Re: Systolic BP and Vitamin D - Episode 5

[Guest guest]

The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the supplements is 116,

the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty consistently 110.

----------------------------

Rodney,

This would be a huge effect. Almost no study of diet, including

giving high sodium diet to raise blood pressure, high potassium to

lower bp, or high calcium diet to lower bp, finds a change of more

than 4-6 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure. (With perhaps the

exception of giving certain groups of salt-sensitive patients a

high-sodium diet).

Questions:

1) Where do you live, and how much sun exposure do you get? I have

been reading Reinhold Vieth, from Toronto. He's been swimming against

the tide, but lately, the tide has turned about face and now is moving

with him - Vieth believes that the old USDA of 200 IU and then 400 IU,

and even 800 IU/day for vitamin D may be a bit too low. So 1125 IU of

vitamin D is a bit high, but not THAT high. By itself this should not

increase one's blood pressure.

The potential effects of too much D are elevated blood calcium and

hypercalciuria, and, in very high doses, vascular calcification and

kidney failure. So you do have to be cautious.

Also, there is a syndrome called milk-alkali syndrome. It used to

occur in people who took a lot of antacids and milk to treat ulcers-

basically, they sort of calcified their blood vessels and went into

kidney failure. Vitamin D supplements tended to make this syndrome

worse. I don't know enough about the types of diets people on CR are

following in terms of their acid-generating ability or alkali load.

But a combination of calcium, alkali, and vitamin D may not be such a

great idea. As with anything else, moderation is key.

2) Vitamin D intoxication has been reported when too much was added by

mistake to milk. Is your vitamin D supplement from a reputable

company? You may be getting a lot more than what's on the label!

I think if vitamin D at the relatively low amounts that you are taking

(1125 IU per day of cholecalciferol?) had such a huge effect on

systolic BP - from 110 to (116+137)/2 = 126, or a 16 mm Hg increase!,

that people would have found this already. Vitamin D has been looked

at by people studying high blood pressure in a lot of different ways -

Here is one randomized study - you might want to read the discussion

section: They gave vitamin D and calcium to elderly women, the

systolic BP decreased.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/1633

But here is an observational study analysis that found no relationship

between taking vitamin D and blood pressure in the general population

(certainly, there was no increased risk of hypertension with vitamin D

- these investigators were anticipating a DECREASED risk of

hypertension with vitamin D supplements):

Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):676-82.

Vitamin D intake and risk of incident hypertension: results from three

large prospective cohort studies.

Forman JP, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC.

Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical

School, Boston, MA, USA. jforman@...

Emerging evidence suggests an inverse relation between vitamin D and

blood pressure. We examined the independent association between intake

of vitamin D and the risk of incident hypertension among participants

of 3 large and independent prospective cohorts: Nurses Health Study I

(NHS I; n=77,436), NHS II (n=93,803), and Health Professionals'

Follow-up Study (HPFS; n=38,074). Relative risks and 95% confidence

intervals for incident hypertension were computed according to

quintiles of vitamin D intake using proportional hazards

regression and adjusted for relevant covariates. Each cohort was

followed for > or =8 years. Vitamin D intake was not associated with

the risk of developing hypertension. The multivariable relative risk

estimates for the highest compared with lowest quintile of intake were

0.98 (0.93 to 1.04) in NHS I, 1.13 (0.99 to 1.29) in NHS II, and 1.03

(0.93 to 1.15) in HPFS. When we compared participants who consumed >

or =1600 to <400 IU per day and those who consumed > or =1000 to <200

IU per day, no association was found. We conclude that higher intake

of vitamin D is not associated with a lower risk of incident hypertension.

-----------------------------------------

One of the potential problems of CR is osteoporosis (this is another

topic, and also has to do with maintaining calcium intake during the

OFF day), so I'd be cautious about not taking any vitamin D - but it

all depends on where you live. If you get outside a lot and live in a

sunny area, then you probably don't need any supplements. If not, you

might try a supplement from a different company to make sure that the

dose in the pills is correctly labelled. Finally, maybe a bit lower

dose (say 800 IU/day) might be prudent.

[Guest guest]

The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the supplements is 116,

the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty consistently 110.

----------------------------

Rodney,

This would be a huge effect. Almost no study of diet, including

giving high sodium diet to raise blood pressure, high potassium to

lower bp, or high calcium diet to lower bp, finds a change of more

than 4-6 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure. (With perhaps the

exception of giving certain groups of salt-sensitive patients a

high-sodium diet).

Questions:

1) Where do you live, and how much sun exposure do you get? I have

been reading Reinhold Vieth, from Toronto. He's been swimming against

the tide, but lately, the tide has turned about face and now is moving

with him - Vieth believes that the old USDA of 200 IU and then 400 IU,

and even 800 IU/day for vitamin D may be a bit too low. So 1125 IU of

vitamin D is a bit high, but not THAT high. By itself this should not

increase one's blood pressure.

The potential effects of too much D are elevated blood calcium and

hypercalciuria, and, in very high doses, vascular calcification and

kidney failure. So you do have to be cautious.

Also, there is a syndrome called milk-alkali syndrome. It used to

occur in people who took a lot of antacids and milk to treat ulcers-

basically, they sort of calcified their blood vessels and went into

kidney failure. Vitamin D supplements tended to make this syndrome

worse. I don't know enough about the types of diets people on CR are

following in terms of their acid-generating ability or alkali load.

But a combination of calcium, alkali, and vitamin D may not be such a

great idea. As with anything else, moderation is key.

2) Vitamin D intoxication has been reported when too much was added by

mistake to milk. Is your vitamin D supplement from a reputable

company? You may be getting a lot more than what's on the label!

I think if vitamin D at the relatively low amounts that you are taking

(1125 IU per day of cholecalciferol?) had such a huge effect on

systolic BP - from 110 to (116+137)/2 = 126, or a 16 mm Hg increase!,

that people would have found this already. Vitamin D has been looked

at by people studying high blood pressure in a lot of different ways -

Here is one randomized study - you might want to read the discussion

section: They gave vitamin D and calcium to elderly women, the

systolic BP decreased.

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/1633

But here is an observational study analysis that found no relationship

between taking vitamin D and blood pressure in the general population

(certainly, there was no increased risk of hypertension with vitamin D

- these investigators were anticipating a DECREASED risk of

hypertension with vitamin D supplements):

Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):676-82.

Vitamin D intake and risk of incident hypertension: results from three

large prospective cohort studies.

Forman JP, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC.

Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical

School, Boston, MA, USA. jforman@...

Emerging evidence suggests an inverse relation between vitamin D and

blood pressure. We examined the independent association between intake

of vitamin D and the risk of incident hypertension among participants

of 3 large and independent prospective cohorts: Nurses Health Study I

(NHS I; n=77,436), NHS II (n=93,803), and Health Professionals'

Follow-up Study (HPFS; n=38,074). Relative risks and 95% confidence

intervals for incident hypertension were computed according to

quintiles of vitamin D intake using proportional hazards

regression and adjusted for relevant covariates. Each cohort was

followed for > or =8 years. Vitamin D intake was not associated with

the risk of developing hypertension. The multivariable relative risk

estimates for the highest compared with lowest quintile of intake were

0.98 (0.93 to 1.04) in NHS I, 1.13 (0.99 to 1.29) in NHS II, and 1.03

(0.93 to 1.15) in HPFS. When we compared participants who consumed >

or =1600 to <400 IU per day and those who consumed > or =1000 to <200

IU per day, no association was found. We conclude that higher intake

of vitamin D is not associated with a lower risk of incident hypertension.

-----------------------------------------

One of the potential problems of CR is osteoporosis (this is another

topic, and also has to do with maintaining calcium intake during the

OFF day), so I'd be cautious about not taking any vitamin D - but it

all depends on where you live. If you get outside a lot and live in a

sunny area, then you probably don't need any supplements. If not, you

might try a supplement from a different company to make sure that the

dose in the pills is correctly labelled. Finally, maybe a bit lower

dose (say 800 IU/day) might be prudent.

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Your experience is the REVERSE of what has been reported in the

literature. Usually, low vitamin D is associated with hypertension.

Tony

==

Here is a list of links to PubMed abstracts:

http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/hypertension.htm

==

J Cell Biochem. 2003 Feb 1;88(2):327-31.

Vitamin D regulation of the renin-angiotensin system.

Li YC.

Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago,

Illinois 60637, USA. cyan@...

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a central role in the

regulation of blood pressure, electrolyte, and volume homeostasis.

Epidemiological and clinical studies have long suggested an

association of inadequate sunlight exposure or low serum

1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2)D(3)] levels with high blood

pressure and/or high plasma renin activity, but the mechanism is not

understood. Our recent discovery that 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) functions as a

potent negative endocrine regulator of renin gene expression provides

some insights into the mechanism. The concept of vitamin D regulation

of blood pressure through the RAS opens a new avenue to our

understanding of the physiological functions of the vitamin D

endocrine system, and provides a basis for exploring the potential use

of vitamin D analogues in prevention and treatment of hypertension.

PMID: 12520534

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Am I boring you yet? (I certainly hope not.)

>

> I have just completed another two weeks taking zero vitamin D

> supplements. This time I even omitted the calcium with a small

> amount of D. Yet again, my SBP has returned to 110! I am now

> getting pretty close to persuading myself that, at least for me,

> vitamin D supplements appreciably raise my SBP. I will check again

> tomorrow morning to verify the 110. Then do another two weeks taking

> 1125 IU of supplements daily and recheck one more time whether it,

> yet again, raises my SBP.

>

> The amount by which my SBP is raised while taking the supplement

> varies appreciably. The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the

> supplements is 116, the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty

> consistently 110.

>

> Anyway the possible relevance for people here is that if you have a

> SBP above what you think it ought to be (want it to be) and are

> taking supplemental D you might want to try the following. Measure

> your BP a few times to get a benchmark number. Then stop taking the

> D supplements, and after a few weeks without them recheck your SBP a

> few times. You just may find that your BP is higher than it needs to

> be. It certainly seems to be the case with me. And in my case two

> weeks off the supplements is long enough to wash out the effect.

> fwiw.

>

> Obviously this is a one-mouse experiment and we all know, from

> reading Dr. Walford if not before, the extent to which we should pay

> attention to one-mouse experiments.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Your experience is the REVERSE of what has been reported in the

literature. Usually, low vitamin D is associated with hypertension.

Tony

==

Here is a list of links to PubMed abstracts:

http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/hypertension.htm

==

J Cell Biochem. 2003 Feb 1;88(2):327-31.

Vitamin D regulation of the renin-angiotensin system.

Li YC.

Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago,

Illinois 60637, USA. cyan@...

The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) plays a central role in the

regulation of blood pressure, electrolyte, and volume homeostasis.

Epidemiological and clinical studies have long suggested an

association of inadequate sunlight exposure or low serum

1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2)D(3)] levels with high blood

pressure and/or high plasma renin activity, but the mechanism is not

understood. Our recent discovery that 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) functions as a

potent negative endocrine regulator of renin gene expression provides

some insights into the mechanism. The concept of vitamin D regulation

of blood pressure through the RAS opens a new avenue to our

understanding of the physiological functions of the vitamin D

endocrine system, and provides a basis for exploring the potential use

of vitamin D analogues in prevention and treatment of hypertension.

PMID: 12520534

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Am I boring you yet? (I certainly hope not.)

>

> I have just completed another two weeks taking zero vitamin D

> supplements. This time I even omitted the calcium with a small

> amount of D. Yet again, my SBP has returned to 110! I am now

> getting pretty close to persuading myself that, at least for me,

> vitamin D supplements appreciably raise my SBP. I will check again

> tomorrow morning to verify the 110. Then do another two weeks taking

> 1125 IU of supplements daily and recheck one more time whether it,

> yet again, raises my SBP.

>

> The amount by which my SBP is raised while taking the supplement

> varies appreciably. The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the

> supplements is 116, the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty

> consistently 110.

>

> Anyway the possible relevance for people here is that if you have a

> SBP above what you think it ought to be (want it to be) and are

> taking supplemental D you might want to try the following. Measure

> your BP a few times to get a benchmark number. Then stop taking the

> D supplements, and after a few weeks without them recheck your SBP a

> few times. You just may find that your BP is higher than it needs to

> be. It certainly seems to be the case with me. And in my case two

> weeks off the supplements is long enough to wash out the effect.

> fwiw.

>

> Obviously this is a one-mouse experiment and we all know, from

> reading Dr. Walford if not before, the extent to which we should pay

> attention to one-mouse experiments.

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Thank you for that very helpful response. This is a bit of a long

story. You raise a lot of issues. I live in Toronto, quite a long

way north. So likely get little if any skin vitamin D in winter, and

do not live a generally outdoor life in summer either. But I am sure

I get enough sun in summer, since not much time is needed in full sun.

I started taking Ca + D supplements when I did a nutrient analysis

over a full month and found I was deficient in Ca and Zn. I was

getting the full RDA for D, but only because I eat some fish pretty

much every day. The additional D (125 IU) came with the calcium.

Then there was considerable discussion here about numerous studies -

perhaps a dozen - published in the past year or so, seemingly showing

that D prevented just about everything. (These are in the archives

but an archive search is difficult because if you search

for 'vitamin' and 'D' just about every post has a 'D' in it, and any

mention of any vitamin comes up!).

A number of these studies indicated that the standard recommended

amounts are far too low and that 4000 IU daily was certainly not too

high. One stated that a full day in the sun would supply 10,000 IU

of D, and people who spend all day in the sun every day do not suffer

problems from excess vitamin D. In the light (please excuse the pun)

of this I started taking 1000 IU extra daily. Some people here I

believe are taking a lot more than 1000.

A couple of months later I noticed the jump in blood pressure, and it

was not until JW here raised the issue that I realized that the rise

might have coincided with my starting to take the D supplements.

Hence, starting a couple of months ago I have been taking the 1125 of

supplement along with the ~750 IU I get from food - for a total of

2000 - for two weeks, then checking my BP. Then stopping the

supplements and after two weeks rechecking. The SBP difference seems

to have been as noted.

JW has also suggested that it may be relevant that the route the

vitamin D takes to where it goes may be quite different for

intestinally absorbed D compared with that created in the skin. So

the effects of skin-generated D may be different from those of

supplemental D. (My supplement is D3).

In any event, I will continue these ON/OFF cycles a couple more times

and draw my own conclusions, about what it means for ***me***. It

may, or may not, apply to others. When summer comes I may do some

more tests by getting 20 minutes of full body sun exposure daily and

see if that has a similar effect. Perhaps also for a while eat 300 g

of fish a day for two weeks (or three ounces of dried shiitake

mushrooms perhaps?) and see what the effect is, if any.

So I will modify my behaviour to take the highest amount of D

compatible with a sensible SBP number. Or if the problem only seems

to be associated with the supplements, make sure I get the extra only

from food. The relevance of this for others here is that if they are

consuming high amounts of D they might want to check their BP and if

it is high, experiment to see if that is associated with the

supplements.

As regards the studies you mention, it raises one issue that has

always bugged me about these studies, which is that they take

averages. In other words if you take 100,000 people and give them

all extra D, some see their BP go down, many see no change and some

see it go up. So on average there is no change. LOLOL BUT WHAT IF

YOU HAPPEN TO BE SIMILAR TO THE FEW SUBJECTS IN THE STUDY WHO SAW

LARGE INCREASES IN BP BUT WHOSE DATA WAS SWAMPED OUT OF EXISTENCE BY

THE OTHER 95,000?!!!! I rarely see the data broken out to show this

kind of information. It assumes we are all a race of homogenously

identical individuals, which plainly we are not! If we were we would

all suffer the exact same diseases and die of the same cause.

Also you mention CR and osteoporosis. Certainly there are some

people on CR who have osteoporosis. But as we have discussed here a

fair amount previously the method for measuring SUPPOSED porosity is

incapable of distinguishing between larger porous bones (very

dangerous) and smaller intact bones (not a major problem). And

because of our lower BMIs most people on CRON will have smaller bones

(astronauts lose bone mass because of the much lower stresses in

orbit. So do we because we weigh not just 30 pounds less than

average, but 30 percent less!!!)

But DXA interprets all variations in bone MASS as being variations in

POROSITY because it has no way to measure the volume of bone

present. Nor does it make any allowance for weight (or BMI or

whatever) in calculating the T and Z scores. What is more no one,

including the companies who sell the equipment, can provide data to

show the average DXA scores for people broken down by gender, age and

BMI. Which is what is needed to have any clue about whether ones

bone mass is above or below the average given those three

characteristics. IMO the companies' marketing jargon of calling

DXA " the gold standard " is just one huge joke. I predict in ten

years DXA machines will be where they belong, in the garbage, and all

bone density scans will be done using MR. My point is no one really

knows whether people on CRON have porous bones or not.

There is a study done of thousands of women in China which showed a

number of things. One was that women with low BMI had much lower DXA

scores than women with higher BMI. Another was that on average the

same group of women with lower BMIs had very slightly HIGHER

volumetric bone density (density calculated using bone volume) than

the women that DXA data indicated had much higher bone " " " areal " " "

(what a joke) bone density. (Sorry, you got me started on one of my

pet peeves!)

Rodney.

(The brand of D I am taking for the 1000 IU supplement is " Webber

Naturals " D3 DIN 02240507)

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the supplements is

116,

> the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty consistently 110.

> ----------------------------

> Rodney,

> This would be a huge effect. Almost no study of diet, including

> giving high sodium diet to raise blood pressure, high potassium to

> lower bp, or high calcium diet to lower bp, finds a change of more

> than 4-6 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure. (With perhaps the

> exception of giving certain groups of salt-sensitive patients a

> high-sodium diet).

>

> Questions:

> 1) Where do you live, and how much sun exposure do you get? I have

> been reading Reinhold Vieth, from Toronto. He's been swimming

against

> the tide, but lately, the tide has turned about face and now is

moving

> with him - Vieth believes that the old USDA of 200 IU and then 400

IU,

> and even 800 IU/day for vitamin D may be a bit too low. So 1125 IU

of

> vitamin D is a bit high, but not THAT high. By itself this should

not

> increase one's blood pressure.

>

> The potential effects of too much D are elevated blood calcium and

> hypercalciuria, and, in very high doses, vascular calcification and

> kidney failure. So you do have to be cautious.

>

> Also, there is a syndrome called milk-alkali syndrome. It used to

> occur in people who took a lot of antacids and milk to treat ulcers-

> basically, they sort of calcified their blood vessels and went into

> kidney failure. Vitamin D supplements tended to make this syndrome

> worse. I don't know enough about the types of diets people on CR

are

> following in terms of their acid-generating ability or alkali load.

> But a combination of calcium, alkali, and vitamin D may not be such

a

> great idea. As with anything else, moderation is key.

>

> 2) Vitamin D intoxication has been reported when too much was added

by

> mistake to milk. Is your vitamin D supplement from a reputable

> company? You may be getting a lot more than what's on the label!

>

> I think if vitamin D at the relatively low amounts that you are

taking

> (1125 IU per day of cholecalciferol?) had such a huge effect on

> systolic BP - from 110 to (116+137)/2 = 126, or a 16 mm Hg

increase!,

> that people would have found this already. Vitamin D has been

looked

> at by people studying high blood pressure in a lot of different

ways -

>

> Here is one randomized study - you might want to read the discussion

> section: They gave vitamin D and calcium to elderly women, the

> systolic BP decreased.

>

> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/1633

>

> But here is an observational study analysis that found no

relationship

> between taking vitamin D and blood pressure in the general

population

> (certainly, there was no increased risk of hypertension with

vitamin D

> - these investigators were anticipating a DECREASED risk of

> hypertension with vitamin D supplements):

>

> Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):676-82.

>

> Vitamin D intake and risk of incident hypertension: results from

three

> large prospective cohort studies.

>

> Forman JP, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC.

>

> Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard

Medical

> School, Boston, MA, USA. jforman@p...

>

> Emerging evidence suggests an inverse relation between vitamin D and

> blood pressure. We examined the independent association between

intake

> of vitamin D and the risk of incident hypertension among

participants

> of 3 large and independent prospective cohorts: Nurses Health Study

I

> (NHS I; n=77,436), NHS II (n=93,803), and Health Professionals'

> Follow-up Study (HPFS; n=38,074). Relative risks and 95% confidence

> intervals for incident hypertension were computed according to

> quintiles of vitamin D intake using proportional hazards

> regression and adjusted for relevant covariates. Each cohort was

> followed for > or =8 years. Vitamin D intake was not associated with

> the risk of developing hypertension. The multivariable relative risk

> estimates for the highest compared with lowest quintile of intake

were

> 0.98 (0.93 to 1.04) in NHS I, 1.13 (0.99 to 1.29) in NHS II, and

1.03

> (0.93 to 1.15) in HPFS. When we compared participants who consumed >

> or =1600 to <400 IU per day and those who consumed > or =1000 to

<200

> IU per day, no association was found. We conclude that higher intake

> of vitamin D is not associated with a lower risk of incident

hypertension.

> -----------------------------------------

> One of the potential problems of CR is osteoporosis (this is another

> topic, and also has to do with maintaining calcium intake during the

> OFF day), so I'd be cautious about not taking any vitamin D - but it

> all depends on where you live. If you get outside a lot and live

in a

> sunny area, then you probably don't need any supplements. If not,

you

> might try a supplement from a different company to make sure that

the

> dose in the pills is correctly labelled. Finally, maybe a bit lower

> dose (say 800 IU/day) might be prudent.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

Thank you for that very helpful response. This is a bit of a long

story. You raise a lot of issues. I live in Toronto, quite a long

way north. So likely get little if any skin vitamin D in winter, and

do not live a generally outdoor life in summer either. But I am sure

I get enough sun in summer, since not much time is needed in full sun.

I started taking Ca + D supplements when I did a nutrient analysis

over a full month and found I was deficient in Ca and Zn. I was

getting the full RDA for D, but only because I eat some fish pretty

much every day. The additional D (125 IU) came with the calcium.

Then there was considerable discussion here about numerous studies -

perhaps a dozen - published in the past year or so, seemingly showing

that D prevented just about everything. (These are in the archives

but an archive search is difficult because if you search

for 'vitamin' and 'D' just about every post has a 'D' in it, and any

mention of any vitamin comes up!).

A number of these studies indicated that the standard recommended

amounts are far too low and that 4000 IU daily was certainly not too

high. One stated that a full day in the sun would supply 10,000 IU

of D, and people who spend all day in the sun every day do not suffer

problems from excess vitamin D. In the light (please excuse the pun)

of this I started taking 1000 IU extra daily. Some people here I

believe are taking a lot more than 1000.

A couple of months later I noticed the jump in blood pressure, and it

was not until JW here raised the issue that I realized that the rise

might have coincided with my starting to take the D supplements.

Hence, starting a couple of months ago I have been taking the 1125 of

supplement along with the ~750 IU I get from food - for a total of

2000 - for two weeks, then checking my BP. Then stopping the

supplements and after two weeks rechecking. The SBP difference seems

to have been as noted.

JW has also suggested that it may be relevant that the route the

vitamin D takes to where it goes may be quite different for

intestinally absorbed D compared with that created in the skin. So

the effects of skin-generated D may be different from those of

supplemental D. (My supplement is D3).

In any event, I will continue these ON/OFF cycles a couple more times

and draw my own conclusions, about what it means for ***me***. It

may, or may not, apply to others. When summer comes I may do some

more tests by getting 20 minutes of full body sun exposure daily and

see if that has a similar effect. Perhaps also for a while eat 300 g

of fish a day for two weeks (or three ounces of dried shiitake

mushrooms perhaps?) and see what the effect is, if any.

So I will modify my behaviour to take the highest amount of D

compatible with a sensible SBP number. Or if the problem only seems

to be associated with the supplements, make sure I get the extra only

from food. The relevance of this for others here is that if they are

consuming high amounts of D they might want to check their BP and if

it is high, experiment to see if that is associated with the

supplements.

As regards the studies you mention, it raises one issue that has

always bugged me about these studies, which is that they take

averages. In other words if you take 100,000 people and give them

all extra D, some see their BP go down, many see no change and some

see it go up. So on average there is no change. LOLOL BUT WHAT IF

YOU HAPPEN TO BE SIMILAR TO THE FEW SUBJECTS IN THE STUDY WHO SAW

LARGE INCREASES IN BP BUT WHOSE DATA WAS SWAMPED OUT OF EXISTENCE BY

THE OTHER 95,000?!!!! I rarely see the data broken out to show this

kind of information. It assumes we are all a race of homogenously

identical individuals, which plainly we are not! If we were we would

all suffer the exact same diseases and die of the same cause.

Also you mention CR and osteoporosis. Certainly there are some

people on CR who have osteoporosis. But as we have discussed here a

fair amount previously the method for measuring SUPPOSED porosity is

incapable of distinguishing between larger porous bones (very

dangerous) and smaller intact bones (not a major problem). And

because of our lower BMIs most people on CRON will have smaller bones

(astronauts lose bone mass because of the much lower stresses in

orbit. So do we because we weigh not just 30 pounds less than

average, but 30 percent less!!!)

But DXA interprets all variations in bone MASS as being variations in

POROSITY because it has no way to measure the volume of bone

present. Nor does it make any allowance for weight (or BMI or

whatever) in calculating the T and Z scores. What is more no one,

including the companies who sell the equipment, can provide data to

show the average DXA scores for people broken down by gender, age and

BMI. Which is what is needed to have any clue about whether ones

bone mass is above or below the average given those three

characteristics. IMO the companies' marketing jargon of calling

DXA " the gold standard " is just one huge joke. I predict in ten

years DXA machines will be where they belong, in the garbage, and all

bone density scans will be done using MR. My point is no one really

knows whether people on CRON have porous bones or not.

There is a study done of thousands of women in China which showed a

number of things. One was that women with low BMI had much lower DXA

scores than women with higher BMI. Another was that on average the

same group of women with lower BMIs had very slightly HIGHER

volumetric bone density (density calculated using bone volume) than

the women that DXA data indicated had much higher bone " " " areal " " "

(what a joke) bone density. (Sorry, you got me started on one of my

pet peeves!)

Rodney.

(The brand of D I am taking for the 1000 IU supplement is " Webber

Naturals " D3 DIN 02240507)

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

> The lowest I have seen it after two weeks on the supplements is

116,

> the highest 137. Off supplements it is pretty consistently 110.

> ----------------------------

> Rodney,

> This would be a huge effect. Almost no study of diet, including

> giving high sodium diet to raise blood pressure, high potassium to

> lower bp, or high calcium diet to lower bp, finds a change of more

> than 4-6 mm Hg in systolic blood pressure. (With perhaps the

> exception of giving certain groups of salt-sensitive patients a

> high-sodium diet).

>

> Questions:

> 1) Where do you live, and how much sun exposure do you get? I have

> been reading Reinhold Vieth, from Toronto. He's been swimming

against

> the tide, but lately, the tide has turned about face and now is

moving

> with him - Vieth believes that the old USDA of 200 IU and then 400

IU,

> and even 800 IU/day for vitamin D may be a bit too low. So 1125 IU

of

> vitamin D is a bit high, but not THAT high. By itself this should

not

> increase one's blood pressure.

>

> The potential effects of too much D are elevated blood calcium and

> hypercalciuria, and, in very high doses, vascular calcification and

> kidney failure. So you do have to be cautious.

>

> Also, there is a syndrome called milk-alkali syndrome. It used to

> occur in people who took a lot of antacids and milk to treat ulcers-

> basically, they sort of calcified their blood vessels and went into

> kidney failure. Vitamin D supplements tended to make this syndrome

> worse. I don't know enough about the types of diets people on CR

are

> following in terms of their acid-generating ability or alkali load.

> But a combination of calcium, alkali, and vitamin D may not be such

a

> great idea. As with anything else, moderation is key.

>

> 2) Vitamin D intoxication has been reported when too much was added

by

> mistake to milk. Is your vitamin D supplement from a reputable

> company? You may be getting a lot more than what's on the label!

>

> I think if vitamin D at the relatively low amounts that you are

taking

> (1125 IU per day of cholecalciferol?) had such a huge effect on

> systolic BP - from 110 to (116+137)/2 = 126, or a 16 mm Hg

increase!,

> that people would have found this already. Vitamin D has been

looked

> at by people studying high blood pressure in a lot of different

ways -

>

> Here is one randomized study - you might want to read the discussion

> section: They gave vitamin D and calcium to elderly women, the

> systolic BP decreased.

>

> http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/86/4/1633

>

> But here is an observational study analysis that found no

relationship

> between taking vitamin D and blood pressure in the general

population

> (certainly, there was no increased risk of hypertension with

vitamin D

> - these investigators were anticipating a DECREASED risk of

> hypertension with vitamin D supplements):

>

> Hypertension. 2005 Oct;46(4):676-82.

>

> Vitamin D intake and risk of incident hypertension: results from

three

> large prospective cohort studies.

>

> Forman JP, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Curhan GC.

>

> Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard

Medical

> School, Boston, MA, USA. jforman@p...

>

> Emerging evidence suggests an inverse relation between vitamin D and

> blood pressure. We examined the independent association between

intake

> of vitamin D and the risk of incident hypertension among

participants

> of 3 large and independent prospective cohorts: Nurses Health Study

I

> (NHS I; n=77,436), NHS II (n=93,803), and Health Professionals'

> Follow-up Study (HPFS; n=38,074). Relative risks and 95% confidence

> intervals for incident hypertension were computed according to

> quintiles of vitamin D intake using proportional hazards

> regression and adjusted for relevant covariates. Each cohort was

> followed for > or =8 years. Vitamin D intake was not associated with

> the risk of developing hypertension. The multivariable relative risk

> estimates for the highest compared with lowest quintile of intake

were

> 0.98 (0.93 to 1.04) in NHS I, 1.13 (0.99 to 1.29) in NHS II, and

1.03

> (0.93 to 1.15) in HPFS. When we compared participants who consumed >

> or =1600 to <400 IU per day and those who consumed > or =1000 to

<200

> IU per day, no association was found. We conclude that higher intake

> of vitamin D is not associated with a lower risk of incident

hypertension.

> -----------------------------------------

> One of the potential problems of CR is osteoporosis (this is another

> topic, and also has to do with maintaining calcium intake during the

> OFF day), so I'd be cautious about not taking any vitamin D - but it

> all depends on where you live. If you get outside a lot and live

in a

> sunny area, then you probably don't need any supplements. If not,

you

> might try a supplement from a different company to make sure that

the

> dose in the pills is correctly labelled. Finally, maybe a bit lower

> dose (say 800 IU/day) might be prudent.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

First a question then a suggestion.

1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower systolic

than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

the most accurate.

2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

-

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

First a question then a suggestion.

1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower systolic

than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

the most accurate.

2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

-

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I use the machine that is in the local drug store. It does not

appear to have a manufacturer's name on it. It has a 1 800 number,

but that is not very useful on a Saturday.

I do not know which is the most accurate as I have no way to

calibrate it. It does not have a memory feature. It seems like a

good idea to avoid the machines with a lower arm cuff.

This morning, on the same machine in the same store as yesterday, the

numbers came out at 105/64. This is even lower than previous

readings, even when averaged with the 110 of yesterday. The reason

possibly may be that this time not only did I stop the 1000 IU

supplement but also the '500 mg Ca + 125 IU of D', which I had

continued to take when I previously experimentally stopped the 1000

IU.

This singular mouse is now becoming even more convinced that, for it

at least, there is a 'D >>> SBP' connection.

I will try one more cycle of 1125 IU of D supplementation. If the

results are similar I will then shift to a 'fish+shiitake' experiment

to add 1125 IU to my previous intake, but in food instead of by

supplement. And in May a sunlight experiment. I need to find a way

to get plenty of D while maintaining a CRON-like SBP. Stay tuned.

[Remember that, of people who have normal blood pressure at age 60,

95% of them eventually get hypertension if they live long enough. So

this is an important issue, even for those who think their BP is OK.

Perhaps the 5% " is us " ?]

Rodney.

--- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@m...>

wrote:

>

> Rodney,

>

> First a question then a suggestion.

>

> 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

>

> I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

> and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower systolic

> than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

> you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

> the most accurate.

>

> 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

I use the machine that is in the local drug store. It does not

appear to have a manufacturer's name on it. It has a 1 800 number,

but that is not very useful on a Saturday.

I do not know which is the most accurate as I have no way to

calibrate it. It does not have a memory feature. It seems like a

good idea to avoid the machines with a lower arm cuff.

This morning, on the same machine in the same store as yesterday, the

numbers came out at 105/64. This is even lower than previous

readings, even when averaged with the 110 of yesterday. The reason

possibly may be that this time not only did I stop the 1000 IU

supplement but also the '500 mg Ca + 125 IU of D', which I had

continued to take when I previously experimentally stopped the 1000

IU.

This singular mouse is now becoming even more convinced that, for it

at least, there is a 'D >>> SBP' connection.

I will try one more cycle of 1125 IU of D supplementation. If the

results are similar I will then shift to a 'fish+shiitake' experiment

to add 1125 IU to my previous intake, but in food instead of by

supplement. And in May a sunlight experiment. I need to find a way

to get plenty of D while maintaining a CRON-like SBP. Stay tuned.

[Remember that, of people who have normal blood pressure at age 60,

95% of them eventually get hypertension if they live long enough. So

this is an important issue, even for those who think their BP is OK.

Perhaps the 5% " is us " ?]

Rodney.

--- In , " cronzen " <truepatriot@m...>

wrote:

>

> Rodney,

>

> First a question then a suggestion.

>

> 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

>

> I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

> and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower systolic

> than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

> you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

> the most accurate.

>

> 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Two thigns:

When i go to walmart I use their's and it is rigth in line with what

I measure at hoem and I do an extensive track of my BP.(for many

years)

2nd, I believe if your BP is 105/64, you do NOT have HTN.

It is possible you might incur the high systolic with age, but CR

will probably delay that if our CRONies tests are any guide.

Regards.

> >

> > Rodney,

> >

> > First a question then a suggestion.

> >

> > 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

> >

> > I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

> > and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower

systolic

> > than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

> > you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

> > the most accurate.

> >

> > 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> > affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> > looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

> >

> >

> > -

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Two thigns:

When i go to walmart I use their's and it is rigth in line with what

I measure at hoem and I do an extensive track of my BP.(for many

years)

2nd, I believe if your BP is 105/64, you do NOT have HTN.

It is possible you might incur the high systolic with age, but CR

will probably delay that if our CRONies tests are any guide.

Regards.

> >

> > Rodney,

> >

> > First a question then a suggestion.

> >

> > 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

> >

> > I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation device

> > and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower

systolic

> > than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking if

> > you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to be

> > the most accurate.

> >

> > 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> > affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> > looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

> >

> >

> > -

> >

>

[Guest guest]

JW,

I haven't tried the in-store blood pressure machines.

I was asking about at home monitors. It doesn't sound

like Rodney measures at home. What brand/type do you

use for your regular tracking? I used to trust these

things, but with such a discrepancy between the manual

and automatic pump models, I no longer know which to

believe.

Thanks,

-

> > >

> > > Rodney,

> > >

> > > First a question then a suggestion.

> > >

> > > 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

> > >

> > > I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation

device

> > > and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower

> systolic

> > > than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking

if

> > > you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to

be

> > > the most accurate.

> > >

> > > 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> > > affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> > > looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

JW,

I haven't tried the in-store blood pressure machines.

I was asking about at home monitors. It doesn't sound

like Rodney measures at home. What brand/type do you

use for your regular tracking? I used to trust these

things, but with such a discrepancy between the manual

and automatic pump models, I no longer know which to

believe.

Thanks,

-

> > >

> > > Rodney,

> > >

> > > First a question then a suggestion.

> > >

> > > 1) Which monitor do you use for your measurements?

> > >

> > > I recently purchased the Omron HEM-780 automatic inflation

device

> > > and have noticed it consistently measures 12-14 mmHg lower

> systolic

> > > than does my manual inflation Walgreen's brand. I'm not asking

if

> > > you have switched monitors, just curious what you have found to

be

> > > the most accurate.

> > >

> > > 2) If your monitor has a memory feature, you may be able to

> > > affect a modicum of blindness to your one-mouse study by not

> > > looking at the readings until you have filled the memory.

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Are you saying here that the reading of BP you get while exercising

is a better indicator of health than the normal 'after five minutes

sitting rested'?

If so, more information would be appreciated.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

>

> I tracked BP for 16 yrs closely, and kept notebook records of what

I ate, what I did to correlate with BP. Including during treadmill

exercise. Actually I stop to measure it seated, then get back on. I

do that at 10 min intervals, 0.5 miles. I've done that before eating,

after eating, after eating a high fat meal, you name it. I wore out

one treadmill in 2 yrs.

> The exercise rise is far more important to me than seated, rested.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi JW:

Are you saying here that the reading of BP you get while exercising

is a better indicator of health than the normal 'after five minutes

sitting rested'?

If so, more information would be appreciated.

Rodney.

--- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...>

wrote:

>

> I tracked BP for 16 yrs closely, and kept notebook records of what

I ate, what I did to correlate with BP. Including during treadmill

exercise. Actually I stop to measure it seated, then get back on. I

do that at 10 min intervals, 0.5 miles. I've done that before eating,

after eating, after eating a high fat meal, you name it. I wore out

one treadmill in 2 yrs.

> The exercise rise is far more important to me than seated, rested.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> The problem with taking too much vit D is too much calcium and

possibly stones. I didn't hear or see that mentioned in the refs

recommending higher D intake.

------------

Jeff, right, hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and stones with mild

overdose of D; vascular calcification and kidney failure with severe

overdose. BP increase has not been reported as a sensitive method to

look for this as far as I have read.

I'm familiar with the paper you cite - that's consistent with what I said.

1) 25-D now is believed to have some activity (this is a relatively

new concept), probably due to local tissue conversion to 1,25-D.

Before it was thought that this 1-hydroxylase enzyme existed primarily

in the kidney.

2) Regular Vitamin D3 is thought not to have any activity per se - it

only acts after the liver has converted it to 25-D. If you read the

paper, that's what they believe as well.

I was not implying that D3 (cholecalciferol) is not the optimum

product to take. Actually I think it is. Usually though on PubMed

you'll only read about ergocalciferol, and that's because no Pharma

company that I know of makes a prescription form of cholecalciferol D3

in the US; only ergocalciferol is available, and usually it is given

in large doses by injection, once every couple of weeks or once a

month - in Europe and elsewhere (don't know about Canada), as far as I

know, D3 is available and is used by docs as well.

The stuff you get at the drugstore is D3 - cholecalciferol. It if

anything has better activity than D2 - ergocalciferol (both are

metabolized by liver and kidney, to the best of my knowledge).

For a good discussion of the RDA for vitamin D, you can read this paper:

http://intl.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842

You might also be interested in the results of a recent symposium:

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/23269.aspx

See the PPT files for Connie Weaver, Bonnie Specker, and, in

particular, the

Vitamin D Case Study, prepared by Creighton University (Dr. Heaney?):

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/27/300/Heaney.DRI.Symposium.120804.pdf

He makes a case, essentially agreeing with Vieth, that we need a serum

level of about 80 nmol/L of 25-D (the 25-hydroxylated compound is one

of the things commonly measured).

And they make a nice case that you need about 1300 IU/day to achieve

this. They go on to say that substantially higher doses in their

experiences have not caused problems.

However, as Rodney points out, this is the average response, and, as I

detailed in the stuff about milk-alkali, we're all different.

But anyway, there is an emerging consensus, I think, that the current

RDAs may be too low.

[Guest guest]

>

> The problem with taking too much vit D is too much calcium and

possibly stones. I didn't hear or see that mentioned in the refs

recommending higher D intake.

------------

Jeff, right, hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and stones with mild

overdose of D; vascular calcification and kidney failure with severe

overdose. BP increase has not been reported as a sensitive method to

look for this as far as I have read.

I'm familiar with the paper you cite - that's consistent with what I said.

1) 25-D now is believed to have some activity (this is a relatively

new concept), probably due to local tissue conversion to 1,25-D.

Before it was thought that this 1-hydroxylase enzyme existed primarily

in the kidney.

2) Regular Vitamin D3 is thought not to have any activity per se - it

only acts after the liver has converted it to 25-D. If you read the

paper, that's what they believe as well.

I was not implying that D3 (cholecalciferol) is not the optimum

product to take. Actually I think it is. Usually though on PubMed

you'll only read about ergocalciferol, and that's because no Pharma

company that I know of makes a prescription form of cholecalciferol D3

in the US; only ergocalciferol is available, and usually it is given

in large doses by injection, once every couple of weeks or once a

month - in Europe and elsewhere (don't know about Canada), as far as I

know, D3 is available and is used by docs as well.

The stuff you get at the drugstore is D3 - cholecalciferol. It if

anything has better activity than D2 - ergocalciferol (both are

metabolized by liver and kidney, to the best of my knowledge).

For a good discussion of the RDA for vitamin D, you can read this paper:

http://intl.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842

You might also be interested in the results of a recent symposium:

http://www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/23269.aspx

See the PPT files for Connie Weaver, Bonnie Specker, and, in

particular, the

Vitamin D Case Study, prepared by Creighton University (Dr. Heaney?):

http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/27/300/Heaney.DRI.Symposium.120804.pdf

He makes a case, essentially agreeing with Vieth, that we need a serum

level of about 80 nmol/L of 25-D (the 25-hydroxylated compound is one

of the things commonly measured).

And they make a nice case that you need about 1300 IU/day to achieve

this. They go on to say that substantially higher doses in their

experiences have not caused problems.

However, as Rodney points out, this is the average response, and, as I

detailed in the stuff about milk-alkali, we're all different.

But anyway, there is an emerging consensus, I think, that the current

RDAs may be too low.

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Interim SBP result: In my 'two weeks on/two weeks washout' vitamin D

experiment, in the past four days I have consumed a lot of vitamin D

from food, but none from supplements.

Last weekend after two weeks of negligible D intake my two SBP

readings were 110 and 105. This weekend after just four days of D

from food (fish and shiitake) my SBP was 118. Then I took it again a

second time about one minute after the first and got 119 (i.e.

encouraging as to machine consistency).

The real test will be the data from next weekend. But this interim

result seems to confirm the data I got from the high D intake mostly

from supplements - that appreciable amounts of this vitamin appear to

considerable raise my SBP. Perhaps I will stretch this half cycle

out to three weeks, to see if I get an even higher number after three

weeks than after just two.

jfi

Rodney.

> >

> > I tracked BP for 16 yrs closely, and kept notebook records of

what

> I ate, what I did to correlate with BP. Including during treadmill

> exercise. Actually I stop to measure it seated, then get back on. I

> do that at 10 min intervals, 0.5 miles. I've done that before

eating,

> after eating, after eating a high fat meal, you name it. I wore out

> one treadmill in 2 yrs.

> > The exercise rise is far more important to me than seated,

rested.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Interim SBP result: In my 'two weeks on/two weeks washout' vitamin D

experiment, in the past four days I have consumed a lot of vitamin D

from food, but none from supplements.

Last weekend after two weeks of negligible D intake my two SBP

readings were 110 and 105. This weekend after just four days of D

from food (fish and shiitake) my SBP was 118. Then I took it again a

second time about one minute after the first and got 119 (i.e.

encouraging as to machine consistency).

The real test will be the data from next weekend. But this interim

result seems to confirm the data I got from the high D intake mostly

from supplements - that appreciable amounts of this vitamin appear to

considerable raise my SBP. Perhaps I will stretch this half cycle

out to three weeks, to see if I get an even higher number after three

weeks than after just two.

jfi

Rodney.

> >

> > I tracked BP for 16 yrs closely, and kept notebook records of

what

> I ate, what I did to correlate with BP. Including during treadmill

> exercise. Actually I stop to measure it seated, then get back on. I

> do that at 10 min intervals, 0.5 miles. I've done that before

eating,

> after eating, after eating a high fat meal, you name it. I wore out

> one treadmill in 2 yrs.

> > The exercise rise is far more important to me than seated,

rested.

> >

>