Calcium is considered great for the most part, but combine high amounts of calcium and high amounts of vitamin D and you got a recipe for disaster.
Thanks for the info Anthony. I looked up Vitamin D and heart attacks, and I only found that levels that were too low could put someone at risk. I had also read before that high calcium could be risky in older people. Not that you are wrong, but what source do you have to show high combinations could be a disaster?
"Disaster" sounds more dangerous than I believe it is. >1000mg supplemental calcium and 800-1100IU vitamin D (add to that incidental exposure) are regularly used without apparent ill-effects, apart from one recent trial which showed increased CVD mortality. This trial is under heavy attack, as presumably it's flawed. Throughout the literature we also have reports of calcium levels within the physiologic range being associated with CVD (but also null-results).
There's some evidence that high vitamin D levels (but still considered non-toxic) could be harmful, for one the (heavily criticised and pretty obscure) Indian study showing high 25(OH)D levels of ~90ng/ml were associated with CVD and the anomalous NHANES III data showing that >50ng/ml was associated with higher mortality (don't forget correlation does not imply causation).
I believe we should caution people, but at worst they trade slightly increased CVD mortality vs decreased cancer risk if they use higher doses of calcium and vitamin D: there's no free lunch!
I'd love to see the issue resolved (and I'm going to take a look at the literature and report back), but I'd wager that 1000mg calcium from diet (and maybe even additional 1000mg from supplements) and <50ng/ml 25(OH)D provide more benefits than they do harm (oh, and vitamin K2 could play a role in the whole CVD issue too).
Since we get 10,000 units with 30-45 minutes in the summer noon sun, is 5,000 risky? Lots of guys in Africa and Panama getting some strong D.
Well, it's a fallacy. People in Africa, our ancestors and most other people who have high sun exposure (and therefore high vitamin D levels) live short and dangerous lives. So we really can't extrapolate anything (other than maybe - if we had the data to begin with - that highish vitamin D levels are good for temporary fitness; but I think even when it comes to physical fitness the optimum is at ~50ng/ml).
And I'd still apreciate if anyone can explain why IP6 is bad.
It isn't and never was. If, however, you follow a mediterranean or other balanced diet (>200g grains and some nuts per day) you will probably get enough IP6 from diet, only up to 2g are absorbed. I'd advise low carb people to supplement IP6 if their diet does not provide enough. Chelation of nutrients is a non-issue at those levels. Maybe dosing and application of IP6 for cancer prevention is different, I've only read some CVD data.
Edited by kismet, 02 April 2009 - 10:30 AM.