Earlier today and this week, I have made a number of posts about such things as inflammations, homocysteine, c-reactive protein, interleukin... Well, now it is time for vitamin D. You guessed it: Vitamin D figures into the equation of inflammations and cancer, especially pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancers.
According to a recent study appearing in the journal, " Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention", taking 300 IU to 449 IU international units (IUs) of vitamin D — about the standard dose in most multivitamins — reduced the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43 percent, according to researchers at Northwestern and Harvard universities who led the latest study.
Another interesting article that is just a liittle older.... One thing that makes these studies of vitamin D especially interesting to me is the connection with its role in preventing inflammations.
Will, you know I am nothing but one big never ending inflammation!! LOL
A couple of lab tests ago, I came up totally devoid of Vitamin D. Wonder what has/is going on with my body. I am taking prescription Vitamin D. The doctor explained some stuff to me, but I cannot remember it now.
news:9hojg2h4eok5d44rsncfg9ecnbh68v50q2@4ax.com... : Hello again Friends, : : Earlier today and this week, I have made a number of posts about such : things as inflammations, homocysteine, c-reactive protein, : interleukin... Well, now it is time for vitamin D. You guessed it: : Vitamin D figures into the equation of inflammations and cancer, : especially pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancers. : : According to a recent study appearing in the journal, " Cancer : Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention", taking 300 IU to 449 IU : international units (IUs) of vitamin D - about the standard dose in : most multivitamins - reduced the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43 : percent, according to researchers at Northwestern and Harvard : universities who led the latest study. : : http://tinyurl.com/nnnv3 : : Another interesting article that is just a liittle older.... One thing : that makes these studies of vitamin D especially interesting to me is : the connection with its role in preventing inflammations. : : : http://tinyurl.com/qf7cb : : Will, T2
I just had an appointment with a nephrologist (in consultation of the upcoming operation for cancer on the kidney) and he wanted a list of every prescription and other medication I take. So, being the anal tax type I am, I go in with every Rx listed AND every mg of vitamins and minerals in the multivitamin I take daily. My MD has me on Actonel and calcium plus D for aged bones . Nephrologist says "OFF". Now I'm looking longingly at the dry milk I load into my coffee in the morning. Loaded with calcium and D. Drat! And obediently took all my calcium out of my pill box.
How can calcium be good for colon cancer and bad for kidney cancer?
> Earlier today and this week, I have made a number of posts about such > things as inflammations, homocysteine, c-reactive protein, > interleukin... Well, now it is time for vitamin D. You guessed it: > Vitamin D figures into the equation of inflammations and cancer, > especially pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancers.
> According to a recent study appearing in the journal, " Cancer > Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention", taking 300 IU to 449 IU > international units (IUs) of vitamin D - about the standard dose in > most multivitamins - reduced the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43 > percent, according to researchers at Northwestern and Harvard > universities who led the latest study.
> Another interesting article that is just a liittle older.... One thing > that makes these studies of vitamin D especially interesting to me is > the connection with its role in preventing inflammations.
I read an article not long ago--a fluff piece for the less than scientific minded--that said much the same thing. However, the article also claimed that the most effective form of Vitamin D is that which is manufactured by the body from sun exposure. The article was a bit schizophrenic because the researchers really didn't know what to recommend in regard to sunscreen. They were concerned that people were not getting enough sun exposure to manufacture adequate amounts of this form of Vitamin D. Yet didn't want people to disregard sunscreen altogether due to the skin cancer dangers.
My apologies for not being able to quote the article.
> Earlier today and this week, I have made a number of posts about such > things as inflammations, homocysteine, c-reactive protein, > interleukin... Well, now it is time for vitamin D. You guessed it: > Vitamin D figures into the equation of inflammations and cancer, > especially pancreatic cancer, prostate cancer, and colon cancers.
> According to a recent study appearing in the journal, " Cancer > Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention", taking 300 IU to 449 IU > international units (IUs) of vitamin D - about the standard dose in > most multivitamins - reduced the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43 > percent, according to researchers at Northwestern and Harvard > universities who led the latest study.
> Another interesting article that is just a liittle older.... One thing > that makes these studies of vitamin D especially interesting to me is > the connection with its role in preventing inflammations.
>I just had an appointment with a nephrologist (in consultation of the > upcoming operation for cancer on the kidney) and he wanted a list of > every prescription and other medication I take. So, being the anal tax > type I am, I go in with every Rx listed AND every mg of vitamins and > minerals in the multivitamin I take daily. My MD has me on Actonel and > calcium plus D for aged bones . Nephrologist says "OFF". Now I'm > looking longingly at the dry milk I load into my coffee in the morning. > Loaded with calcium and D. Drat! And obediently took all my calcium > out of my pill box.
Dear Nan, One of the recurring questions on the thyca group is "what do I put in my coffee when I'n on the LID?" LID is low iodine diet, & *no* dairy is allowed. Also (for other reasons) most forms of soy are disallowed. So there go the non-dairy creamers as well. And nothing with "salt" listed as an ingredient -- not because of sodium but because we can't be sure it isn't iodized salt. (& at least it's only for a couple of weeks!)
Some people have found various forms of rice, almond, or coconut milk. Or even made their own. With fewer restrictions than we have, you may be able to find a coffee creamer that will be at least satisfactory, though I guess you have to cross-check other ingredients & stuff than we do for an OK by your nephrologist. Good luck & best wishes! bj
>I read an article not long ago--a fluff piece for the less than scientific >minded--that said much the same thing. However, the article also claimed >that the most effective form of Vitamin D is that which is manufactured by >the body from sun exposure. The article was a bit schizophrenic because the >researchers really didn't know what to recommend in regard to sunscreen. >They were concerned that people were not getting enough sun exposure to >manufacture adequate amounts of this form of Vitamin D. Yet didn't want >people to disregard sunscreen altogether due to the skin cancer dangers.
>My apologies for not being able to quote the article.
>-- >Michelle, T2 >diet & exercise
The amount of unprotected sun exposure needed to stimulate the body to make all its own vitamin D is actually pretty small. 10 to 15 minutes per day is enough. The danger of skin cancer is very small at that level.
However, I suspect that the article you read was talking about the difference between two forms of vitamin D, namely D2 and D3. Years ago most vitamins pills, fortified milk and so on were using D2. But these days you get the more effective D3 form in most products. So there is much less benefit these day from making your own (D3) than there used to be.
On 14-Sep-2006, "Billie" <mynewsacco...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Will, you know I am nothing but one big never ending inflammation!! LOL
> A couple of lab tests ago, I came up totally devoid of Vitamin D. Wonder > what has/is going on with my body. I am taking prescription Vitamin D. > The > doctor explained some stuff to me, but I cannot remember it now.
HI Billie,
You have my sincerest sympathy about those inflammations. I suffered from them intensely for quite a long time, until I turned the corner earlier this year. After reading that article and all the other stuff that is out there about inflammations, I think I'll make sure to take my vitamin D!
> How can calcium be good for colon cancer and bad for kidney cancer?
Hi Nan,
Apparently the extra calcium puts an extra load on your precarious kidneys. Many kidney stones are comprised largely of calcium. Others may be made up of oxalate or uric acid. One known effect of vitamin D to increase calcium absorption.
Also your nephrologist may be worried about hypercalcemia, which often occurs in people who have cancer. Cancers of the kidneys, lungs, and ovaries may secrete large amounts of a protein that has effects similar to those of parathyroid hormone and create what is termed a paraneoplastic syndrome, which can result when a cancer produces one or more substances that circulate in the bloodstream, such as hormones, cytokines (a type of protein), or other proteins, thus affecting the funtion of other organs.
I printed the reference. Two doctors couldn't explain the reason one was prescribing the calcium and the other was banning it. This is EXACTLY why I (and others) love and appreciate this group.
Life with diabetes is often a tightrope. I gather life with cancer is on the same tightrope! That's all right. After 15 years with diabetes, I guess I can learn to include kidneys in the balance.
wmmc...@cox.net wrote: > On 14-Sep-2006, "Nan" <nanekl...@aol.com> wrote:
> > How can calcium be good for colon cancer and bad for kidney cancer?
> Hi Nan,
> Apparently the extra calcium puts an extra load on your precarious kidneys. > Many kidney stones are comprised largely of calcium. Others may be made up > of oxalate or uric acid. One known effect of vitamin D to increase calcium > absorption.
> Also your nephrologist may be worried about hypercalcemia, which often > occurs in people who have cancer. Cancers of the kidneys, lungs, and ovaries > may secrete large amounts of a protein that has effects similar to those of > parathyroid hormone and create what is termed a paraneoplastic syndrome, > which can result when a cancer produces one or more substances that > circulate in the bloodstream, such as hormones, cytokines (a type of > protein), or other proteins, thus affecting the funtion of other organs.
Harold Groot <ques...@infionline.net> wrote: > On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:31:25 -0700, "Michelle" <bookbug2...@gmail.com> > wrote: >>Hi Will,
>>I read an article not long ago--a fluff piece for the less than scientific >>minded--that said much the same thing. However, the article also claimed >>that the most effective form of Vitamin D is that which is manufactured by >>the body from sun exposure.
More than that. the manufacture of useful stuff like D from sunlight on skin is not done all at once. Sunlight on skin produces a stock of biochemical precursors which can be called upon later on demand to make what's needed when it's needed. Biochemical emergencies such as injury, infection, and toxins, sometimes need a lot more of something than it would be safe to have in your bloodstream when there wasn't an emergency. That's one of the limitations of daily dosage pill popping.
>>The article was a bit schizophrenic because the >>researchers really didn't know what to recommend in regard to sunscreen. >>They were concerned that people were not getting enough sun exposure to >>manufacture adequate amounts of this form of Vitamin D. Yet didn't want >>people to disregard sunscreen altogether due to the skin cancer dangers.
>>My apologies for not being able to quote the article. > The amount of unprotected sun exposure needed to stimulate the body to > make all its own vitamin D is actually pretty small. 10 to 15 minutes > per day is enough.
That figure was not derived from studies of long term health. It was derived from testing biochemical markers under the assumption that the tested indicators told us enough about the whole story.
But look at all the skin problems faced by red-heads. Evolution selected those seriously white skins with all their problems in populations living in cloudy northern climates where sunlight was reduced, and did so in times when the human population there spent a lot of time outside and got a lot more light than the equivalent of 10-15 minutes of sunlight a day.
That suggests to me that the tests on which the 10-15 minute idea are based may not tell us the whole story of the exposure of skin to light.
> However, I suspect that the article you read was talking about the > difference between two forms of vitamin D, namely D2 and D3. Years > ago most vitamins pills, fortified milk and so on were using D2. But > these days you get the more effective D3 form in most products.
Ah yes, back in the ignorant old days when they didn't know everything they did some stupid things. But now we know near enough everything that we couldn't possibly be making any more silly assumptions about light and skin, could we?
Quentin has banged on so much about the wisdom of getting your vits, minerals, etc. from natural sources rather than pills for just that kind of reason.
> So > there is much less benefit these day from making your own (D3) than > there used to be.
I remain unconvinced that there is no risk that we haven't yet noticed the importance of D4, if you see what I mean. Meanwhile, I'll stick to soaking up a lot more than than 10-15 minutes a day in my cloudy northern climate, even given the natural advantages of my ginger tendencies.
As Michelle pointed out, the authors of the article she mentioned were a bit confused about sunscreen. They wanted to avoid skin cancer, yet didn't want to suffer sunlight deficiency. They probably hadn't even considered the possibilities that wearing sunscreen in conditions of strong sunlight might be dangerous.
I've been fascinated by science all my life, and all my life have read far more science books than any other category. I was good enough at it to get a job as a research scientist. One very important fact about science I never lose an opportunity of drumming into my students is that even the best educated and wisest scientists in the world don't yet know everything that matters.
Assuming you know everything that needs to be known about something is the hallmark of an ignorant fool. Always wear a parachute when jumping to conclusions.
-- Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 16 Sep 2006 09:11:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm > <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>But look at all the skin problems faced by red-heads. Evolution >>selected those seriously white skins with all their problems in >>populations living in cloudy northern climates where sunlight was >>reduced, and did so in times when the human population there spent a >>lot of time outside and got a lot more light than the equivalent of >>10-15 minutes of sunlight a day.
>>That suggests to me that the tests on which the 10-15 minute idea are >>based may not tell us the whole story of the exposure of skin to light. > Yep. I remind myself of that each time the doc gets out the > nitrogen spray to hit another skin-cancer. One of the side > benefits of living in a land with lots of lovely sunshine. > What hair I have isn't even red - but lots of my Irish > ancestors were red-heads, as were some of their Norse > forefathers. > Vit D is not a problem for me.
Conversely it is a problem for some those of darker skin colours living in Glasgow, especially if they make their own bread from their own imported flours, as some of them do, because then they escape the vit D with which standard UK breads are fortified. They're walking around with skin adapted to high sunlight in a grey Northern climate, and Glaswegian doctors have been astonished to find some of their children developing rickets.
We take risks when we move too far away from the environment and lifestyle to which evolution adapted our ancestors. That could be what some of us T2s are doing when we drive to the hamburger joint and say "Yes" to "Fries with that?".
>>Assuming you know everything that needs to be known about something is >>the hallmark of an ignorant fool. Always wear a parachute when jumping >>to conclusions. > I like it - is that an original?
Yes, good isn't it? Some years ago I thought my brain had got too old to come up up with such witty apothegms. That's what the medics and psychologists I consulted told me. It wasn't just witticisms I was failing on. I found myself unable to write scientific papers any more. Even worse, I actually sometimes found it hard to understand papers I had started and and been too busy to finish in earlier years. They'd been written by someone so much smarter than me that all I could do was fiddle with the punctuation.
It's your age, they all told me. It happens. No, it couldn't possibly be those prescription drugs you're taking. Trust us, we're doctors. It's age. And I was offered special therapy for aging academics who were getting upset at losing their marbles. Edinburgh's a samll city, and hosts several universities, one of them one of the biggest in the UK, so the libraries are full of old professors shuffling about looking for their their marbles with magnifying glasses. It's a big local medical problem.
Thank God I'm an inquisitive sceptical experimental scientist! I stopped taking the drugs and my brain came back! And what a remarkable coincidence, that some of the drugs often prescribed to old people actually worsen the symptoms of age. Narrow escape there, eh?
-- Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
<c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >Alan S <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 16 Sep 2006 09:11:50 GMT, Chris Malcolm >> <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>But look at all the skin problems faced by red-heads. Evolution >>>selected those seriously white skins with all their problems in >>>populations living in cloudy northern climates where sunlight was >>>reduced, and did so in times when the human population there spent a >>>lot of time outside and got a lot more light than the equivalent of >>>10-15 minutes of sunlight a day.
>>>That suggests to me that the tests on which the 10-15 minute idea are >>>based may not tell us the whole story of the exposure of skin to light.
>> Yep. I remind myself of that each time the doc gets out the >> nitrogen spray to hit another skin-cancer. One of the side >> benefits of living in a land with lots of lovely sunshine.
>> What hair I have isn't even red - but lots of my Irish >> ancestors were red-heads, as were some of their Norse >> forefathers.
>> Vit D is not a problem for me.
>Conversely it is a problem for some those of darker skin colours >living in Glasgow, especially if they make their own bread from their >own imported flours, as some of them do, because then they escape the >vit D with which standard UK breads are fortified. They're walking >around with skin adapted to high sunlight in a grey Northern climate, >and Glaswegian doctors have been astonished to find some of their >children developing rickets.
>We take risks when we move too far away from the environment and >lifestyle to which evolution adapted our ancestors. That could be what >some of us T2s are doing when we drive to the hamburger joint and say >"Yes" to "Fries with that?".
>>>Assuming you know everything that needs to be known about something is >>>the hallmark of an ignorant fool. Always wear a parachute when jumping >>>to conclusions.
>> I like it - is that an original?
>Yes, good isn't it? Some years ago I thought my brain had got too old >to come up up with such witty apothegms. That's what the medics and >psychologists I consulted told me. It wasn't just witticisms I was >failing on. I found myself unable to write scientific papers any >more. Even worse, I actually sometimes found it hard to understand >papers I had started and and been too busy to finish in earlier >years. They'd been written by someone so much smarter than me that all >I could do was fiddle with the punctuation.
>It's your age, they all told me. It happens. No, it couldn't possibly >be those prescription drugs you're taking. Trust us, we're doctors. >It's age. And I was offered special therapy for aging academics who >were getting upset at losing their marbles. Edinburgh's a samll city, >and hosts several universities, one of them one of the biggest in the >UK, so the libraries are full of old professors shuffling about >looking for their their marbles with magnifying glasses. It's a big >local medical problem.
>Thank God I'm an inquisitive sceptical experimental scientist! I >stopped taking the drugs and my brain came back! And what a remarkable >coincidence, that some of the drugs often prescribed to old people >actually worsen the symptoms of age. Narrow escape there, eh?
Scary.
The implications of your comments are part of the reason why I tried a little harder to find non-medical solutions before adding minimal meds myself.
>>I read an article not long ago--a fluff piece for the less than scientific >>minded--that said much the same thing. However, the article also claimed >>that the most effective form of Vitamin D is that which is manufactured by >>the body from sun exposure. The article was a bit schizophrenic because >>the >>researchers really didn't know what to recommend in regard to sunscreen. >>They were concerned that people were not getting enough sun exposure to >>manufacture adequate amounts of this form of Vitamin D. Yet didn't want >>people to disregard sunscreen altogether due to the skin cancer dangers.
>>My apologies for not being able to quote the article.
>>-- >>Michelle, T2 >>diet & exercise
> The amount of unprotected sun exposure needed to stimulate the body to > make all its own vitamin D is actually pretty small. 10 to 15 minutes > per day is enough. The danger of skin cancer is very small at that > level.
> However, I suspect that the article you read was talking about the > difference between two forms of vitamin D, namely D2 and D3. Years > ago most vitamins pills, fortified milk and so on were using D2. But > these days you get the more effective D3 form in most products. So > there is much less benefit these day from making your own (D3) than > there used to be.
Hi Harold,
Thanks for the interesting information. Strangely enough in spite of the fortified milk, many people are still Vitamin D deficient, according to the article. They sited lactose intolerance as a possible contributing factor. -- Michelle, T2 diet & exercise
|
