 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / June 2007Canadian Cancer Society- "take vitamin D'
>From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and Mail, 7/8/07 " http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070608.wvitaminD08/BNStory/ specialScienceandHealth/home TORONTO - The Canadian Cancer Society plans to announce Friday that all adults should start taking vitamin D, coinciding with the release of a groundbreaking U.S. study indicating the supplement cuts the risk of cancer by an astounding 60 per cent. The move is believed to be the first time a major public-health organization has endorsed daily use of the sunshine vitamin as a cancer-prevention therapy for an entire population. It follows a flurry of research suggesting the low-cost vitamin confers a high degree of protection against a wide variety of cancers. There are also striking study results suggesting that people who develop the disease often have low blood levels of vitamin D. Although it is not known how many of the approximately 160,000 cancer cases diagnosed annually in Canada might be avoided by regular popping of a vitamin D pill, the cancer society said these findings are so compelling it felt it had to start urging people to act on them......full story at link . The guestion is why has the American Canser Society not followed suit even better... everyone needs to take Cod Liver Oil! Tom www.itspuresoap.com > >From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and > Mail, 7/8/07 " [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > them......full story at link . The guestion is why has the > American Canser Society not followed suit > >From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > them......full story at link . The guestion is why has the > American Canser Society not followed suit Oncologists won't like that. They'll lose income. >> >From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and big snip > Oncologists won't like that. They'll lose income. So will big pharma and all the politicos out there. :( Gee, I'm really crying for them now....not. >> From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and > Mail, 7/8/07 " [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > compelling it felt it had to start urging people to act on > them......full story at link . Canadian Cancer Society Announces Vitamin D Recommendation 08 June 2007 TORONTO - The Canadian Cancer Society is recommending a specific amount of Vitamin D supplementation for Canadians to consider taking. This first-time recommendation is based on the growing body of evidence about the link between Vitamin D and reducing risk for colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. "The evidence is still growing in this area, but we want to give guidance to Canadians about this emerging area of cancer prevention based on what we know now," says Heather Logan, Director, Cancer Control Policy, Canadian Cancer Society. "As we find out more we will update our recommendation." In consultation with their healthcare provider, the Society is recommending that: Adults living in Canada should consider taking Vitamin D supplementation of 1,000 international units (IU) [25 micrograms] a day during the fall and winter. Read the full article: http://tinyurl.com/2h2jes  SignatureJuhana > Adults living in Canada should consider taking Vitamin D supplementation of > 1,000 international units (IU) [25 micrograms] a day during the fall and > winter. > Read the full article:http://tinyurl.com/2h2jes And, a doctor also recommends 1,000 IU vitamin D in http://www.wpr.org/zorba/article_vitamind.htm saying: "VITAMIN D "FAQ" Does Vitamin D prevent Cancer? Perhaps. Here's the data. More than 1000 women in Nebraska, not noted for it's sun soaked atmosphere took Calcium or Calcium with Vitamin D, or a placebo for 4 years. They looked at cancer statistics -- none had cancer when the study started -- and found that 12 months after the study started (to weed out anyone whose cancer might have been in the body, but not detected at the beginning of the study) there was more than a 75% reduction in cancer risk with those taking Vitamin D vs. those taking calcium only or a placebo. What type of Vitamin D should I be looking for? Vitamin D3 was what was studied. How much should I take each day? I would recommend 1000 IU (international units) of D3. A bottle of 100 cost about $7 or $8. Can I get Vitamin D through natural sources (i.e. sun, food)? You can get it from the sun, but it's very hard to get enough unless you live in the sun and play in the sun. And too much time in the sun can increase risk for skin cancer. It's best to get it through supplements. As far as food: Dairy products are your best bet. Here's a helpful guide I like to use." -- Ron >How much should I take each day? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >can increase risk for skin cancer. It's best to get it through >supplements. As far as food: Dairy products are your best bet. Wild fish is by far the best source of vitamin D, dairy products (except possibly vitamin D fortified dry milk _powder_) don't come even close. SignatureMatti Narkia Your body uses 4000iu daily http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 To obtain adequate Vitamin D status to ensure all your body's needs for Vitamin D can be adequately met requires 100nmol/L http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096 Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: An Important Tool to Define Adequate Nutritional Vitamin D Status http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649 The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is effective Tells us that Supplemental intake of 400 IU vitamin D/d has only a modest effect on blood concentrations of 25(OH)D, raising them by 7-12 nmol/L, Thus to maintain a status of 1000nmol/L requires @4000iu/d Risk assessment for vitamin D http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/1/6 shows that 10,000iu/d is a safe upper limit providing a huge safety margin as 40,000iu/d is the level which after many months will produce actual(but remediable) harm. Anyone who thinks dietary sources of vitamin D are or could be adequate is simply displaying their level of ignorance. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=199605272&MyT oken=950a6edf-0890-468b-ac86-4a6396844581ML I've blogged on the way Sunlight may be needed to prime T cells to function in skin You have to get your risk factors into perspective. There is plenty of evidence around to show that for each individual who dies from excessive sun exposure causing sunburn and subsequently skin cancer over 30 people will die from cancers that thrive in Vitamin D insufficient bodies. Now why do we think it is right to sacrifice 30 people in order to save one pillock who persists in sunbathing while their skin is burning. That is only the tip of the iceberg. For that idiot who cannot be bothered to cover up or apply sunblock when their skin starts to redden, over 600 people will die from conditions such as heart disease, diabetes, obesity osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and the many many other chronic conditions which thrive in vitamin depleted bodies. I just don't understand why people refuse to recognise we are living/ dieing through a Vitamin d deficiency epidemic http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860 >Your body uses 4000iu daily >http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Anyone who thinks dietary sources of vitamin D are or could be >adequate is simply displaying their level of ignorance. You are preaching to the choir. I've stressed here and elsewhere the importance of using vitamin D supplements since 1999. I've also posted all the studies you mentioned into this and other groups, some of them numerous times. I've been taking at least 1000-2000 IU of vitamin D supplements daily for the large part of the year since 1999, increasing the dose to 4000-5000 IU over four years ago. But the question here was about best dietary source of vitamin D, which is not dairy products, but wild fish. And that's where your vitamin D knowledege apparently needs some brush-up: According to <http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000102000000000000000-w.html> Atlantic herring contains 1628 IU of vitamin D /100 g and according to <http://www.fineli.fi/topfoods.php?compid=2271&fuclass=all&specdiet=none&items=10 0&from=top&portion=100g&lang=en> whitefish contains 22 µg = 880 IU vitamin D per 100 g. So eating daily 200 g of Atlantic herring you would get 3256 IU and 200 g of whitefish 1760 IU of vitamin D per day. These amounts are not negligible and could be sufficient for some people. Still, vitamin D content of fish varies quite a bit and not many people are willing to eat fish daily. Fish may also unfortunately contain some environmental pollutants, which may force to restrict the consumption of at least some type of fish. So I do agree that taking vitamin supplements is sensible and have taken them myself since 1999 as I mentioned, but you are wrong if you categorically state that dietary sources of vitamin D would always be inadequate for all people. SignatureMatti Narkia I'm sorry if I worded that somewhat dogmatically. In the UK 70% of the population do not eat oily fish at all ever, Not even an sardine. Those that do eat oily fish eat only portion every 3 weeks on average. So in the UK for all practical purposes it is reasonable to regard dietary sources of Vitamin d as in the main trivial. There are of course exceptions to every rule but I still think we should focuss attention on acquiring vitamin D from safe sun exposure were/when possible and the use of effective strength Vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol supplements. Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to raise status from below 75nmol/L to optimal 125nmol/L http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/85/3/860 Hypovitaminosis D in British adults at age 45 y: > Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to > raise status from below 75nmol/L to optimal 125nmol/L Do you have references to back your claim that 125 nmol/l is optimal? SignatureJuhana > swabyma...@googlemail.com wrote: > > Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to > > raise status from below 75nmol/L to optimal 125nmol/L > Do you have references to back your claim that 125 nmol/l is optimal? 125 nmol/l is considered to be the high end of normal. Reinhold Vieth claims that >=100 nmol/l is needed to reduce osteoporosis and hypertension. -- Ron >> swabyma...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 125 nmol/l is considered to be the high end of normal. Yes, but is there any evidence that that level is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality compared to 90-100 nmol/l? I have not seen that kind of evidence. > Reinhold Vieth claims that >=100 nmol/l is needed to reduce > osteoporosis and hypertension. Any reference? SignatureJuhana > >> Do you have references to back your claim that 125 nmol/l is optimal? > > 125 nmol/l is considered to be the high end of normal. > Yes, but is there any evidence that that level is associated with reduced > morbidity and mortality compared to 90-100 nmol/l? I have not seen that kind > of evidence. Since Vieth claims >=100 nmol/l is the minimum needed, I am more concerned whether the optimum > 125 nmol/l. > > Reinhold Vieth claims that >=100 nmol/l is needed to reduce > > osteoporosis and hypertension. > Any reference? I think I was looking at Vieth's survey at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842 . -- Ron >>>> Do you have references to back your claim that 125 nmol/l is >>>> optimal? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think I was looking at Vieth's survey at > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842 . That is quite an old study. I recall that Vieth has adopted a more moderate position in his recent presentations. SignatureJuhana > > Since Vieth claims >=100 nmol/l is the minimum needed, I am more > > concerned whether the optimum > 125 nmol/l. > >>> Reinhold Vieth claims that >=100 nmol/l is needed to reduce > >>> osteoporosis and hypertension. > >> Any reference? > > I think I was looking at Vieth's survey at > >http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842. > That is quite an old study. I recall that Vieth has adopted a more moderate > position in his recent presentations. That may be I see his editorial in http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649 says: "Randomized trials using the currently recommended intakes of 400 IU vitamin D/d have shown no appreciable reduction in fracture risk. In contrast, trials using 700-800 IU vitamin D/d found less fracture incidence, with and without supplemental calcium. The reduction in fracture incidence occurs when mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations exceed 72 nmol/L, and this change may result from both improved bone health and reduction in falls due to greater muscle strength. Although it is not yet proven through clinical trials, higher intakes may also reduce the incidence of colon and other cancers, and these relations indicate that the desirable 25(OH)D concentration is 75 nmol/L. One recent report associates greater 25(OH)D concentrations with lower risk of nursing home admission; the most desirable category of concentration starts at 75 nmol/L." Vieth references a July AJCN review article which says: "Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes. However, optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] have not been defined. This review summarizes evidence from studies that evaluated thresholds for serum 25(OH)D concentrations in relation to bone mineral density (BMD), lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls, fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is warranted. An intake for all adults of 1000 IU (40 ?g) vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L. The implications of higher doses for the entire adult population should be addressed in future studies." -- Ron >>> Since Vieth claims >=100 nmol/l is the minimum needed, I am more >>> concerned whether the optimum > 125 nmol/l. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > higher doses for the entire adult population should be addressed in > future studies." I am familiar with that study as I have posted it to this group. ;-) SignatureJuhana http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096 Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: An Important Tool to Define Adequate Nutritional Vitamin D Status This suggests that 100nmol/L should be regarded as the minimum level and therefore 125nmol/L, as this is also associated with peak physical performance, is a sensible level to aim for. This is what Bruce Hollis says http://www.esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/march-06-BruceWHollis.html "It is maddening to me to hear physicians say "drink some milk and you will obtain all the vitamin D you need." It is wrong and harmful to the patient. No one should have a circulating 25(OH) D level-this is the metabolite that defines nutritional vitamin D status-less than 80 nmol. I try to keep my own level at 125 nmol minimum and consume between 2,000-8,000 IU/day depending on the season." take note that he lives at Bruce W. Hollis, Ph.D. Professor of Pediatrics And Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Director of Pediatric Nutritional Sciences Medical University of South Carolina Charleston, SC, USA He's been publishing on Vit d for 30yrs and I suspect he knows more than any of us. He's also using 6400iu/d with lactating mothers. It was this research that threw up the finding that those mums on the actual rathe than placebo had a 70% lower cold/flu incidence. http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article2447662.ece > swabyma...@googlemail.com wrote: > > Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Juhana http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/ Enter "Optimal" in the search box. >> swabyma...@googlemail.com wrote: >>> Certainly for the average UK resident 1000iu/daily is not going to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/ > Enter "Optimal" in the search box. Well, I did the search and found the position Cannell has taken. I don't think that that level is based on any outcomes. SignatureJuhana >> From " Sweeping cancer edict: take vitamin D daily "; Globe and > Mail, 7/8/07 " [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > compelling it felt it had to start urging people to act on > them......full story at link . Canadian Cancer Society Announces Vitamin D Recommendation 08 June 2007 TORONTO - The Canadian Cancer Society is recommending a specific amount of Vitamin D supplementation for Canadians to consider taking. This first-time recommendation is based on the growing body of evidence about the link between Vitamin D and reducing risk for colorectal, breast and prostate cancers. "The evidence is still growing in this area, but we want to give guidance to Canadians about this emerging area of cancer prevention based on what we know now," says Heather Logan, Director, Cancer Control Policy, Canadian Cancer Society. "As we find out more we will update our recommendation." In consultation with their healthcare provider, the Society is recommending that: Adults living in Canada should consider taking Vitamin D supplementation of 1,000 international units (IU) a day during the fall and winter. Read the full article: http://tinyurl.com/2h2jes SignatureJuhana |
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.