Posted on 05/23/2011 8:07:07 PM PDT by neverdem
Having low vitamin D levels may increase a person's risk of developing Parkinson's disease later in life, say Finnish researchers.
Their study of 3,000 people, published in Archives of Neurology, found people with the lowest levels of the sunshine vitamin had a three-fold higher risk.
Vitamin D could be helping to protect the nerve cells gradually lost by people with the disease, experts say.
The charity Parkinson's UK said further research was required.
Parkinson's disease affects several parts of the brain, leading to symptoms like tremor and slow movements.
30-year study
The researchers from Finland's National Institute for Health and Welfare measured vitamin D levels from the study group between 1978 and 1980, using blood samples.
They then followed these people over 30 years to see whether they developed Parkinson's disease.
They found that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were three times more likely to develop Parkinson's, compared with the group with the highest levels of vitamin D.
Most vitamin D is made by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight, although some comes from foods like oily fish, milk or cereals.
As people age, however, their skin becomes less able to produce vitamin D.
Doctors have known for many years that vitamin D helps calcium uptake and bone formation.
But research is now showing that it also plays a role in regulating the immune system, as well as in the development of the nervous system.
Vitamin target
Writing in an editorial in the US journal Archives of Neurology, Marian Evatt, assistant professor of neurology at Emory University School of Medicine, says that health authorities should consider raising the target vitamin D level.
"At this point, 30 nanograms per millilitre of blood or more appears optimal for bone health in humans...
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
>>It should only cost $35-$50....<<
If you can find the test at that price, please post a link. I called my regular doctor’s office and it was around $160 there. One thing you can do if you have insurance is request the vitamin D3 test at your annual physical. You should be able to get at least a couple of data points that way over a few years. The proper test for vitamin D3 is referred to as the 25-OH-D test, to differentiate it from the test for vitamin D2. So if you ask your doctor to run the test, be sure to specify the 25-OH-D test, or make sure you’re both talking D3, not D2.
I have found Vit D3 online at very reasonable prices...and take 2K with each meal, plus some extra in other vitamins I take....
Also, if you get tested make sure you get the correct test.
Thank you both, very much, for the information provided. I appreciate it.
I just wanted to ask where you’ve heard of Vitamin D overdosing? I’ve only heard of it in levels near the millions of IU. From everything I’ve read (from the Vitamin D Council, included) 50,000IU is acceptable each day. I’m not saying that you’re incorrect, because I have heard of problems with calcium for those who take extreme amounts (100k’s IU ranges, but not anything below several 100K), so I am just trying to get more information. I have looked up on the NIH and CDC websites, and not yet found any information on what exactly constitues a vitamin D overdose, but it is something that has been on my mind. I’ll look more into the blood level, I do want to get tested. Thank you again for all of your help.
One quote I found:
“The lack of adverse effects in clinical trials that used intake up to 1250 micrograms [50,000 IU] vitamin D per day and the lack of adverse effects at lower doses inspires a high level of confidence in the data from the strongly designed clinical trials that used 250 micrograms [10,000 IU] vitamin D per day,” said the reviewers.
The researchers also note that for practically all the reported cases of vitamin D toxicity have involved doses that were in excess of those studied in the clinical trials. “Newer clinical trial data are sufficient to show that vitamin D is not toxic at intakes much higher than previously considered unsafe,” said the reviewers.”
-J.N. Hathcock, A. Shao, R. Vieth, R. Heaney. Risk assessment for vitamin D. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition; January 2007, Volume 85, Pages 6-18.
http://www.rejuvenation-science.com/n_vitamin-d-upper-limit.html
I get all my supplements from here...
http://www.swansonvitamins.com
Vitamin D - 5,000 IU
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/SW1371/ItemDetail?n=0
Oh.... they have been around since 1969
http://www.swansonvitamins.com/AboutSwanson
For the group...... having just gone through the excruciating passing of a kidney stone, I wondered what caused kidney stones.
Interestingly, excessive vitamin D is given as one of the causes.
Has any other D user experienced kidney stones?
Dr. Cannell published the following letter from a reader, along with his response, in an email I received 4/21/10. It should answer your question:
This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you are not subscribed, you can do so on the Vitamin D Council’s website. If you want to unsubscribe, go to the end of this newsletter.
This newsletter is now copyrighted but you may reproduce it for non-economic reasons without prior permission as long as you properly attribute its source.
Dear Dr. Cannell:
I was taking a vitamin D3 liquid oil supplement 60,000 IUs/day regularly and 180,000 IUs/day fairly occasionally for about 8 months in ‘09 in an attempt to get over a chronic sinus infection and prevent cold/flu. Last November ‘09, I started having symptoms for irregular heartbeats, nervousness, insomnia, weight loss, difficulty concentrating, and muscle weakness. I met with my physician and had blood work done. My vitamin D3 level was 406 ng/mL and my calcium elevated and probably had been that high for several months. I stopped taking the supplement immediately. But my physician didn’t recommend anything else at the time except to recheck the blood levels in a few months. I am 46 and have been in excellent health all my life with no previous medical issues.
The symptoms have not gone away entirely. I was not aware of the potential toxic effects of D until a few weeks ago. I recently found out that vitamin D toxicity can cause hypercalcemia.
Is there anything more I can do now to reverse the effects of vitamin D toxicity and possible hypercalcemia that may have been present for several months last summer/fall? Should I have my kidney function and heart function checked? What can I do to reverse effects on my nervous system and brain now? What tests can I do to keep checking the levels or know if I did any permanent damage to these soft tissues?
Finally, my daughter (5 yrs. old at the time) was also taking about 20,000 IUs/day fairly regularly over the same period of time. She didn’t appear to have had any adverse symptoms but now I’m really concerned and scared she may have been toxic too. What tests should I ask to be done to check her for Vitamin D toxicity and hypercalcemia?
Thank you,
David, Utah
Dr. Cannell’s Response was:
Dear David:
Congratulations, you have indeed made yourself toxic by knowingly taking too much supplemental vitamin D, one of the first such cases I am aware of in the modern literature. Have your daughter’s 25(OH)D and serum calcium checked; she was also taking potentially toxic doses.
The treatment for you and your daughter to not take any vitamin D and both of you should stay out of the sun until your 25(OH)D levels return to normal. Drink 8 eight-ounce glasses of water a day and have your daughter drink four. You both should have a chemistry panel periodically to see if kidney function is normal and to check serum calcium although I doubt that your calcium is still elevated. I doubt you have permanently damaged any internal organs as most cases of toxicity, with 25(OH)D levels higher than yours, did not result in permanent damage to the kidneys or other internal organs.
Also, readers should be aware, if they are not already, that vitamin D does not prevent all viral respiratory infections. As we noted in correspondence to our first influenza paper, rhinoviruses, the most common cause of the common cold, are not seasonal; that is, they are just as common in the summer as in the winter, and they do not have a lipoprotein coat for antimicrobial peptides to destroy. Also, in a recent Japanese paper, influenza B was not prevented by vitamin D, only influenza A. Although many people get influenza symptoms and are worried enough to go to their doctors, and their doctors worried enough to get an influenza A test, only about 3% of the specimens submitted to CDC surveillance centers are positive for influenza A.
If you are already taking 5,000 IU a day and you get a cold, chances are that more vitamin D will not help much. No one should take large doses for more than a few days and then only if the infection is severe. Certainly the doses you took were toxic and it sounds as if you still suffered from viral respiratory infections.
>>I just wanted to ask where you’ve heard of Vitamin D overdosing?<<
My post above was a response to your question. 50,000 IU per day will put you in the category of David in the letter. You will get sick. The confusion possibly arises because doctors will often prescribe a megadose (50,000 IU doses) to be taken once a month to overcome a dangerously low vit D3 level.
The reason so little has been actively researched regarding vit D3 is that until recently the Food and Nutrition Board had set the Tolerable Upper Limit at 2,000 IU per day. This level is too low to get the research results suggested by the associative studies. That is, to do an actual experiment, researchers would have to put people on doses significantly larger than the government’s upper limit. Reputable researchers are reluctant to do that.
However, recently the Tolerable Upper Limit was doubled to 4,000 IU, so you’re going to start seeing some experiments (double blind, placebo controlled) being done, I would expect.
Dr. Cannell, and most researchers, recommend around 1,000 IU’s daily per 30 pounds of body weight, PLUS regular testing to see how you’re responding to that dosage when combined with your lifestyle, diet, etc. Thus, a 180 pound person should be taking around 6,000 IU to maintain a high enough D3 level to be effective. (Checked by testing.)
As for the level, the most commonsense suggestion I’ve heard for setting a minimum level is from the doctor (I forget his name) who says that it doesn’t pass to the baby in breast milk until the mother’s blood is over 50 ng/ml. He reasons that since it is highly beneficial to the developing fetus, and to the new borne baby, the minimum should be above that level. Most of the researchers in vit D3 are settling on a level somewhere between 60-80 ng/ml and none that I’m aware of are stating a level above 100 ng/ml. Above 200 ng/ml, you’re likely to start getting in serious trouble.
Note: I am not a doctor, and the above is just being passed along, possibly with some errors. Do your own research before doing any supplementing. Kidney and Liver specialists will tell you that a large percentage of their patients come to them with long lists of supplements they’ve been taking. A lot of this stuff just isn’t good for you, but we’ve gone the wrong direction for 40 years when it comes to vit D3, in my personal opinion.
Just one more in the the long list of products that are being down sized put at the same or higher price. Signs of the economic times.
>>Just one more in the the long list of products that are being down sized put at the same or higher price. Signs of the economic times.<<
I guess it must be fun to be cynical, even without knowing what the pricing of the two products are....
It’s also possible, if you’re interested in a rational explanation, that since the FNB just set the maximum recommended dose at 2,000 IU for an adult (up from 1,000) and the Tolerable Upper Limit at 4,000 IU (up from 2,000) that maybe the company thought offering a 2K pill instead of 5K made sense?
You have my sympathy. Kidney stones are considered the worst cause of pain by many, if not most, docs. For the general public, if you want to learn about medical problems, i.e. signs and symptoms, causes and treatments of the vast majority of diagnoses, I used to recommend without hesitation MedlinePlus. It's a service from the National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health, but now they are too smart by half. It's been redone completely. I entered kidney stones, aka nephrolithiasis, and they give 516 results. It's loaded with links.
You might need a medical dictionary if you're not a health professional. Here's their dictionary.
It took a little while scanning the first page to find "Kidney Stones in Adults." Click on "What causes kidney stones"? This is their entry minus images of some stones.
Doctors do not always know what causes a stone to form. While certain foods may promote stone formation in people who are susceptible, scientists do not believe that eating any specific food causes stones to form in people who are not susceptible.A person with a family history of kidney stones may be more likely to develop stones. Urinary tract infections, kidney disorders such as cystic kidney diseases, and certain metabolic disorders such as hyperparathyroidism are also linked to stone formation.
In addition, more than 70 percent of people with a rare hereditary disease called renal tubular acidosis develop kidney stones.
Cystinuria and hyperoxaluria are two other rare, inherited metabolic disorders that often cause kidney stones. In cystinuria, too much of the amino acid cystine, which does not dissolve in urine, is voided, leading to the formation of stones made of cystine. In patients with hyperoxaluria, the body produces too much oxalate, a salt. When the urine contains more oxalate than can be dissolved, the crystals settle out and form stones.
Hypercalciuria is inherited, and it may be the cause of stones in more than half of patients. Calcium is absorbed from food in excess and is lost into the urine. This high level of calcium in the urine causes crystals of calcium oxalate or calcium phosphate to form in the kidneys or elsewhere in the urinary tract.
Other causes of kidney stones are hyperuricosuria, which is a disorder of uric acid metabolism; gout; excess intake of vitamin D; urinary tract infections; and blockage of the urinary tract. Certain diuretics, commonly called water pills, and calcium-based antacids may increase the risk of forming kidney stones by increasing the amount of calcium in the urine.
Calcium oxalate stones may also form in people who have chronic inflammation of the bowel or who have had an intestinal bypass operation, or ostomy surgery. As mentioned earlier, struvite stones can form in people who have had a urinary tract infection. People who take the protease inhibitor indinavir, a medicine used to treat HIV infection, may also be at increased risk of developing kidney stones.
It appears quite comprehensive.
If you don't like MedlinePlus, try the Mayo Clinic's Diseases and Conditions. Avoid any sites hawking any products. BTW, any sites whose URL ends with the suffix .edu as in education are teaching institutions. Normally, I don't hesitate to use or cite them.
Interestingly, excessive vitamin D is given as one of the causes.
Well you found one source. If you want to rule out excess vitamin D, then get the 25hydroxyvitamin D, aka 25(OH)D, test. However, the test can be problematic. I have read two docs who complained about its results varying too much. I don't know if it's dependent on the lab performing the test, or if it's dependent on the purity of reagents, water or what. But if it's result twice the upper limit of normal, then you probably have your diagnosis, hypervitaminosis D. I'd stop vitamin D for a month and get retested. Make sure the test is repeated at the same lab. If you're first result is hanging aroud the upper limit of normal, then it could still be hypervitaminosis D, and I would proceed as above.
Has any other D user experienced kidney stones?
It's already in the two public references, MedlinePlus and the Mayo Clinic. It can cause too much calcium in the blood, so it gets precipitated into stones.
I take 4000 IU Vit. D3 almost every day and drink milk. I also eat oysters once every week for the zinc. My calcium is a bit on the high side but still within the norm. Never had kidney stones, gall stones or kidney problems but then I drink a lot of water, up to six 10oz. glasses a day.
My sister does none of the above. She has had terrible problems with bladder infections, kidney and gall stones.
Draw your own conclusions.
curezone.com is a favorite website. This is what they say about kidney stones. http://www.earthclinic.com/CURES/kidney_stones4.html#RF_56608
30 year study.....sounds reliable
**modern lifestyle makes it difficult for anyone to get enough sunlight anyway.**
I agree. I just got outside and started walking again. Hopefully it will get me my Vitamin D and help me lose 60 or so pounds.
I thought we couldn’t advertise on FR
Well it can’t hurt! YOU GO! :)
Worse than a separated shoulder?
That sounds like trauma and orthopedic in nature. I'm talking frrom the standpoint of internal medicine.
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.