• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

Vitamin D vs. Cancer Metastudy

vitamin d cancer

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 resveratrol_guy

  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 08 April 2016 - 06:33 AM


Hot off the press! The statistics are overwhelming: cancer risk decreases well into the 40 ng/mL range and possibly higher (see these charts). It's looking more and more like the increase in mobidity at these levels is due to arterial calcification. Pick your poison. Too bad they didn't look at the Alzheimer's correlation.

 

http://journals.plos...al.pone.0152441

 


  • like x 2
  • Informative x 1

#2 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,113 posts
  • 756
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 09 April 2016 - 03:22 PM

Thank you for the informative post.

 

There is not a single week passing without good news about benefits of higher Vitamin D intake compared to RDA and this is surely one important addition.

 

However, I see limitations in applying it to myself as I am not a woman, hence prostate cancer, a concern of mine, is not considered. The authors also recognize a cancer non-specificity. Also, skin cancer, another concern of mine, is not included either.

 

Also it should be useful a mapping into the genetics which is not carried in the study. Dr Rhonda Patrick gives particular consideration to the CYP2R1 gene and rs10741657, rs12794714 and rs2060793. While my genotype is such the first two might tend to somehow “neutralize” as particularly associated to resp. higher and lower level of vitamin D, the 3rd one is associated to a lower level but higher longevity hence supporting a cautionary approach in rushing to conclusions.

 

I still feel that my level (average 36.2 ng/ml (90 nmol/l) over 10 years) is not bad but I am ready to reconsider it to the light of the new study. Surely, I will ask my wife to retest and increase intake as she also has different cancer risks than mine. LEF has been advocating since a while a > 50 ng/dL (125 nmol/l) level, e.g. here. I have been always a bit skeptic to the light of the discussion on LC and risks of mortality, likely due to CVD, and my own 23andMe risk of atrial fibrillation.

 

I am scheduled to retest in summer after one year on a supplementation of 1000-2000 IU (summer and winter). I also kept using moderate K2 and increased magnesium due to potential problems with absorption. If I turn to be in the range of 30-35 ng/ml I might try to push it to the 40 or bit more as a new personal optimum and first step before more relevant evidence comes out. Will see .....


Edited by albedo, 09 April 2016 - 03:35 PM.

  • Informative x 1

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 resveratrol_guy

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,315 posts
  • 290

Posted 10 April 2016 - 04:47 PM

Thanks for the SNP information, albedo. As always, this information needs to be read in the context of genetics.

 

I completely agree that K2 is an appropriate strategy to blunt the calcification risk, although even K2 can be toxic at certain doses. Fortunately, the Japanese history of natto consumption provides good dosimetry data for longterm safe consumption.

 

In an existential sense, vitamin D gives us a dial that we can turn, selecting between death by cancer or dementia on the one end, and cardiovascular catastrophe on the other. At least, we sort of have a choice!

 

BTW anyone such as yourself with atrial fibrillation issues should, apart from getting adequate omega-3 (not as flaxseed oil, which is associated with more aggressive prostate cancer), be aware of the importance of copper and zinc in this regard, for example. Too much or too little of either is bad. Do not supplement copper-2, which has been linked to dementia; use copper-1 from vegan sources.


Edited by resveratrol_guy, 10 April 2016 - 04:54 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#4 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,113 posts
  • 756
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 11 April 2016 - 02:18 PM

Agree, resveratrol-guy! And probably everything, as here for Vitamin D, features a "U" curve?

 

Thank you for the link on the Zn/Cu ratio and AF. I never really knew what to do with that ratio (otherwise looking normal) in my blood works and now have a path to follow :-)

 

Everyone should be very cautions with copper in particular not to feed cancer, e.g. see:

Copper intake makes tumors breathe

https://actu.epfl.ch...tumors-breathe/


Edited by albedo, 11 April 2016 - 02:20 PM.


Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#5 Nate-2004

  • Guest
  • 2,375 posts
  • 357
  • Location:Heredia, Costa Rica
  • NO

Posted 17 April 2017 - 02:01 AM

More people assuming deficiency to be the only reason one should take something that isn't funding pharmaceuticals.

 

https://www.nytimes....tcore-ipad&_r=0

 

Does he have a point?

 

I don't know. I don't spend much time outside so I take vitamin D.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vitamin d, cancer

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users