 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / May 2008Vitamin D
Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT Evidence is growing that vitamin D, which the skin makes from sunshine, is linked to lower risk of breast cancer and other cancers. But that doesn't mean it's good to get a golden tan -- and certainly not a sunburn. Vitamin D also is in certain foods and supplements, though the effectiveness varies. Here's the lowdown: Q: How much sun should I get? A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial. Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D? Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it. Q: How much do I need? A: Scientists think adults may need 1,000 international units (IUs) a day, possibly 1,500 for cancer prevention. The government says 2,000 IUs is the upper daily limit for anyone over a year old. Any more can cause the body to retain dangerous amounts of calcium. Q. What about food sources? A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood. Q: For years, we've been told to use sunscreen. Shouldn't we be worried about skin cancer? A: Sunscreen is advised for longer periods outdoors, to prevent skin cancer. Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer deaths. The risks posed by other, more common cancers is far greater. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 > Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention > Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's recommendations is for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L). The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. Lud > > Tips on getting vitamin D for cancer prevention > > Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. > Lud I, too, am on 10k i. u./day. I have regular tests for ionized calcium and para-thyroid performance, all within normal range and D is at steady 80 ng. When I started I was at 25 ng and 3k iu/day raised it to 35. Apparently I metabolize D inefficiently, at least until a level above that normally recommended. YMMV. > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be careful about that. I.P. >> The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. > > Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be > careful about that. > > I.P. No ADT. No sun tan. No death by natural causes. But, motocycle racing and suicide are just fine. I think I finally figured you out. You don't take chances unless the possible result is sudden death.  SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > "I.P.... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think I finally figured you out. You don't take chances unless the > possible result is sudden death. Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving, simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator skill, and there's no room for error. I estimate my mo-cycle crash tally at well over 5,000 crashes, with no work time lost over them. One dresses for the occasion, and brakes and steering bars/wheels work wonders to mitigate most crashes. That offers rewards worth some risk, but too much sun exposure -- like supplements and treatments and foods with more downside than upside -- seem sort of counterproductive. I have nothing against death by natural causes; I hope to have one in 25-30 years. But if I ever have to manage my own demise to save me and my wife some intractable, pointless, prolonged, extreme suffering, I will take no chances; the outcome will be certain. I.P. >Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving, >simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator >skill, and there's no room for error. All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously you don't know much about skydiving, I.P. Best regards, Burney RP in 1995 (age 52) RT in 2000 ADT (Casodex) 10/06 - 8/07 Latest PSA - 0.23 >> Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving, >> simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator >> skill, and there's no room for error. > > All up to chance? No skill? No room for error? Nonsense! Obviously > you don't know much about skydiving, I.P. Not much, but enough to know it eats up a whole day for a few minutes of thrills. That's the main reason I quit skiing; too much time sitting around between the GOOD parts. And if your chute(s) fail, you die; skill matters little at that point. If my toys fail, I merely swim or walk back to my van. I don't mind risking a little injury, but when a simple equipment failure means death, I'll look elsewhere. I know several dead or crippled skydivers and hang gliders; I've only met one dead motorcycle racer among the 1,500+ I raced with. I.P. >>> Just the opposite, in terms of sports. You'll never see me skydiving, >>> simply because once in the air, it's all up to chance, not operator [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >I.P. I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching Isle of Man videos... DM > I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous > than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching > Isle of Man videos... My racing was cross-country, as in untracked virgin desert, forest, swamp, mountain, riverbed, etc. or existing trails thereon. I know the concept of racing at speeds up to 100 mph on terrain that in some cases horses couldn't negotiate, but a) trees and rocks don't move and b) we have eyes, brakes, and handlebars. Those factors make it far less lethal than riding a motorcycle to the office, and the exercise level exceeds that of serious runners. I.P. >> I've always heard that riding a motorcycle on the street is far more dangerous >> than motorcycle racing, but, otoh, I've seen some wicked crashes when watching [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I.P. Yeah - roger on the exercise thing - I remember reading some journalist interviewing motocross racers and asked them what they did to stay in shape. "We ride motorcycles!" As for the eyes/brakes/handlebars, I never considered myself that wickedly quick to be anywhere close to safe when it came to things like sudden rocks in the way, etc. I never rode motorcycles, and that's one of the reasons. I was in the hospital for something else in the Air Force, and a guy, all busted up in the next bed, had been in a motorcycle accident, and was moaning that he did everything right, and some bitch turned in front of him... Until that point, I hadn't gotten a motorcycle due to my parents opposition to it (they both rode Harleys all over the place during WW2), and for lack of disposable $$$ prior to joining the AF. Then the service was also against it, but I could barely afford a car anyway. _After_ the improptu interview with the broken guy in the next bed, _I_ decided that _I_ was against it... just not enough payback for the risk involved, I thought. DM > > _After_ the improptu interview with the broken guy in the next bed, _I_ decided > that _I_ was against it... just not enough payback for the risk involved, I > thought. I totally agree where street riding is concerned. In what little I did decades ago, I had to take physical action to protect myself and/or my wife from idiots and/or criminal miscreants on several occasions. Vitamin D ... just to get back on topic. ;-) I.P. > On Sat, 17 May 2008 16:03:54 -0700, "I.P. Freely" > <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > watching > Isle of Man videos... Having ridden a motocycle as nearly my sole transportation for a couple of decades, I would have to agree with that. If you don't develop ESP, you're certain to become road kill. On May 16, 11:27 am, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote: > > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. > > Since we know that a tan is, in itself, evidence of skin damage, I'd be > careful about that. > > I.P. IP - a tan is different from skin damage - all black people have a permanent tan but they can also get skin damage which is a burn. Skin tans to shut out extra sunlight when the body has enough vit D to prevent getting an excess. Those that have low vit D must tan bit by bit to permit the body to build up the store of vit D otherwise the skin is open to get all the sun possible which causes a burn if exposed to long initially(other than those that cannot get a tan). People that get a deep tan find that as summer progresses, the tan gets lighter as the tan blocks to much sunlight. Studies of workers that are out in the sun all day, their 25OH-D level is in the 100 ng/ml. The vit D helps with calcium absorption, so the danger with high vit D levels is excess blood calcium levels (hypercalcimia), so calcium levels have to be checked. Excess calcium intake depresses vitamin D levels which are needed to keep cells healthy, consequently the correlation between high calcium and higher cancer rates. Check out this web site: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/ Dr Cannell said he would be taking 20,000 IU if he had cancer. With my endocrinologist approval, I plan to test this dosage on myself - she has given me the blood test requisitions to monitor it. Let you know in 6 months. Lud > IP - a tan is different from skin damage Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths. I.P. > > IP - a tan is different from skin damage > > Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary > sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths. > > I.P. I'm not surprised "medical" sites say tan = damage. Here's the way it sounds to me. God made the sun and God made us and He messed up and made us incompatible with each other. But, thank goodness we have "medical" doctors, who we all know are smarter than God. So, they're going to save us by telling us to stay out of the sun. If we must go into the sun, be sure to use plenty of sunscreen (which blocks UVB, the souce of Vitamin D). So now twenty years go by and Americans are suffering extremely low levels of Vitamin D. Cancers rates are up. Pregnant mothers want to protect their unborn infants, so they stay out of the sun. Meanwhile autism is reaching epidemic proportions. Suddenly, accidental research shows Vitamin D has some value. So, the MD's now say "Okay, get 15 minutes of sun and you'll have plenty of Vitamin D." But they neglect to say if that is just hands and face or full body exposure. Is that in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude does this work. It's all a lot of baloney. The "medical" community screwed up twenty years ago and they don't want to admit it. Just my $.02. John > the MD's now say "Okay, get 15 > minutes of sun and you'll have plenty of Vitamin D." But they neglect > to say if that is just hands and face or full body exposure. Is that > in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude does this work. I've read detailed answers to "just hands and face or full body exposure. Is that in the morning, evening or at noon? At what lattitude does this work?" many times in magazines and newsletters and newspapers. Nobody's hiding the details. I.P. > > IP - a tan is different from skin damage > > Google tan damage. Countless medical sites say tan = damage. The primary > sites that disagree sell or rent tanning booths. > > I.P. Does that mean that every person that has darker skin than white has burn damage? According to Wiki - note last sentence. "Sun tanning describes a darkening of the skin (especially of fair- skinned individuals) in a natural physiological response stimulated by exposure to ultraviolet radiation from sunshine or from artificial sources such as a tanning bed. With excess exposure to ultraviolet, a sunburn can develop." Lud I did extensive research last year on Vitamin D contacting research scientists throughout the world. To my surprise all of them answered my emails and provided their studies. Most strongly encouraged taking at least 2000 mg of Vitamin D per day since I was living in the Northeast and having PCa. Few suggested more. All sugested that I should get blood testing done regularly to monitor my vitamin D levels especially in the winter. Last month I met a researcher from the Boston Mass area working in the public health arena doing a study on Vitamin D to my surprise. He reported that there is a direct correalation between breast and prostate cancer and lack of sunlight and Vitamin D. He also reported that pharmacuetical companies are now working on effective delivery strategies and derivatives of Vitamin D that will attack/prevent PCa cells from growing and even killing them. A few years ago very few people including physicians believed that Vitamin D had any impact against cancer. Still some people adivse only taking 30-40 mg per day or getting your vitamin D from milk. Lack of sunlight and vitamin D also supresses the immune system and has been associated with MS. There is much to read and learn about vitamin D and sunlight if you have PCa. > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's > recommendations is > for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L). > > The only side effect that I have found is that I get a tan in one day. I'm on 2000. The only issue I had was that my Calcium increased significantly. I'm now not taking Calcium. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08 Non Illegitimi Carborundum > > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my > > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04, <0.1 2/12/08 > Non Illegitimi Carborundum The basic danger of high vit D levels is excess calcium levels - these should be monitored carefully. Strangely, no matter how much vit D I take up to 10,000 IU, my blood calcium levels stay at the bottom end even with 1,000 mg supplememtation - we are all different. Lud > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's > recommendations is > for optimal 25OH range of 65 to 100 ng/mL (160 to 250 nmol/L). I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000 IU was pushing the limits for people with PC. I.P. On May 17, 12:07 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote: > I'm confused. I thought Vit D fed PC, and that anything over about 2,000 > IU was pushing the limits for people with PC. > > I.P. Oh no, everything is showing Vit D to be extremely effective in arresting many cancers, especially PC. In fact, I recently received a solicitation for a donation to Snuffy Myers organization to allow them to conduct clinical trials using Vit D. No drug companies will sponsor it because they can't profit from it. It a free (from the sun) vitamin. BTW, I take no Vit D supplements and my last blood test was at 67.9 ng/ ml. The reason is that I own a tanning bed. In fact I bought a UVB meter to make sure my bulbs produce sufficient UVB. John > On May 17, 12:07 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh no, everything is showing Vit D to be extremely effective in > arresting many cancers, especially PC. You're right. It was the calcium in most Vit D supplements that exacerbates PC. Guess I got to find some pure D to avoid the extra calcium. Thanks. I.P. On May 17, 12:07 pm, "I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddabou...@noway.nohow> wrote: > > I am on 10,000 IU vitamin D for quite a while - no problems - my > > current blood level of 25OH-D is 185 nmol/L or ~ 70 ng/ml. Dr Strum's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I.P. From Dr Myers' newsletter Prostate Forum v10#7 - "Humans who live in environments where their skin is exposed to sun for hours a day will have serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels between 50-100 ng/ml. If oral vitamin D3 were the sole source of this vitamin, it would take 4-10,000 IU a day to reach these 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels." And "There is a rather extensive literature on vitamin D3 and prostate cancer: at last count there were more than 300 papers on the subject. In population based studies, there is an inverse association between sunlight exposure or serum 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D3 or 25- hydroxyvitamin D3 and the risk of developing prostate cancer or developing metastatic disease. In the laboratory, 1, 25- dihydroxyvitamin D3 suppresses prostate cancer proliferation and promotes tumor cell death through apoptosis. In advanced hormone refractory metastatic prostate cancer, high doses of 1, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 appear to improve the effectiveness of taxotere. In a large randomized controlled trial comparing taxotere alone with taxotere + calcitriol there was nearly a 40% improvement in survival linked with a significant reduction in side effects from chemotherapy." Lud > Q: How much sun should I get? > > A: Many experts believe just 15 minutes a few times a week without sunscreen is sufficient and safe for most light-skinned people, but this is controversial. That's IF we live in sunny, warm, summertime climes near the equator. Kansas, for example, is too far north to help that much except in midsummer. > Q: I'm black. Does my skin absorb enough ultraviolet rays to produce sufficient vitamin D? > > Specialists think vitamin D-3 supplements may be especially helpful for dark-skinned people. But you'll have to read the label to find D-3 _ most multivitamins don't contain it. The latest D article I read in some medical newsletter said, "Oops, never mind; D3 is no more effective than run-of-the-mill D once absorption is taken into account." > Q. What about food sources? > > A. Vitamin D is in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. But diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood. Won't that depend on the foods we eat? "They" add a lot of D to milk, some OJ, some other juices, etc., to the point I cut back to just one D caspsule a day, considering its overdose threshold. > Skin cancer is rarely fatal. Melanoma, the deadliest kind, accounts for less than 2 percent of cancer But if one gets it and doesn't detect and treat it very early, it's one of the deadliest. I have a dermatologist check my skin head to toe every year or two. He says I apparently have genetic protection against skin damage, so advises me to come back only every two years and keep using sunscreen even though I've skated now for 64 years with no problems. I.P. 15 minutes of exposure to natural summer sunlight can store 15,000-20,000 IUs of vitamin D in the body. You simply cannot get this level of IUs from diet or supplementation. The human body is vastly more intelligent than we think it is. It stores vitamin D captured from natural summer sunlight and uses it throughout the winter months when sun exposure is less (or non- existent, depending on where you live). I suspect people who suffer from S.A.D. in northern and southern areas (globally speaking) are also people who get little outdoor exposure during the summer. I had a bout of S.A.D. last fall (I live in Seattle) for the first time. Thinking back, I realized that I had spent very little time outside last summer. > Tips on getting vitamin D forcancerprevention > Thursday, May 15, 2008 14:35 PDT [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 > 15 minutes of exposure to natural summer sunlight can store > 15,000-20,000 IUs of vitamin D in the body. You simply cannot get [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thinking back, I realized that I had spent very little time outside > last summer. I believe there was a study done several years ago that showed that people who lived in southern climes and/or had outdoor jobs, such as farmers, had lower prostate cancer rates than the population at large. I know there are lots of other variables here, but the study suggested that the sunlight (consequently the Vitamin D) was a responsible factor. Scientific American had a good discussion of this back in January: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cell-defenses-and-the-sunshine-vitamin SignatureDedman ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.