitamin D insufficiency rise during the winter in many parts of the world, researchers have been interested in whether the vitamin might play a role in people's susceptibility to colds, flu and other respiratory infections.

Some past research has indeed found that people with relatively lower vitamin D levels in their blood tend to have higher rates of respiratory infections than those with higher levels of the vitamin, said Dr. Ilkka Laaksi of the University of Tampere in Finland, the lead researcher on the new study.

Along with that evidence, recent lab research has shown that vitamin D may play an "important role" in the body's immune defenses against respiratory pathogens, Laaksi wrote in an email to Reuters Health.

"However," the researcher said, "there is a lack of clinical studies of the effect of vitamin D supplementation for preventing respiratory infections."

For the current study, Laaksi's team randomly assigned 164 male military recruits to take either 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D or inactive placebo pills every day for six months -- from October to March, covering the months when people's vitamin D stores typically decline and when respiratory infections typically peak.

At the end of the study, the researchers found no clear difference between the two groups in the average number of days missed from duty due to a respiratory infection -- which included bronchitis, sinus infections, pneumonia, ear infections and sore throat.

On average, men who took vitamin D missed about two days from duty because of a respiratory infection, compared with three days in the placebo group. That difference was not significant in statistical terms.

However, men in the vitamin D group were more likely to have no days missed from work due to a respiratory illness.

Overall, 51 percent remained "healthy" throughout the six-month study, versus 36 percent of the placebo group, the researchers report.

The findings, Laaksi said, offer "some evidence" of a benefit from vitamin D against respiratory infections.

Still, the extent of the benefit was not clear. While recruits in the vitamin group were more likely to have no days missed from duty, they were no less likely to report having cold-like symptoms at some point during the study period.

Moreover, recent studies on the usefulness of vitamin D for warding off respiratory ills have come to conflicting conclusions.

A study of Japanese schoolchildren published earlier this year found that those given 1,200 IU of vitamin D each day during cold and flu season were less likely to contract influenza A. Of 167 children given the supplement, 18 developed the flu, compared with 31 of 167 children given placebo pills.

On the other hand, a recent study of 162 adults found that those who took 2,000 IU of vitamin D everyday for 12 weeks were no less likely to develop respiratory infections than those given placebo pills.

Laaksi said that larger clinical trials looking at different doses of vitamin D are still needed before the vitamin can be recommended for curbing the risk of respiratory infections.

In the U.S., health officials recommend that adults up to the age of 50 get 200 IU of vitamin D each day, while older adults should get 400 to 600 IU. The upper limit is currently set at 2,000 IU per day; higher intakes may raise the risks of side effects.

Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity are often vague and include nausea, vomiting, constipation, poor appetite and weight loss. Excessive vitamin D in the blood can also raise blood pressure or trigger heart rhythm abnormalities.

Some researchers believe that people need more vitamin D than is currently recommended, and that intakes above 2,000 IU per day are safe. However, exactly what the optimal vitamin D intake might be remains under debate.

Food sources of vitamin D include milk, breakfast cereals and orange juice fortified with vitamin D, as well as some fatty fish, like salmon and mackerel. Experts generally recommend vitamin pills for people who do not get enough of the vitamin from food.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67444320100805

[kenobewan]

Ariz. Researchers Get $1.5 Million Colon-Cancer-Research Grant

TUCSON, Ariz.—The National Cancer Institute has awarded a $1.5 million grant to two University of Arizona researchers to study vitamin D and its relationship to colon cancer. The researchers are colon and thyroid cancer survivor Elizabeth Jacobs, PhD, Arizona Cancer Center scientist and assistant professor at the University of Arizona; and Peter Jurutka, PhD, of the University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix in partnership with Arizona State University.

This five-year R01 grant will enable Dr. Jacobs and Dr. Jurutka, co-principal investigators, to study the epidemiology and molecular biology of the relationship between vitamin D and colorectal cancer.

This research will help determine whether serum levels of vitamin D are related to colorectal adenoma recurrence and whether genetic variation in enzymes in the vitamin D pathway effect colorectal cancer recurrence. Their research will examine the functional effects of genetic variation in the cell, and will elucidate a potential mechanism of action of vitamin D within colon cancer cells.

"What we hope to find is that higher levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk for colorectal adenomas. We also hope to both identify and mechanistically explain changes in genes which might be related to the amount of vitamin D available to cells," Jacobs said.

"These findings could help us understand whether supplementing with vitamin D could prevent the formation of colorectal adenomas, the precursors to colorectal cancer, and also if there are people who may need more vitamin D due to their genetic background" Jacobs added.

http://www.endonurse.com/news/2010/08/ariz-researchers-get-15-million-colon-cancer-research-grant.aspx

[kenobewan]

FDA approval opens huge market to Immuno

Vitamin is crucial for healthy bones, but it turns out that the levels of certain forms of the vitamin in our bodies can tell doctors about our health and help them diagnose conditions such as heart disease. Our bodies make the stuff when the sun is shining, though in Blighty this is not often.

One company that has experienced a vitamin D-propelled growth spurt in its share price is Immunodiagnostic Systems.
It makes testing kits for bone diseases and one of its blockbuster products has been a test for vitamin D. It is one of the Alternative Investment Market's biggest success stories - £1,000 invested in 2005 would be worth more than £14,000 now.

But the story is far from over.

Sales have risen from nearly £5 million in 2004 to £37 million in 2010. Most of this growth has come from manual test kits for vitamin D. However, the company has developed a machine called the iSYS to automate testing.

On average, annual sales of tests alone for each iSYS total £77,000, based only on the automated vitamin D test (the machine is sometimes placed for free as the tests are so profitable). So far, about 100 machines have been sold or placed, but this should grow significantly as more sales staff are recruited.

Having also just received approval by America's Food and Drug Administration, the company can now sell iSYS and the vitamin D test in this massive market, where most people are covered by health insurance and the test is likely to be performed more frequently.

FDA approval is extremely difficult and expensive to get, which deters new entrants into the market. The only major competitor in the US is Diasorin, a £1.3 billion company that has a slower machine than iSYS.

More machines equal more revenue and profit. But what if you could have other tests with markets as big as that for vitamin D?

There are ambitious but achievable plans to broaden the test menu for iSYS from the current seven fully automated tests to about 12 by the end of 2011, while at the same time moving into areas related to bone disease, such as kidney disease and hypertension. The company intends to be selective and target only niche but highly profitable tests within these markets.

So next time you are out enjoying this glorious summer and making lots of vitamin D, think about putting some in your portfolio. On a prospective price-to-earnings ratio of 16 times, the business is valued mainly on the vitamin D potential and takes little account of that of an enlarged test menu. There is also the possibility of a bid.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1301201/ASK-ANDY-FDA-approval-opens-huge-market-Immuno.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[kenobewan]

The melanoma epidemic? Don't panic... it's all a terrible mistake

Summer is a marvellous time. It's when we can all enjoy light and warmth, eat gorgeous seasonal foods and get the chance to wear those colourful clothes we've collected during the rest of the year.

And, of course, it's also holiday time. All because of the sun, the glorious sun. No wonder the ancients worshiped sun-gods!

But in recent years our delight in the sun has been clouded by bullying health warnings. Repeatedly, we are told by the health czars to avoid the sun and never get a tan.

Health organisations that should know better, but rarely do, would have us shun the all-too-short glory of our summer days. Instead, we must cover our arms, wear hats and hide ourselves under a chemical burka of sun-cream.

Next, they'll even be ordering us to shut our curtains during the hours of daylight! All this is because of fear of the dreaded big C: cancer.

As a result, the killjoys spread their terrifying message, and parents are made to feel unreasonably guilty if they as much as let their children out in the sun unprotected for a minute or two.

But if all this miserable propaganda has got you scared and worried, you shouldn't be.

Because the evidence is that the message promoted by the anti-sun brigade isn't true.

Indeed, the great sun scare that would drive us to live our summers in darkness is just a myth that's grown from a bad piece of medical science. So it's time to lay out the facts.

There's no doubt that years of exposure to strong sun wrinkles the skin (as smoking did for the late novelist Beryl Bainbridge), because it loses its elasticity as fibres of collagen - the protein that supports the skin - link together.

But the ultra-violet rays from the sun do not speed up true ageing, which is a completely different process caused by the loss of collagen over the years, which makes skin thinner and saggy.

This ageing loss occurs at the same rate of one per cent a year whether your skin is exposed to the sun or whether it isn't. And it happens at the same rate for both men and women.

The problem is that nature isn't politically correct, and unfairly provides women with 15 per cent less skin collagen than men - the equivalent of 15 years worth of ageing! - so the effects are far more noticeable.

Of course we can live with wrinkles, but what about cancer? Fortunatately, the facts are absolutely clear - and they aren't the ones used by doctors who create panic with the figure of 84,000 new cases of skin cancers a year in the UK.

What they don't explain is that almost all of these so-called skin 'cancers' don't spread or kill; in fact, they are not really cancers at all. Instead, these mild forms of skin cancer - what doctors call basal cell and squamous carcinomas - are benign tumours, something quite different.

Calling them 'cancer' was a wretched historical error and this incorrect name should be abandoned before more people are hurt by it. Not so fast, says the anti-sun brigade. There is another kind of cancer, malignant melanoma. And, true enough, that can be vicious: the smallest of black spots can spread and kill.

But don't panic, that outcome is rare, and the melanoma scare is just as phony as the other sun-scare stories. According to the scaremongers, there has been a great increase in these 'melanomas' in recent years, supposedly caused by the sun.

The puzzle has been why this has not been accompanied by the expected increase in deaths from them. We now know the reason is that they aren't really melanomas at all: it's all a horrible mistake.

The mistake happened because sunlight makes moles grow, and in pale-skinned people this often gets mistaken for true melanoma. This kind of misdiagnosis, which began in sunny Australia, soon spread to feed the phony melanoma epidemic elsewhere.

And it continued because of fear of litigation if the real thing was missed in the doctor's surgery, and because screening programmes artificially increase false-positive diagnoses.

The big mistake was that the idea that sun exposure causes melanoma went public before it was proved. (In fact, we don't know what causes melanoma.) This erroneous idea was then supported by nonsense 'research' of the sort we read about daily: first we're told standing on the left leg can lead to cancer of the right testicle, then it's the right leg and left testicle; finally new studies show that it's your partner's leg, not yours.

And that story lasts for a few days when it is replaced by yet another study of whether red wine is good or bad for you. Such daily absurdities are typical products of 'descriptive epidemiology' - this is a bastard discipline that counts disease numbers, instead of studying the disease itself. (The problem is if you don't understand that most of the tumours reported as 'melanomas' are not actually melanomas, then your numbers are deeply flawed.)

This type of numerical manipulation has single-handedly destroyed clinical science. It has made such a shambles of melanoma that every single one of its claims is suspect: it has not been shown that UV or sunburn is the cause, that children are more susceptible, or that sun beds are dangerous and sun-screens preventative.

But health advice often bears little relation to the truth, so off went the thoughtless warnings about sun avoidance, and watching for black spots that enlarge, darken, bleed or itch - a crazy idea because we all have spots that do just that without them being cancerous at all.

Anyway, as there's no epidemic of deaths from skin cancer, the risk of spoiling your life by constant worry is far greater than the small chance of finding something that needs treatment. There are very good reasons to ignore these warnings.

Suntan is an evolutionary device: it protects against burning. The anti-solar brigade's claim that it indicates skin damage is a measure of their biological naivety. A suntatan is just a sign of increased pigment - melanin - in the skin and is a natural biological response to the sun, not a sign of skin damage.

So don't keep yourself and your children out of the sun; far better to develop a healthy tan without burning. Sunshine is the dynamo for vitamin D production. Without it your bones will crack, as those practising sun avoidance have found.

Although the profound effect of sun on the immune system is a mystery, it is powerful enough to control many skin diseases. And there's a new chapter in the cancer story, now that epidemiologists have done a UV–turn and claim that sun exposure actually protects against many cancers, including melanoma - a benefit they now say far outweighs the risks that they'd previously claimed!

Finally, there's the happy effect of sun exposure on well-being; it makes you look good and feel good, an effect similar to anti-depressive treatment. What more can you want?

Having fun in the sun has been badly clouded by the pretence that sun exposure is a dangerous habit. It isn't; solar cancer has been massively exaggerated and sun avoidance will break more bones than bad habits. So forget the dark stories and go out and enjoy the sun while it lasts - just don't get burnt!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1301722/The-melanoma-epidemic-Dont-panic--terrible-mistake.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[kenobewan]

Vitamin D improves overall immune function

(NaturalNews) A recent study out of the University of Tampere in Finland has found that vitamin D helps to prevent respiratory infections. In the study, supplementing with vitamin D resulted in more than half the participants who took it staying healthy throughout the trial, compared to just over 30 percent in the control group.

Dr. Ilkka Laaksi and her team evaluated a group of 164 males going into the military to see if vitamin D supplementation affected their overall health. They gave part of the group 400 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day for six months, and the other part of the group a placebo pill for the same period of time. Those who took vitamin D experienced greater overall health and less respiratory infections than those who did not.

Laaksi was quick to say that the study reveals "some evidence" that vitamin D helps prevent respiratory infections, but that such a benefit is not entirely clear.

Though 400 IU of vitamin D a day meets recommended government intake recommendations, many in the medical profession are now realizing that this level is far too low to offer much therapeutic effect. Some suspect that if a higher dose had been used in the study, the effects would have been even more significant.

This hypothesis was illustrated in a recent Japanese study that administered 1,200 IU doses of vitamin D to schoolchildren. Those who took this dose every day had a much lower chance of developing influenza than others.

It is, however, unclear which form of vitamin D the team used in the Finland study. Vitamin D2 is not as effective as vitamin D3, but researchers often use D2 in study trials, which can make vitamin D appear less effective.

http://www.naturalnews.com/029423_vitamin_d_immune_function.html

[kenobewan]

Vitamin D is Vital to Health

Evidence continues to mount validating the critical nature of Vitamin D to human health. Actually a form of hormone, Vitamin D exerts a powerful influence on virtually every cell in the body as it’s been shown to activate the immune system's ability to identity and thwart pathogens and rogue cancer cells.

Medical science has been aware of the health benefits of Vitamin D for decades, noting that certain cancers are much more prevalent in colder northern climates than in the sun-saturated southern geographic zones. Research published in the journal Nature Immunology provides the scientific evidence behind this miraculous pro-hormone.

Vitamin D Activates the Immune Response

Our bodies are very sensitive to Vitamin D circulating in the blood, with insufficient levels leading to poor immune system response and disease. Man has evolved with much higher blood levels of Vitamin D than many people experience today, due to regular sun exposure experienced by our ancestors. Our genetic code has incorporated this hormone and uses it to perform many cellular functions.

Scientists have discovered that Vitamin D activates white blood cell components of our innate immune system known as T-cells, which are responsible for tagging an intruder pathogen for destruction. This study is important because it demonstrates that this is only possible when there’s enough Vitamin D circulating in the blood. When the vitamin is deficient, there’s no detection and the pathogens or rogue cancer cells are permitted to flourish and multiply.

Vitamin D Trains the Immune System for Future Assaults

Under the guidance of Vitamin D, the T-cells are able to store information which helps our immune systems recall prior invaders, and how to respond to them more quickly if a future attack should occur. Disease response memory is critical to providing natural defenses as we age, since the body can rapidly identify and conquer a host of pathogens as it continually adapts to its environment. Many researchers believe this is a key reason that man has been able to survive and evolve in a relatively hostile viral environment.

Vitamin D Critical to Cancer Prevention: Supplement

While Vitamin D is an important factor in the reduction of risk from diabetes and heart disease to stroke and dementia, it’s critical in the prevention and even treatment of many types of cancer. When sufficient blood levels of Vitamin D are present, the active receptors on each cell in the body are filled, providing a metabolic instruction manual for cellular replication.

As cancer is a disease initiated through genetic mutation, it’s important to effectively replicate DNA strands to future cellular generations. This occurs under the control of Vitamin D, and only when optimal amounts are present on the cellular receptors. Monitor blood levels of vitamin D through regular blood testing to ensure a level above 50 ng/ml.

The missing link to understanding many of the most devastating diseases which plague mankind is now within our grasp, as we better understand the role of Vitamin D in activating the scavenging power of our own immune system.

Researchers estimate that 80% of the US population is deficient in Vitamin D and requires some level of supplementation, yet most are unaware that they can dramatically lower their risk from developing a host of lethal conditions. Have your blood checked today, and harness the power of your own immune system toward a healthy, disease-free life.

http://technorati.com/lifestyle/article/vitamin-d-is-vital-to-health/