News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsVitamin D: no miracle cure
in Vitamin D 
A new review of studies on vitamin D supplementation show that it does not have a major effect on common chronic diseases. There is no evidence that the risk for heart disease, cancer or stroke is significantly reduced. However, a small reduction in the risk of death (in other words a longer life) was seen in older women taking vitamin D supplements.
- USA Today: Review of vitamin D studies finds little health benefit
- BBC: Vitamin D not needed for healthy people, study finds
- MailOnline: Why taking vitamin D is “pointless”: Review finds taking supplement does little to prevent chronic disease or early death
In previous studies, relatively small doses of vitamin D were given (800 IU, or less, daily) for limited periods of time and to relatively small groups of people. Currently, several high quality studies (supplementation with high doses to larger groups of people for longer periods of time), and the first results are expected to come in 2015. They will give us much more reliable knowledge.
We can, however, already conclude that any potential effect on heart disease, cancer and stroke is limited (probably at best less than a 15% reduction in risk). Supplementing with vitamin D does not give us immunity to our most common causes of death – if anybody expected it to.
However, very exciting findings remain, indicating that avoiding vitamin D deficiency may provide other health effects. When it comes to treatment for depression, certain pain conditions, reduction of abdominal fat and various diseases associated with the immune system (asthma, seasonal allergies, eczema, MS and upper respiratory tract infections) there are many smaller studies demonstrating a positive effect.
There are many more ongoing studies on Vitamin D – including several gigantic studies as mentioned above – and we’ll soon know more.
It may be that some people have been too enthusiastic: Vitamin D is not a miracle cure for every disease (which uncertain observational studies may lead you to think). But many likely positive effects remain. And it’s still a harmless and promising way of improving your odds for keeping healthy and feeling well during the winter months.
I'm still convinced that eating real whole food, local and seasonal, along with a lifestyle which includes regular physical activity, in fresh air, with clean water and sunshine -- as per our natural human operational manual -- is all a body needs.
These news reports look a lot like the attempts of big pharma to confuse people and keep them dependant on them for drug treatments and vaccines.
As you so rightly say in your article, the real news will come from the results of the trials using much higher does of Vitamin D.
I presume the trials referred to are the ones being undertaken by Carole Baggerly of GrassrootsHealth. The website is well worth having look at to find out more:
http://grassrootshealth.net/
Never any flu shot for me. Those in the high risk group for flu I understand are usually severely deficient in D. And it is best to build up a good deal of D if one HAVE to take a flu shot, to avoid side effects of the shot itself. If it has marginal effects on other things as well, fine! We got what we wanted and do not expect other miracles!
Sigh!
Does the data have anything to say about the effect of supplementation on low carb or keto diets?
That it has only arguable effects on a glycemic diet, esp. one full of food elements that are adverse for reasons other than being carbs, is unsurprising. It's like comparing earplugs during an earthquake.
And the K2 thing.
In 2010, on the advice of our naturopath, my husband started supplementing 12,000 IUs to get his level up. He had tested at 17 ng/ml. I decided to take the same amount and finally got tested a year later at 91 ng/ml. On the high end of normal, but I felt fine and had not gotten sick that winter.
About 6 months after I had started supplementing my lifelong asthma mysteriously disappeared! I dropped down to 8,000 IUs and continued to feel fine. Retested at 79 ng/ml 6 months later.
We moved from the Pac NW to Santa Fe a couple of years later and I decided to experiment. I dropped all D3 for 3 months and made sure I got an hour of noontime sun daily. My blood level dropped to 57 ng/ml and my asthma came back. I started taking 8,000 IUs again and 3 weeks later all my asthma symptoms disappeared.
I also supplement Magnesium and ensure that I get sufficient K2 and A from my diet.
I recall a study of some nasal spray that was supposed to improve muscle building and used by bodybuilder and athletes. So a "study" was done in which a random group of people, including couch potatoes, used the spray and the researchers concluded the spray did not improve muscles (I.e., no statistical significance in the population). Later It was made a banned substance in sports. It sees it did improve muscle building if you lifted weights and learned to use it the way body builders figured out how to use it. So few studies seem to distinguish between it can be effective done right, versus any idiot will benefit so long as they swallow a pill.
But, I dont know if there is anything thats good if it is provided more then there needs.. some are even bad in high doses!
But as living in a country near/on the polar circle.. and redhead/frekled.. and solar sensitive Im not that much in sun even on summer!
So I take D3 in winter.. at christmas and to the summer starts.
Im not that fond of supplements at all.. but I take D3 and occasionaly Omega-3!
Im more about to eat real food and living a better life.. but Im a indoor worker.. and I not thinking of a career of being a outdoor worker.. I am to old for that so im taking som complement supplemets for a western life style!
Mostly becuse there are K vitamins in almoste every source of food and our colon can make some of it too!
K1 seems to convert to K2 in our bodys.. if needed.. and the new K-vitamine that seems to have some benficial effects (K-MK7) seems to only be produced of bacterias.. outside our bodys!
One have to eat Natto or other fermeticed foods for that purpose.. and then.. how come that our ancestors in Africa did survived whitout any Natto.. or even Inuits!
I can tells as much as that.. its very dificult to get a K-vitamine defiency!
There are probably some problems whit converting it to the right MK source of K-vitamine, that can be a problem!
Not only Vitamin D matters, not only Vitamin D production depends on sun exposure.
You may be interested in reading about Cholestrolsulfate: http://cindy-on-health.blogspot.ca/2012/03/cholesterol-sulfate-and-su...
Stephanie Senneff also wrote some articles and gave some interviews on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPWCJxyHAg4
(and if you don't eat many grass fed animal products, you certainly can be K deficient.)
The only free lunch in this game is to eat a diet rich in natural foods that are high in many vitamins and minerals and abstain as much as possible from processed, refined foods. Prioritizing high-quality fats and minimizing high-carbohydrate items is an important part of this process of course.
The rest is just background noise.
Go real food!
And ofcourse.. if one have problems linked to K2 defiency.. its a K2 defiency!
But on the other hand.. I altso listen to those how know more then I do.. and they dont realy know.. its to new to say anything for sure.. thats for sure!!
And this MK7 says to be very good for at least Japanes women.. how eats Natto.. but then.. our body produce MK4.. that altso have its benefits.. and it is strange.. if we would be dependant of fermentaised soy beans for our healt.. its uterly strange.. it doesent get stuck in my mind!
In @17 is a seminar that point at what we know now, and I have the same opinion as he.. he know such thing better then me.. we is in the start of knowing different K2 vitamines!
And if somebody like to try.. use Price fomula, or as mush grassfeed products you can.. or a suplement whit different K2.. like this!
http://www.lef.org/Vitamins-Supplements/Item01724/Super-K-with-Advanc...
Secondly, without examining the scientific study in detail, are the authors effectively questioning the value of Vitamin D in health?
A more interesting study would be to conduct a comparative study of the health of lifelong naturists and non-naturists.
This makes sense, as the supplement is not the same thing people get from sun exposure. In addition, people get other related and unrelated benefits from sun exposure. There are other chemicals and hormones that matter, influenced by sun exposure, some of them intricately linked to Vitamin D3.
It seams that its A, K2 and D3 thats works together!
Listen to the speach in @17!
It suggests that lighter pigment in Europeans developed in response to nutrient deficiency (including shortage of vitamin D) caused by increasing the level of grains and other starches in the European diet. It may help explain why the Inuit, Cree and other Amerinds did not develop lighter pigmentation despite living in high latitudes: they had little grain, starch or fruit, and so no vitamin D deficiency.
One might call a high-starch diet a Darwin Diet. Don't be the next recipient of a Darwin Award for Diet.
It would be more interesting to note why we have been told over the past 30 years to cover up, wear a hat, and wear sunscreen to avoid the suns rays? Another reason to believe the the government does not have our best interests at heart when giving us information. Big pharma makes a lot of money on sunscreen not to mention the number of health problems that crop up when a person becomes deficient in a key nutrient.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/02/17/vitamin...
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/blog/what-are-systematic-reviews-and-a...