33 replies to this topic

[mirian]

Addison Strack, I'd ease up on the vitamin D more than 80nmol/l 25-hydroxyvitamin D increases your risk of prostate cancer. [Int J of Cancer; Jan. 2004;108(1):104-8]

I'd go now higher than 4000IU of D3 for healthy people but 5,000IU of D3 is you have cancer. Generally, for every 1,000IU D3 you will your 25-hydroxy D test will increase by by about 10ng/ml.

I'd switch vitamin K2 as MK-4 to Source Naturals K2 as MK-7 at 100mcg.

http://www.iherb.com...1&pid=5455&at=0

Ignore the part that says contains milk/dairy on Iherb's site. Iherb needs to update it. I checked Source Naturals site, and the label no longer reads that now.

If someone is taking guggul while on a thyroid replacement medication it can cause a heart attack from T3 levels being too high.

Edited by mirian, 22 June 2007 - 12:47 AM.

[Shepard]

mirian, it would be so much easier to effectively rate your argument if you'd link us to the PMID or a copy of the abstract. For example, the above study you mentioned.

PMID: 14618623

or

nt J Cancer. 2004 Jan 1;108(1):104-8.Click here to read Links

  Both high and low levels of blood vitamin D are associated with a higher prostate cancer risk: a longitudinal, nested case-control study in the Nordic countries.
    Tuohimaa P, Tenkanen L, Ahonen M, Lumme S, Jellum E, Hallmans G, Stattin P, Harvei S, Hakulinen T, Luostarinen T, Dillner J, Lehtinen M, Hakama M.

    Medical School, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. Pentti.Tuohimaa@uta.fi

    Vitamin D inhibits the development and growth of prostate cancer cells. Epidemiologic results on serum vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk have, however, been inconsistent. We conducted a longitudinal nested case-control study on Nordic men (Norway, Finland and Sweden) using serum banks of 200,000 samples. We studied serum 25(OH)-vitamin D levels of 622 prostate cancer cases and 1,451 matched controls and found that both low (</=19 nmol/l) and high (>/=80 nmol/l) 25(OH)-vitamin D serum concentrations are associated with higher prostate cancer risk. The normal average serum concentration of 25(OH)-vitamin D (40-60 nmol/l) comprises the lowest risk of prostate cancer. The U-shaped risk of prostate cancer might be due to similar 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) availability within the prostate: low vitamin D serum concentration apparently leads to a low tissue concentration and to weakened mitotic control of target cells, whereas a high vitamin D level might lead to vitamin D resistance through increased inactivation by enhanced expression of 24-hydroxylase. It is recommended that vitamin D deficiency be supplemented, but too high vitamin D serum level might also enhance cancer development. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

    PMID: 14618623 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[wayside]

Addison Strack, I'd ease up on the vitamin D more than 80mg/ml 25-hydroxyvitamin D increases your risk of prostate cancer. [Int J of Cancer; Jan. 2004;108(1):104-8]

You are very sloppy with your units, the study you quote says "80 nmol/l". 80 mg/ml would convert to something like 200,000,000 nmol/l if I did the math right (1 nmol/l = 0.4 ng/ml)

Now that's something to think about. Perhaps cutting back to 5,000 would be well-advised.

Have you tested your blood levels? It would seem like a better strategy would be to adjust your dosage to achieve the desired blood level, rather than arbitrarily switching around the amount you take. And huge amounts like 50,000 IU, while probably not deadly, may not have to desired effect:

http://www.westonapr...indmiracle.html:

In one recent study, blood levels rose from low to extremely high, (more than 300 nmol/l) 2 to 4 hours after a 50,000 IU oral dose,65 and then slowly returned to pretreatment suboptimal levels. Clearly this must disrupt normal feedback mechanisms in D and calcium regulation.

This was taken from this study,

Wortsman J, Matsuoka LY, Chen TC, Lu Z, Holick MF. Decreased bioavailability of vitamin D in obesity. Am.J.Clin.Nutr. 2000;72:690-3.

[mirian]

In the past, I was taking 1,200IU D3 and I scored 27.1 ng/ml on 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Nowadays, I just get 2,000IU D3 from my multi. Since, that test is expensive

http://www.mercola.c...in_d_cancer.htm

All about vitamin D:

http://www.mercola.c...amin_d_quiz.htm

Here's also a Journal link: http://www.ncbi.nlm....3&dopt=Abstract

Edited by mirian, 20 July 2007 - 06:45 PM.

[mirian]

What I know is as calcium intake increases active vitamin D levels lower. Hence, the reason why you have a Journal saying Calcium intake at 600mg had higher rates of prostate cancer than those consuming no more than 150mg of calcium daily increases prostate cancer risk. Japan has about half (400mg) of the calcium intake of Americans. They have far less cancer compared to Americans. Researchers have linked an increased risk of at least 18 different cancers to low vitamin D levels.

D2 is the major fallacy of the vegetarian supplement market. Many supplement companies still use it just so they can put that vegetarian label & they ignore studies.

I've read that D2 actually depletes magnesium as where D3 increases magnesium. There's no comparison. D2 is garbage.

SUPPLEMENTAL CALCIUM CAN MAKE MEN'S RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER SKYROCKET.[MENS HEALTH MAGAZINE, MAR 2007, P.72]

Men who consumed more than 600mg of calcium daily had a 32% higher risk of prostate cancer than those who consumed no more than 150mg of calcium a day over 11 years. [American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Oct. 2001] "One possible explanation is that too much calcium reduces the body's level of vitamin D in its active form, which has been shown to inhibit prostate cancer cells from growing in size and number," says Dr. Walter Willett.[Dr. Andrew Weil's Self Healing, Aug. 2006, p. 4]

High-dose Calcium interferes with the absorption of other minerals such as magnesium and zinc. [Nutrition Reviews 55:1-9,1997]

"Inadequate calcium intake is probably not the primary cause for thinning bones and will usually make little difference on its own," says Dr. Willett." If you want to prevent bone fractures, forget the milk and take your cow for a walk." Do weight bearing exercise like walking, not swimming, and take vitamins D & K. [Dr. Andrew Weil's, Self Healing, Aug. 2006, p.5]

Finland has the highest all-cause mortality risk and highest dairy consumption. Japan has the lowest all-cause mortality risk and lowest dairy consumption. [Int J Cardio 33:19,1991]

Elevated calcium levels increase the risk of dying from cancer by 58%. [J Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 81: 2149, 1996]

The following link clearly proves how MK-7 is the most superior form of vitamin K:

http://www.plthomas.com/menaq7.htm

Call Harvard and ask for Dr. Walter Willett and tell him he's wrong. he's only one of the top ten experts.

Edited by mirian, 19 June 2007 - 08:21 PM.

[mirian]

I showed references now you show references for your view

[krillin]

OK, this is seriously confusing. In the first paper, 80 nmol/l is above the good range. In the second, 80 nmol/l is the minimum to avoid deficiency. LEF uses the second paper to justify their recommendation of 80-250 nmol/l.


Int J Cancer. 2004 Jan 1;108(1):104-8.

Both high and low levels of blood vitamin D are associated with a higher prostate cancer risk: a longitudinal, nested case-control study in the Nordic countries.
Tuohimaa P, Tenkanen L, Ahonen M, Lumme S, Jellum E, Hallmans G, Stattin P, Harvei S, Hakulinen T, Luostarinen T, Dillner J, Lehtinen M, Hakama M.
Medical School, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland. Pentti.Tuohimaa@uta.fi

Vitamin D inhibits the development and growth of prostate cancer cells. Epidemiologic results on serum vitamin D levels and prostate cancer risk have, however, been inconsistent. We conducted a longitudinal nested case-control study on Nordic men (Norway, Finland and Sweden) using serum banks of 200,000 samples. We studied serum 25(OH)-vitamin D levels of 622 prostate cancer cases and 1,451 matched controls and found that both low (</=19 nmol/l) and high (>/=80 nmol/l) 25(OH)-vitamin D serum concentrations are associated with higher prostate cancer risk. The normal average serum concentration of 25(OH)-vitamin D (40-60 nmol/l) comprises the lowest risk of prostate cancer. The U-shaped risk of prostate cancer might be due to similar 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) availability within the prostate: low vitamin D serum concentration apparently leads to a low tissue concentration and to weakened mitotic control of target cells, whereas a high vitamin D level might lead to vitamin D resistance through increased inactivation by enhanced expression of 24-hydroxylase. It is recommended that vitamin D deficiency be supplemented, but too high vitamin D serum level might also enhance cancer development. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 14618623

J Nutr. 2005 Feb;135(2):317-22.
Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels indicative of vitamin D sufficiency: implications for establishing a new effective dietary intake recommendation for vitamin D.
Hollis BW.

Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. hollisb@musc.edu

It has been more than 3 decades since the first assay assessing circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] in human subjects was performed and led to the definition of "normal" nutritional vitamin D status, i.e., vitamin D sufficiency. Sampling human subjects, who appear to be free from disease, and assessing "normal" circulating 25(OH)D levels based on a Gaussian distribution of these values is now considered to be a grossly inaccurate method of identifying the normal range. Several factors contribute to the inaccuracy of this approach, including race, lifestyle habits, sunscreen usage, age, latitude, and inappropriately low dietary intake recommendations for vitamin D. The current adult recommendations for vitamin D, 200-600 IU/d, are very inadequate when one considers that a 10-15 min whole-body exposure to peak summer sun will generate and release up to 20,000 IU vitamin D-3 into the circulation. We are now able to better identify sufficient circulating 25(OH)D levels through the use of specific biomarkers that appropriately increase or decrease with changes in 25(OH)D levels; these include intact parathyroid hormone, calcium absorption, and bone mineral density. Using these functional indicators, several studies have more accurately defined vitamin D deficiency as circulating levels of 25(OH)D < or = 80 nmol or 32 microg/L. Recent studies reveal that current dietary recommendations for adults are not sufficient to maintain circulating 25(OH)D levels at or above this level, especially in pregnancy and lactation.

PMID: 15671234

[krillin]

What I know is as calcium intake increases active vitamin D levels lower. Hence, the reason why you have a Journal saying Calcium intake at 600mg  had higher rates of prostate cancer than those consuming no more than 150mg of calcium daily increases prostate cancer risk.

I've exposed this lie of yours before. The low calcium group got more than 150 mg calcium. They got 150 mg/day or less dairy calcium.

Japan has about half (400mg) of the calcium intake of Americans. They have far less cancer compared to Americans. Researchers have linked an increased risk of at least 18 different cancers to low vitamin D levels.

On page 43 of the following presentation, the different Japanese age groups get 455-823 mg/day. On page 40, the recommendation is that Japanese get 10 mg/kg, or 500-700 mg for most of the population.

http://www.camgwater...NishimutaMz.pdf

[mirian]

Ok, Newbie Krillin who's only been on here a couple months now suddenly thinks he's turned expert.

Bill Sardi, Dr. Weil, Harvard's Dr. Walter Willet are all wrong and you're right? Lets just see who lives longer, the proof is in the pudding. All three of them combined have reviewed more studies than anybody here several times over. Hence, they tend to think somewhat similar.

You know what the difference between you and I is. I don't claim to know it all. Bill sardi takes 4000IU's of D3 daily but knows to stay away from supplemental calcium way before it finally hit studies. Of course, their is a calcium intake range on Japanese just like Americans. I intake for less than most Americans. But, the average American gets about 800mg, and the avg Japanese gets only 400mg. Difference is Japanese are consuming excess protein and sodium which depletes Calcium. Plus, they eat fermented soy like tofu that has the most powerful form of vitamin K2 as natto MK-7.

Again, SUPPLEMENTAL CALCIUM CAN MAKE MEN'S RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER SKYROCKET.[MENS HEALTH MAGAZINE, MAR 2007, P.72] NOT DAIRY!

Too much calcium reduces the body's level of vitamin D in its active form. Which would explain the higher cancer risk.

Pick this one apart:

Elevated calcium levels increase the risk of dying from cancer by 58%. [J Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 81: 2149, 1996]

Edited by mirian, 20 June 2007 - 07:08 PM.

[Shepard]

Well, Bill Sardi, Dr. Weil, Harvard's Dr. Walter Willet are all wrong  and you're right lets just see who lives long the proof is in the pudding.

http://en.wikipedia....al_to_authority

[mirian]

Have you tested your blood levels?

Yes, I have had a 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood test. How about you about ?

[krillin]

the avg Japanese gets only 400mg.

Prove it. Your word is worthless. None of the Japanese age groups consumed that little in the data I showed.

Again, SUPPLEMENTAL CALCIUM CAN MAKE MEN'S RISK OF PROSTATE CANCER SKYROCKET.[MENS HEALTH MAGAZINE, MAR 2007, P.72] NOT DAIRY!

You're completely missing the point. I know that calcium is calcium regardless of the source (provided it gets absorbed). The point is that the low calcium group in the study you keep on citing got more than the 150 mg calcium you keep on claiming. 10 mg/kg calcium intake is a good target, which will prevent negative calcium balance with minimal lowering of 1,25 D.

[mirian]

I don't have to prove the exact amount the average Japanese consumes.

THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT STILL REMAINS THE SAME. JAPAN CONSUMES FAR LESS CALCIUM THAN AMERICANS AND HAVE LESS HEART DISEASE AND OSTEOPOROSIS.

You have to take things from many sources to give yourself the tools to paint the whole picture. I disagree with Bill Sardi that tio2 is safe. Additionally, he has motive to say this since his Longevinex has it. I disagree with Dr.Weil when he recommends people take a B-50 complex.

Harvard's Dr. Walter Willet is saying that even organic dairy isn't any good because most of the milk still comes from pregnant cows which still produce excess hormones. So, even if no hormones are added they are still in abundance.

[krillin]

I don't have to prove the exact amount the average Japanese consumes.
THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT STILL REMAINS THE SAME. JAPAN CONSUMES FAR LESS CALCIUM THAN AMERICANS AND HAVE LESS HEART DISEASE AND OSTEOPOROSIS.

What exactly is your calcium recommendation, anyway? You've cited (if you can call it that) many articles and fabricated some numbers, but a recommendation is lacking, other than your laughable less than 150 mg one.

[Shepard]

THE UNDISPUTABLE FACT STILL REMAINS THE SAME. JAPAN CONSUMES FAR LESS CALCIUM THAN AMERICANS AND HAVE LESS HEART DISEASE AND OSTEOPOROSIS.

Now, why do I care how much calcium the Japanese get?

[mirian]

You should be concerned about how much nutrients people in Japan get because quite evidentally based on average life expectancy they are much closer to ideal than Americans. Hence, you have the world's longest average life expectancy.

I feel the upper safe limit from supplements for men is 150mg of calcium daily as long as they avoid dairy. Nuts and broccoli have relatively trivial amounts of absorbable calcium.

I'm not as extreme as you might think. Just research on calcium clearly points to it being the complete opposite of magnesium. Magnesium is nature's calcium channel blocker. Magnesium being the life extending mineral but I do agree with the 350mg being the upper safe limit of supplemental magnesium daily.

Especially, since calcium deficiencies are rare, and magnesium deficiencies are common.

Edited by mirian, 21 June 2007 - 03:03 AM.

[Shepard]

You should be concerned about how much nutrients people in Japan get because quite evidentally based on average life expectancy they are much closer to ideal than Americans. Hence, you have the world's longest average life expectancy.

Why would you assume it is this particular mineral (or lack thereof) that is responsible for their longer average lifespan?

[mirian]

The average Ameriercan diet which has excess sodium and protein leaches calcium from the body as all of medicine knows. If you take 3mg of boron daily, 2000IU D3, 20 to 50mg of silicon aminoate, 45+mcg Vitamin K2 as MK-7and keep your sodium under 2400mg daily, and keep animal protein low there's no need to supplement with calcium. 3mg of boron has shown to lower the amounts of calcium and magnesium excreted by urination.

Calcium can cause lots of health problems. IP6 can potentially remove calcium deposits in arteries evidenced by journal.

Here's a link on Japan only averaging 400mg of calcium:

http://www.knowledge.....ones, Calcium

You want proof email him at the site. I bet he has.

Edited by mirian, 22 June 2007 - 12:50 AM.

[mirian]

Why would you assume it is this particular mineral (or lack thereof) that is responsible for their longer average lifespan?

http://www.knowledge.....th, Chelation


http://www.knowledge.....ncer, Calcium

[Shepard]

I agree that calcium isn't some miracle supplement and most don't need to supplement it with a healthy diet and other proper supplementation.

My issue is with your argument and line of thinking. And Sardi has the same problem too.

[krillin]

I feel the upper safe limit from supplements for men is 150mg of calcium daily as long as they avoid dairy. Nuts and broccoli have relatively trivial amounts of absorbable calcium.

Quit beating around the bush and give a number for a total calcium goal like I did. It's irrational to consider calcium from food and supplements to be different.

Here's a link on Japan only averaging 400mg of calcium:

http://www.knowledge.....ones, Calcium

You want proof email him at the site. I bet he has.

You're just taking his word for it? That doesn't surprise me, but it does appall me. I believe that I may have found the source of the figure.

link

Nordin (1966) reported the results of an intercountry comparison of calcium intake and osteoporotic fractures. Despite inconsistency in the methods used to report calcium intakes in the 12 countries surveyed, it was possible to demonstrate an inverse rank-order relationship  between  frequency of osteoporotic vertebral fracture as determined by spine x-ray and calcium intakes. Japanese women, whose calcium intake averaged 400 mg/day, had the highest frequency of fracture, whereas women in Finland had the highest intake (1,300 mg/day) and the lowest fracture frequency.

So back when Japan was poor, they got less calcium and more osteoporosis. 400 mg/day is a seriously bad idea. 600-700 is better, based on the 10 mg/kg suggested by the calcium balance data in my previously cited presentation.

[mirian]

I don't agree with everything Sardi says just what he can back up with Journals. Sardi suggests drinking some magnesium rich water. On this issue, I agree more with Dr. Weil on distilled water.

The body is meant to get its minerals primarily, if not solely, from actual food.

To me the biggest indicator of the potential problems with calcium is that "active" vitamin D levels drop as calcium intake rises.

Some proponents of calcium supplements say that calcium is an antagonist of lead. Therefore, yet another reason to take. But, ascorbic acid is known to help rid the body of lead.

It's always more wise to take a healthier alternative. Up to 3,000mg of vitamin C daily the worst-case scenario is a loose stool. Calcium in excess you can possibly develop cardiac complications even if you don't have heart disease should the level rise too high since the heart's rhythm is influenced by calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium.

Which helps to explain why vigorous athletes are at higher risk of cardiac arrhythmias than the rest of the population since while exercising vigorously can throw cardiac critical mineral ratios out of whack.

1/2 a cup of spinach has 122mg of calcium of which a a miniscule 6mg is absorbable. 2% RDA

1/2 a cup of broccoli has 31mg of calcium of which only 19mg is absorbable. 6% RDA

3oz of canned salmon has 235mg of calcium and only 64mg is absorbable. 21% RDA

300mg of absorbable calcium is your target daily. [Men's Health Magazine, Dec. 2006, p. 48]

So, I really don't think looking at the absorbable amounts the current government recommendations for calcium are accurate.

Supplementing with calcium or eating lots of dairy without taking vitamin K2 or magnesium is really setting yourself up for a cardiac problem. Either in the near or far into the future depending on your health status.

Edited by mirian, 22 June 2007 - 01:27 AM.

[Shepard]

To me the biggest indicator of the potential problems with calcium is that "active" vitamin D levels drop as calcium intake rises.

To what level has this really been shown in vivo?

[mike250]

increased protein intake causes increased calcium excretion, but as far as I know there is no evidence that the net calcium balance becomes more negative... which may indicate that a high protein diet increases calcium absorption in the small intestine.

[krillin]

To me the biggest indicator of the potential problems with calcium is that "active" vitamin D levels drop as calcium intake rises.

To what level has this really been shown in vivo?

In the paper which Mirian keeps misquoting, the authors cite a textbook to support the following statement, so the concept seems to have become official truth.

However, if the circulating calcium concentration is high, 1,25(OH)2D3 production is suppressed by the down-regulation of parathyroid hormone.

http://books.nap.edu...d=5776&page=254 also cites a textbook for

The production of 1,25(OH)2D in the kidney is tightly regulated, principally through the action of PTH in response to serum calcium and phosphorus levels.

[mirian]

Dr. Walter Willett is one of the top doctors in the US. Hence, why it's head of nutrition at Harvard. He says as calcium intake increases vitamin D drop in its active form. Nobody in their right mind would take your advice or conclusions over his. Since, your occupation Krillin shows you're ignorant and his shows he's brilliant!

Today they came out with a study showing:

51% vitamin D deficient after 11.1 hours of sun weekly without sunscreen. [The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, June 2007]

Again, anybody 12 months old or older should take 2,000IU of vitamin D3 daily.

Edited by mirian, 06 July 2007 - 12:55 AM.

[health_nutty]

Dr. Walter Willet is one of the top doctors in the US. Hence, why it's head of nutrition at Harvard. He says as calcium intake increases vitamin D drop in its active form. Nobody in their right mind would take your advice or conclusions over his. Since, your occupation Krillin shows you're ignorant and his shows he's brilliant!

Today they came out with a study showing:

51% vitamin D deficient after 11.1 hours of sun weekly without sunscreen. [The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, June 2007]

Again, anybody 12 months old or older should take 2,000IU of vitamin D3 daily.

1) How do you know what Krillin does?
2) Why does it matter for this argument?
3) Attack the idea not the person.

[krillin]

Dr. Walter Willet is one of the top doctors in the US. Hence, why it's head of nutrition at Harvard. He says as calcium intake increases vitamin D drop in its active form. Nobody in their right mind would take your advice or conclusions over his. Since, your occupation Krillin shows you're ignorant and his shows he's brilliant!

Please use the pronoun "he" instead of "it" to refer to the good doctor. BTW, his name is spelled Willett.

The fact that high calcium intake lowers 1,25 hydroxy D3 is not in question. (At least by me.)

Willett's on my side, not yours. I recommend 600-700 mg/day, depending on weight. Let's go to his department's website.

http://www.hsph.harv...ce/calcium.html

Balance studies - which examine the point at which the amount of calcium consumed equals the amount of calcium excreted - suggest that an adequate intake is 550 mg/day.

a British committee that is comparable to the U.S. group that established calcium requirements here concluded that 700 mg/day was enough for individuals aged 19 and older.

Currently, there's no good evidence that consuming more than one serving of milk per day [about 300 mg calcium] in addition to a reasonable diet (which typically provides about 300 milligrams of calcium per day from nondairy sources) will reduce fracture risk. [=600 mg total]

[krillin]

Since, your occupation Krillin shows you're ignorant and his shows he's brilliant!

1) How do you know what Krillin does?

I'll come clean and admit that I work for Addison's Canadian photography business.

[mirian]

Again, I wouldn't go too crazy on the Vitamin D because like the International Journal of Cancer states that more than 80 nmol (32 ng) can increase the risk for prostate cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....3&dopt=Abstract

According to this article 1,300 IU is all that's needed to reach 80 nmol (32 ng):

http://www.direct-ms.....aney AJCN.pdf



http://www.crnusa.or...etyvitaminD.pdf

which states:

In certain diseases, such as sarcoidosis, mycobacterium infections such as tuberculosis, or idiopathic hypercalcemia toxicity can occur at levels of vitamin D only somewhat above normal (greater than 25 ug, or 1,000 IU per day)


The calcium in milk lowers concentrations of a specific form of vitamin D that protects against prostate cancer, raising men's overall risk.61,62

61) Giovannucci E. Calcium and fructose intake in relation to risk of prostate cancer. Cancer Res. 1998 Feb 1;58(3):442-7.

62) Chan J. Dairy products, calcium, and prostate cancer risk in the Physicians' Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;74(4):549-54.