Forskare vill ge gravida D-vitamin
Känner du någon som är gravid nu under den mörka D-vitaminfattiga vintern? Då kan det vara läge att läsa detta:
SvD: Forskare vill ge gravida D-vitamin
Betydligt mer detaljer: Tillskott av D-vitamin verkar bra även vid graviditet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iatYZxyoEkU
Han har även andra intressant videos om bland annat diabetes.
Jag tror att det är väldigt bra med vitamin tillskot under graviditeten, speciellt omega 3 och D vitamin.
Här i Småland hade Smålandsposten ett antal fina och fördjupande reportaget om lchf under 2013.
2014 har också börjat bra.
Ett fint reportage har nu gjorts om en tjej med diabetes 1 och som fått många hälsoförbättringar med lchf.
http://lchfvaxjo.se/l-nkar.html
http://youtu.be/GeyNB-GBKlg
Den är ganska lång men jag tycker att det var värt varje minut.
Det var helt nytt för mig att Becel Proactive har den effekten.
http://www.tunedbody.com/heart-surgeon-declares-really-causes-heart-i...
Ang Todd Beckers påståenden om antioxidanter och D-vitamin, så bör man i det första fallet hålla i minnet att de syntetiska molekyler som säljs i hälsokosten ofta är racemiska blandningar (racemat) av olika enantiomerer. Där den ena kan vara nyttig och den andra onyttig/giftig. (Ett exempel är citronlukt och aplesinlukt: samma molekyl, men "vänsterhänt" i ena fallet och "högerhänt" i andra. "Vitamin E" har flera stereoisomerer--vissa är vitaminer andra har okänd effekt. Så en diskussion om vitaminers/antioxidanters farlighet som inte tar hänsyn till detta är rätta meningslös. (Oavsett hans diskussion om missuppfattningar om vad i frukt och bär som är nyttigt.)
Vad gäller D, så överdriver Beckeri mitt tycke, Natruligt solande ger ca 10000IE per dygn (dock oklart om denna mängd upprätthålls oändligt eller om flera veckors/månaders solande leder till en nedreglering. Boken av Agus som Becker referera till är klassisk skolmedicin: mera mediciner och vacciner till allt.
För att citera en D-vitaminforskares åsikt om Agus bok (William B Grant):
"This book may have some good points regarding lifestyle choices, but in my field of expertise, vitamin D, misses the mark by a wide margin. Vitamin D is a natural compound that humans have required forever. Thus, much of what we know about the roles of vitamin D come from ecological (geographical or seasonal) and observational studies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have provided very good evidence that vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer, hip fractures, type A influenza, pneumonia, increase survival after diagnosis of cardiovascular disease, and reduce all-cause mortality rate. A recent RCT found that pregnant and nursing women need at least 4000 IU/d and that there are no adverse effects. The reasons why there are not more successful randomized controlled trials with vitamin D reported are several: most studies used only 400 IU/d vitamin D, the benefical effects of vitamin D for many types of disease have been identified in the past few years, there are many sources of vitamin D such as food, supplements and solar UVB, and there is considerable person-to-person variability in serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D with respect to oral vitamin D intake. The author dismisses the benefit of vitamin D for reducing the risk of cancer based in part on a 2008 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report. The authors of that report were primarily dermatologists who consider their mission in life to keep people out of the sun in order to prevent melanoma and skin cancer. This report has been shown to be highly biased. The author also suggests that cancer rates are higher at high latitudes due perhaps to genomic effects. This idea is incorrect based on a comparison of cancer rates in Nordic countries based on occupation: those with outdoor occupations have reduced risk of 17 types of cancer compared to those with indoor occupations. The measure of UV exposure was lip cancer for males, so the finding is not related to exercise, obesity, or smoking.
As for the basic recommendations listed on the dust jacket, aspirin, statins, and annual flu shot, they have serious problems. About 5% of those taking aspirin suffer GI tract bleeding, leading to many unnecessary deaths. One of the important effects of statins is to enhance the effects of vitamin D, so why not just take vitamin D. As for flu shots, the evidence that they are effective is limited (see who sponsored the study and ask why influenza mortality rates fail to show much effect of vaccine use), and there are two RCTs showing that vitamin D greatly reduces the risk of type A influenza.
The reason Big Pharma does not like vitamin D is that it is very inexpensive and very effective at reducing risk of many types of disease. The tradeoff between protection against UV damage and vitamin D production is the reason why skin pigmentation varies from very dark in the tropical plains and very pale in northern Europe."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4PGVwX9Umg