Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi folks: So I would really like to see the evidence for the following ......... especially the " even for a few minutes " part: " & #8220;the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. & #8221; " Does anyone have it to hand? If not perhaps I should go look for it. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > > I suggest those concerned with vit D read: > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842#R16 > the refs ate the end of doc contain a lot of useful info. > And the 53 articles cited by this article at the very end present the state of knowledge (or lack of) and > http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/1320.html > shows the RDA at 9 yrs past the first article. > > Many of these are full text, and by the time I read all these, two things I THINK : > " The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects. " > > " Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. " > > The first I don't have full text, but perhaps this one sums up the cancer story: > Journal of the National Cancer Institute > Volume 96(10), 19 May 2004, pp 735-736 > > " " There's more to this vitamin D story, " said Lieberman, M.D., program director of the Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention. " It is fascinating as a molecule. It's been shown to be antiproliferative, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic. In prostate cancer, its effects appear to be on the cell cycle, stopping growth by upregulating [the tumor suppressor] p21. " > He is quick to add, " Yet we don't have a bit of data that I could show you to say it will work as a preventative. " Most of the evidence is from ecologic, epidemiologic, and laboratory studies of cancers of the prostate, breast, colon, and pancreas. For now, the available studies in patients are treatment trials suggesting that vitamin D may heighten the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. There have been few studies of vitamin D as a cancer chemopreventive. > > " The American Academy of Dermatology is not moved. A July 2003 press release stated, " It is dangerous to mislead the public into thinking that sunlight is a safe and effective 'cure' for other health conditions. " AAD president L. Cornelison Jr., M.D., suggested that people take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day, adding, " the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. " > " Is vitamin D insufficiency common? Yes. Is it likely a contributing factor to prostate, breast, colon, and maybe some other cancers? Yes, " said Schwartz. " Am I saying 'get thee to a skin tannery'? No. " > > " I'm not sure how the sun-versus-supplement issue will play out, " said Baron, whose study will include a questionnaire on sun exposure. Welsh added, " It's still too early to know the right thing to do. " > > AND: > " Abstract > Vitamin D deficiency is more common than realized. It is making a resurgence in neonates and is common in black patients and older adults. Vitamin D deficiency not only causes generalized muscle weakness, muscle aches, and bone aches and pains but also can precipitate and exacerbate osteoporosis and cause osteomalacia. Although the kidney plays a critical role in producing 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D, which is important for regulating calcium, phosphorus, and bone metabolism, it is now recognized that a wide variety of other tissues have the enzymatic machinery to produce 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D receptors are common in most tissues in the body, and the new revelation that many tissues produce 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D suggests a new important role for this hormone in helping to maintain good health throughout life. > > Probably the best description of vit D pathways is in: > Holick, F. PhD, MD Vitamin D: the underappreciated D- lightful hormone that is important for skeletal and cellular health. Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes. 9(1):87-98, February 2002. > " Thus, in the absence of sufficient exposure to sunlight at least 1000 IU of vitamin D/d is probably required to maintain a healthy level of 25 (OH)D " > > This article suggests to me if I was concerned about D status, I would get a blood test: > > Holick, F. MD, PHD Vitamin D: Important for Prevention of Osteoporosis, Cardiovascular Heart Disease, Type 1 Diabetes, Autoimmune Diseases, and Some Cancers. Southern Medical Journal. 98 (10):1024-1026, October 2005. > " > Abstract: > Vitamin D is very important for overall health and well-being. A major source of vitamin D comes from exposure to sunlight. Measurement of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood and not 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D is used to determine vitamin D status. A blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of at least 20 ng/mL is considered to be vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of many common cancers, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, cardiovascular heart disease, and type I diabetes. " > > Key Points > * Ninety percent or more of our vitamin D requirement comes from exposure to sunlight. Without sun exposure, 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day is required. " > > I went thru this a cupla months ago and satisfied myself I had no worry, but I added 800 IU to try it. The result was I think there may be a selection problem in which pill to take. I notice they are adding D3 to the orange juice calling it 25% of RDA. > > I must stick with the RDA until the powers sort it out. > > Regards. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hi folks: So I would really like to see the evidence for the following ......... especially the " even for a few minutes " part: " & #8220;the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. & #8221; " Does anyone have it to hand? If not perhaps I should go look for it. Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > > I suggest those concerned with vit D read: > http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842#R16 > the refs ate the end of doc contain a lot of useful info. > And the 53 articles cited by this article at the very end present the state of knowledge (or lack of) and > http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/1320.html > shows the RDA at 9 yrs past the first article. > > Many of these are full text, and by the time I read all these, two things I THINK : > " The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects. " > > " Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. " > > The first I don't have full text, but perhaps this one sums up the cancer story: > Journal of the National Cancer Institute > Volume 96(10), 19 May 2004, pp 735-736 > > " " There's more to this vitamin D story, " said Lieberman, M.D., program director of the Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention. " It is fascinating as a molecule. It's been shown to be antiproliferative, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic. In prostate cancer, its effects appear to be on the cell cycle, stopping growth by upregulating [the tumor suppressor] p21. " > He is quick to add, " Yet we don't have a bit of data that I could show you to say it will work as a preventative. " Most of the evidence is from ecologic, epidemiologic, and laboratory studies of cancers of the prostate, breast, colon, and pancreas. For now, the available studies in patients are treatment trials suggesting that vitamin D may heighten the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. There have been few studies of vitamin D as a cancer chemopreventive. > > " The American Academy of Dermatology is not moved. A July 2003 press release stated, " It is dangerous to mislead the public into thinking that sunlight is a safe and effective 'cure' for other health conditions. " AAD president L. Cornelison Jr., M.D., suggested that people take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day, adding, " the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. " > " Is vitamin D insufficiency common? Yes. Is it likely a contributing factor to prostate, breast, colon, and maybe some other cancers? Yes, " said Schwartz. " Am I saying 'get thee to a skin tannery'? No. " > > " I'm not sure how the sun-versus-supplement issue will play out, " said Baron, whose study will include a questionnaire on sun exposure. Welsh added, " It's still too early to know the right thing to do. " > > AND: > " Abstract > Vitamin D deficiency is more common than realized. It is making a resurgence in neonates and is common in black patients and older adults. Vitamin D deficiency not only causes generalized muscle weakness, muscle aches, and bone aches and pains but also can precipitate and exacerbate osteoporosis and cause osteomalacia. Although the kidney plays a critical role in producing 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D, which is important for regulating calcium, phosphorus, and bone metabolism, it is now recognized that a wide variety of other tissues have the enzymatic machinery to produce 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D receptors are common in most tissues in the body, and the new revelation that many tissues produce 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D suggests a new important role for this hormone in helping to maintain good health throughout life. > > Probably the best description of vit D pathways is in: > Holick, F. PhD, MD Vitamin D: the underappreciated D- lightful hormone that is important for skeletal and cellular health. Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes. 9(1):87-98, February 2002. > " Thus, in the absence of sufficient exposure to sunlight at least 1000 IU of vitamin D/d is probably required to maintain a healthy level of 25 (OH)D " > > This article suggests to me if I was concerned about D status, I would get a blood test: > > Holick, F. MD, PHD Vitamin D: Important for Prevention of Osteoporosis, Cardiovascular Heart Disease, Type 1 Diabetes, Autoimmune Diseases, and Some Cancers. Southern Medical Journal. 98 (10):1024-1026, October 2005. > " > Abstract: > Vitamin D is very important for overall health and well-being. A major source of vitamin D comes from exposure to sunlight. Measurement of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood and not 1,25- dihydroxyvitamin D is used to determine vitamin D status. A blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of at least 20 ng/mL is considered to be vitamin D sufficient. Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of many common cancers, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, hypertension, cardiovascular heart disease, and type I diabetes. " > > Key Points > * Ninety percent or more of our vitamin D requirement comes from exposure to sunlight. Without sun exposure, 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day is required. " > > I went thru this a cupla months ago and satisfied myself I had no worry, but I added 800 IU to try it. The result was I think there may be a selection problem in which pill to take. I notice they are adding D3 to the orange juice calling it 25% of RDA. > > I must stick with the RDA until the powers sort it out. > > Regards. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I agree with s comments on Calcium an Vit D. He already posted many of the references so I wont repeat them but we are changing our recommendations to 800-1000 a day. However, it is really misclassified as it is not really a vitamin as we can make it ourselves. It is a hormone. 10-15 minutes a day in the off hours can produce as much as 40,000 IUs. However, in the northern climates and with the current fear of any exposure to the sun, supplements may be neccessary. The emphasis on calcium may be overemphasized as D may be the real issue, along with other lifestyle factors (see abstract below) On Vit D ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/pdf/CHAPTER08.pdf On Calcium ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/PDF/CHAPTER11.pdf " As long as vitamin D status is ensured, calcium intake levels of more than 800 mg/d may be unnecessary for maintaining calcium metabolism. " Relationship Between Serum Parathyroid Hormone Levels, Vitamin D Sufficiency, and Calcium Intake Laufey Steingrimsdottir, PhD; Orvar Gunnarsson, MD; Olafur S. Indridason, MD, MHS; Leifur Franzson, MSc, Pharm; Gunnar Sigurdsson, MD, PhD JAMA. 2005;294:2336-2341. Context Adequate vitamin D status for optimum bone health has received increased recognition in recent years; however, the ideal intake is not known. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is the generally accepted indicator of vitamin D status, but no universal reference level has been reached. Objective To investigate the relative importance of high calcium intake and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D for calcium homeostasis, as determined by serum intact parathyroid hormone (PTH). Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study of 2310 healthy Icelandic adults who were divided equally into 3 age groups (30-45 years, 50-65 years, or 70-85 years) and recruited from February 2001 to January 2003. They were administered a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire, which assessed vitamin D and calcium intake. Participants were further divided into groups according to calcium intake (<800 mg/d, 800-1200 mg/d, and >1200 mg/d) and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (<10 ng/mL, 10-18 ng/mL, and >18 ng/mL). Main Outcome Measure Serum intact PTH as determined by calcium intake and vitamin D. Results A total of 944 healthy participants completed all parts of the study. After adjusting for relevant factors, serum PTH was lowest in the group with a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of more than 18 ng/mL but highest in the group with a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 10 ng/mL. At the low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (<10 ng/mL), calcium intake of less than 800 mg/d vs more than 1200 mg/d was significantly associated with higher serum PTH (P = ..04); and at a calcium intake of more than 1200 mg/d, there was a significant difference between the lowest and highest vitamin D groups (P = .04). Conclusions As long as vitamin D status is ensured, calcium intake levels of more than 800 mg/d may be unnecessary for maintaining calcium metabolism. Vitamin D supplements are necessary for adequate vitamin D status in northern climates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I agree with s comments on Calcium an Vit D. He already posted many of the references so I wont repeat them but we are changing our recommendations to 800-1000 a day. However, it is really misclassified as it is not really a vitamin as we can make it ourselves. It is a hormone. 10-15 minutes a day in the off hours can produce as much as 40,000 IUs. However, in the northern climates and with the current fear of any exposure to the sun, supplements may be neccessary. The emphasis on calcium may be overemphasized as D may be the real issue, along with other lifestyle factors (see abstract below) On Vit D ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/pdf/CHAPTER08.pdf On Calcium ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/nutrition/Vitrni/PDF/CHAPTER11.pdf " As long as vitamin D status is ensured, calcium intake levels of more than 800 mg/d may be unnecessary for maintaining calcium metabolism. " Relationship Between Serum Parathyroid Hormone Levels, Vitamin D Sufficiency, and Calcium Intake Laufey Steingrimsdottir, PhD; Orvar Gunnarsson, MD; Olafur S. Indridason, MD, MHS; Leifur Franzson, MSc, Pharm; Gunnar Sigurdsson, MD, PhD JAMA. 2005;294:2336-2341. Context Adequate vitamin D status for optimum bone health has received increased recognition in recent years; however, the ideal intake is not known. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D is the generally accepted indicator of vitamin D status, but no universal reference level has been reached. Objective To investigate the relative importance of high calcium intake and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D for calcium homeostasis, as determined by serum intact parathyroid hormone (PTH). Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study of 2310 healthy Icelandic adults who were divided equally into 3 age groups (30-45 years, 50-65 years, or 70-85 years) and recruited from February 2001 to January 2003. They were administered a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire, which assessed vitamin D and calcium intake. Participants were further divided into groups according to calcium intake (<800 mg/d, 800-1200 mg/d, and >1200 mg/d) and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (<10 ng/mL, 10-18 ng/mL, and >18 ng/mL). Main Outcome Measure Serum intact PTH as determined by calcium intake and vitamin D. Results A total of 944 healthy participants completed all parts of the study. After adjusting for relevant factors, serum PTH was lowest in the group with a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of more than 18 ng/mL but highest in the group with a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of less than 10 ng/mL. At the low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level (<10 ng/mL), calcium intake of less than 800 mg/d vs more than 1200 mg/d was significantly associated with higher serum PTH (P = ..04); and at a calcium intake of more than 1200 mg/d, there was a significant difference between the lowest and highest vitamin D groups (P = .04). Conclusions As long as vitamin D status is ensured, calcium intake levels of more than 800 mg/d may be unnecessary for maintaining calcium metabolism. Vitamin D supplements are necessary for adequate vitamin D status in northern climates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am mostly an indoor-type person, and after seeing a video of a lecture on vitamin D by Dr. Vieth several months ago, I started taking 400 IU of Vitamin D to get my level to around 1000 IU/day. Nothing else in my diet has changed. It seems to me that the texture of my skin has improved. I don't think it is my imagination. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am mostly an indoor-type person, and after seeing a video of a lecture on vitamin D by Dr. Vieth several months ago, I started taking 400 IU of Vitamin D to get my level to around 1000 IU/day. Nothing else in my diet has changed. It seems to me that the texture of my skin has improved. I don't think it is my imagination. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Looking closer at my vit D intake, including that from a MV (400), 16 oz milk (200), 1 tsp cod liver oil (400), and 8 oz OJ (100), it's 1175. So adding 800 IU cholecalciferol, bid meant 2775 total, 695% of RDA. Perhaps 1175 is enough with stores and some sun most days. And 2775 is too much. I may drop the MV for a while. Regards. [ ] Re: vitamin D req't AGAIN I am mostly an indoor-type person, and after seeing a video of alecture on vitamin D by Dr. Vieth several months ago, I started taking400 IU of Vitamin D to get my level to around 1000 IU/day. Nothingelse in my diet has changed.It seems to me that the texture of my skin has improved. I don't thinkit is my imagination. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Looking closer at my vit D intake, including that from a MV (400), 16 oz milk (200), 1 tsp cod liver oil (400), and 8 oz OJ (100), it's 1175. So adding 800 IU cholecalciferol, bid meant 2775 total, 695% of RDA. Perhaps 1175 is enough with stores and some sun most days. And 2775 is too much. I may drop the MV for a while. Regards. [ ] Re: vitamin D req't AGAIN I am mostly an indoor-type person, and after seeing a video of alecture on vitamin D by Dr. Vieth several months ago, I started taking400 IU of Vitamin D to get my level to around 1000 IU/day. Nothingelse in my diet has changed.It seems to me that the texture of my skin has improved. I don't thinkit is my imagination. Tony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 looking: (register to see this stuff) perhaps: http://www.aad.org/public/News/NewsReleases/Press+Release+Archives/Skin+Cancer+and+Sun+Safety/melanoma.htm http://www.aad.org/public/News/NewsReleases/Press+Release+Archives/Skin+Cancer+and+Sun+Safety/Myths_Realities.htm "American Academy of Dermatology Challenges Validity of Recent Claims Promoting Health Benefits of Intentional Sun Exposure NEW YORK (May 3, 2004) – Recent media coverage of unsubstantiated reports linking the health benefits of vitamin D to unprotected sun exposure is leading to further confusion among the public. For decades, dermatologists have advised the public to practice proper sun protection to prevent skin cancer – and that same advice holds true today, despite any claims to the contrary. Speaking today at the American Academy of Dermatology’s (Academy) Melanoma/Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month news conference, dermatologist Darrell S. Rigel, M.D., clinical professor, New York University Medical Center in New York City, debunked the current myths about vitamin D and offered practical advice on getting an adequate supply of this nutrient. "As a dermatologist who treats the ravages of skin cancer on a daily basis, it is appalling to me that anyone in good conscience could make the claim that intentional sun exposure – for any length of time – is beneficial," stated Dr. Rigel. "The fact is, skin cancer is increasing at an alarming rate and scientific research confirms that our best defense is avoiding excessive, unprotected sun exposure."" snip "When we take a close look at these myths and evaluate the facts, the course of action is clear," said Dr. Rigel. "Until there is science that tells us otherwise, it is imperative that people protect themselves from the sun. Anyone concerned about not getting enough vitamin D should either take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day. Given the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has declared UV radiation as a known carcinogen, exposing oneself to it for the sake of vitamin D is not the answer." FWIW, I go into the sun at will - no one in my family has/had skin cancer. But that may change at age. I realize this doesn't answer Rodney's question, but few things do (his or mine). Is there a tradeoff - PCa (likely a 33% risk) versus skin cancer for those that expect to live to 100 yo? Regards. [ ] Re: vitamin D req't AGAIN Hi folks:So I would really like to see the evidence for the following ......... especially the "even for a few minutes" part:" & #8220;the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. & #8221; "Does anyone have it to hand? If not perhaps I should go look for it.Rodney.>> I suggest those concerned with vit D read:> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842#R16> the refs ate the end of doc contain a lot of useful info.> And the 53 articles cited by this article at the very end present the state of knowledge (or lack of) and > http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/1320.html> shows the RDA at 9 yrs past the first article. > > Many of these are full text, and by the time I read all these, two things I THINK :> "The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects."> > "Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. "> > The first I don't have full text, but perhaps this one sums up the cancer story:> Journal of the National Cancer Institute> Volume 96(10), 19 May 2004, pp 735-736 > > ""There's more to this vitamin D story," said Lieberman, M.D., program director of the Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention. "It is fascinating as a molecule. It's been shown to be antiproliferative, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic. In prostate cancer, its effects appear to be on the cell cycle, stopping growth by upregulating [the tumor suppressor] p21."> He is quick to add, "Yet we don't have a bit of data that I could show you to say it will work as a preventative." Most of the evidence is from ecologic, epidemiologic, and laboratory studies of cancers of the prostate, breast, colon, and pancreas. For now, the available studies in patients are treatment trials suggesting that vitamin D may heighten the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. There have been few studies of vitamin D as a cancer chemopreventive.> > "The American Academy of Dermatology is not moved. A July 2003 press release stated, "It is dangerous to mislead the public into thinking that sunlight is a safe and effective 'cure' for other health conditions." AAD president L. Cornelison Jr., M.D., suggested that people take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day, adding, "the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established."> "Is vitamin D insufficiency common? Yes. Is it likely a contributing factor to prostate, breast, colon, and maybe some other cancers? Yes," said Schwartz. "Am I saying 'get thee to a skin tannery'? No."> > "I'm not sure how the sun-versus-supplement issue will play out," said Baron, whose study will include a questionnaire on sun exposure. Welsh added, "It's still too early to know the right thing to do."> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 looking: (register to see this stuff) perhaps: http://www.aad.org/public/News/NewsReleases/Press+Release+Archives/Skin+Cancer+and+Sun+Safety/melanoma.htm http://www.aad.org/public/News/NewsReleases/Press+Release+Archives/Skin+Cancer+and+Sun+Safety/Myths_Realities.htm "American Academy of Dermatology Challenges Validity of Recent Claims Promoting Health Benefits of Intentional Sun Exposure NEW YORK (May 3, 2004) – Recent media coverage of unsubstantiated reports linking the health benefits of vitamin D to unprotected sun exposure is leading to further confusion among the public. For decades, dermatologists have advised the public to practice proper sun protection to prevent skin cancer – and that same advice holds true today, despite any claims to the contrary. Speaking today at the American Academy of Dermatology’s (Academy) Melanoma/Skin Cancer Detection and Prevention Month news conference, dermatologist Darrell S. Rigel, M.D., clinical professor, New York University Medical Center in New York City, debunked the current myths about vitamin D and offered practical advice on getting an adequate supply of this nutrient. "As a dermatologist who treats the ravages of skin cancer on a daily basis, it is appalling to me that anyone in good conscience could make the claim that intentional sun exposure – for any length of time – is beneficial," stated Dr. Rigel. "The fact is, skin cancer is increasing at an alarming rate and scientific research confirms that our best defense is avoiding excessive, unprotected sun exposure."" snip "When we take a close look at these myths and evaluate the facts, the course of action is clear," said Dr. Rigel. "Until there is science that tells us otherwise, it is imperative that people protect themselves from the sun. Anyone concerned about not getting enough vitamin D should either take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day. Given the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has declared UV radiation as a known carcinogen, exposing oneself to it for the sake of vitamin D is not the answer." FWIW, I go into the sun at will - no one in my family has/had skin cancer. But that may change at age. I realize this doesn't answer Rodney's question, but few things do (his or mine). Is there a tradeoff - PCa (likely a 33% risk) versus skin cancer for those that expect to live to 100 yo? Regards. [ ] Re: vitamin D req't AGAIN Hi folks:So I would really like to see the evidence for the following ......... especially the "even for a few minutes" part:" & #8220;the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established. & #8221; "Does anyone have it to hand? If not perhaps I should go look for it.Rodney.>> I suggest those concerned with vit D read:> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842#R16> the refs ate the end of doc contain a lot of useful info.> And the 53 articles cited by this article at the very end present the state of knowledge (or lack of) and > http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309085373/html/1320.html> shows the RDA at 9 yrs past the first article. > > Many of these are full text, and by the time I read all these, two things I THINK :> "The evidence suggests that efforts to improve vitamin D status, for example by vitamin D supplementation, could reduce cancer incidence and mortality at low cost, with few or no adverse effects."> > "Vitamin D status differs by latitude and race, with residents of the northeastern United States and individuals with more skin pigmentation being at increased risk of deficiency. "> > The first I don't have full text, but perhaps this one sums up the cancer story:> Journal of the National Cancer Institute> Volume 96(10), 19 May 2004, pp 735-736 > > ""There's more to this vitamin D story," said Lieberman, M.D., program director of the Prostate and Urologic Cancer Research Group in the National Cancer Institute's Division of Cancer Prevention. "It is fascinating as a molecule. It's been shown to be antiproliferative, proapoptotic, antiangiogenic. In prostate cancer, its effects appear to be on the cell cycle, stopping growth by upregulating [the tumor suppressor] p21."> He is quick to add, "Yet we don't have a bit of data that I could show you to say it will work as a preventative." Most of the evidence is from ecologic, epidemiologic, and laboratory studies of cancers of the prostate, breast, colon, and pancreas. For now, the available studies in patients are treatment trials suggesting that vitamin D may heighten the effects of chemotherapy or radiation. There have been few studies of vitamin D as a cancer chemopreventive.> > "The American Academy of Dermatology is not moved. A July 2003 press release stated, "It is dangerous to mislead the public into thinking that sunlight is a safe and effective 'cure' for other health conditions." AAD president L. Cornelison Jr., M.D., suggested that people take a multivitamin or drink a few glasses of vitamin D-fortified milk every day, adding, "the dangers of exposing oneself to carcinogenic UV light from the sun, even for a few minutes, are firmly established."> "Is vitamin D insufficiency common? Yes. Is it likely a contributing factor to prostate, breast, colon, and maybe some other cancers? Yes," said Schwartz. "Am I saying 'get thee to a skin tannery'? No."> > "I'm not sure how the sun-versus-supplement issue will play out," said Baron, whose study will include a questionnaire on sun exposure. Welsh added, "It's still too early to know the right thing to do."> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.