Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vitamin D and Cancer Mortality: Not to be Taken Lightly
Medscape Today ^ | 1/30/11 | Craig A. Elmets, MD

Posted on 05/12/2011 10:41:03 AM PDT by dangerdoc

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

1 posted on 05/12/2011 10:41:04 AM PDT by dangerdoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

If I have this right then men with significantly higher than average vitamin D levels had significantly higher overall cancer rates. Vitamin D levels were seasonally determined.

Perhaps the men with significantly higher vitamin D levels reached those levels with significant seasonal exposure to sunlight.


2 posted on 05/12/2011 10:51:02 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; DvdMom; grey_whiskers; Ladysmith; Roos_Girl; Silentgypsy; conservative cat; ...

Ping


3 posted on 05/12/2011 10:51:49 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

ping


4 posted on 05/12/2011 10:52:17 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

b


5 posted on 05/12/2011 10:54:45 AM PDT by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
"If I have this right then men with significantly higher than average vitamin D levels had significantly higher overall cancer rates"

I read this the opposite- that higher Vitamin D is better for you

6 posted on 05/12/2011 10:55:32 AM PDT by Mr. K (this administration is WEARING OUT MY CAPSLOCK KEY~!! [Palin/Bachman 2012])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: decimon

The significance is that this is the first study I have seen that looks at Vitamin D levels before cancer is diagnosed. I don’t think they are arguing that Vitamin D causes cancer rather that the study does not confirm a protection hinted at in earlier studies.

Measuring vitamin D levels in people already diagnosed with cancer in not a good way to determine causation and suffers potential confounding and bias.


7 posted on 05/12/2011 10:57:59 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Men who had higher vitamin D levels had a significantly higher rate of cancer when followed over time in this study.


8 posted on 05/12/2011 10:59:42 AM PDT by dangerdoc (see post #6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc
I was diagnosed with breast cancer back in 2002. When they took my D level it was 14. The doctor told me that every woman that has breast cancer and has the D level checked is always low.

I can't speak for others, from my understanding everyone absorbs D differently. If you have an auto immune diseases your body soaks up D. But, I've been taking anywhere from 2000IU a day up to 15,000 a day for 8-9 years and my D level has only been up to around 90 one time. Every other time they've checked it it's been around 50 or so. So it's very hard to get to much D unless your along the sun belt. You just want to make sure you don't get to much, but, don't let some doc scare you into thinking if you take 2000 a day you'll get to much. Most people need around 4000 a day. 30 minutes or so in the sun(the farther north you are, the less you get) will give you around 10,000.

9 posted on 05/12/2011 11:02:03 AM PDT by MsLady (Be the kind of woman that when you get up in the morning, the devil says, "Oh crap, she's UP !!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc

Use sunscreen for the beach or the pool, but they take it to ridiculous levels these day. I thought my son’s preschool was going to call social services because we told them he didn’t need it to go outside for recess. He is the only kid in the class without sunscreen. Sorry, but 20 minutes outside fully clothed isn’t going to hurt him.


10 posted on 05/12/2011 11:05:04 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangerdoc; Mr. K
Men who had higher vitamin D levels had a significantly higher rate of cancer when followed over time in this study.

Greater than 80 nmol/L is not higher but much higher, no? I believe the current goal is 50 nmol/L.

It might also matter that the levels were measured seasonally with the northern latitude measurements being in the time of year with the longest days.

11 posted on 05/12/2011 11:12:24 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
Most people need around 4000 a day. 30 minutes or so in the sun(the farther north you are, the less you get) will give you around 10,000.

Good info. Thanks.
12 posted on 05/12/2011 11:21:40 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: decimon

No deficency is lack of vitamin D


13 posted on 05/12/2011 11:31:08 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfman23601

Did you have to sign a release?

The mom’s club has reached consensus........ sunscreen saves lives.


14 posted on 05/12/2011 11:33:57 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. N.C. D.E. +12 ....( History is a process, not an event ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MsLady

I have an autioimmine diease and the Doctor has me on prescription vitamin D most of the time because my levels are too low.When she first measured my levles were in the siungle digits.It is impossoble to get too much vitamin D because the body will flush the overage.They want to keep my levels over 50 which is a normal level but it’s hard to keep it there.This week I started back on the script at 10,000iu 5 days in a row and then once a week after that trying to get it back to 50 or over.


15 posted on 05/12/2011 11:36:01 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
No deficency is lack of vitamin D

"However, men with 25(OH)D levels >80 nmol/L had a significantly higher cancer mortality rate than those with levels <50 nmol/L."

16 posted on 05/12/2011 11:36:09 AM PDT by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

According to my doctor it is impossible to get that much from the sun further north than Atlanta except for about 2 weeks in the middle of July from the sun.It has to do with the angle of the sun and is why most people in the north are vitmain D deficient.


17 posted on 05/12/2011 11:38:45 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bert

That is terrible that they insist this for the kids. I am deficent and my doctor told me unless I was going to be i the sun for more than an hour to skip the sunscreen.


18 posted on 05/12/2011 11:40:12 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: decimon

80 is a near impossible level to get to.One would have to be taking more than 10,000iu a day for weeks to even get to that level. The normal level is 50 but most people who live in the north and are over 40yo most likely hover at about 35 most of the year.


19 posted on 05/12/2011 11:42:21 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: decimon

I reread that and I am still right a level 25 is too low that is not a high level of vitamin D and is in the deficient level.50 is considered normal.


20 posted on 05/12/2011 11:44:48 AM PDT by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson