Re: vitamin D req't AGAIN

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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.

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.">

[Guest guest]

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.">