70 replies to this topic

[nowayout]

There is some research suggesting that D3 levels above 40 ng/ml may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer. Levels above 32 ng/ml might raise the risk of prostate cancer. And levels above 30 ng/ml might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

[niner]

What vive said. I dropped my target to 30ng/ml, primarily over prostate cancer concerns, since I'm at high risk. The cardiovascular disease problem could probably be taken care of by concurrent supplementation with vitamin k.

[mikey]

There is some research suggesting that D3 levels above 40 ng/ml may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer. Levels above 32 ng/ml might raise the risk of prostate cancer. And levels above 30 ng/ml might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Can you please cite those studies? That all seems opposite of what is commonly thought.
Thanks!

[mikey]

There is some research suggesting that D3 levels above 40 ng/ml may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer. Levels above 32 ng/ml might raise the risk of prostate cancer. And levels above 30 ng/ml might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Can you please cite those studies? That all seems opposite of what is commonly thought.
Thanks!

And by the way, I had the BIOPHYSICAL250 done recently, and all my cancer markers are low to very low, thankfully.

I've been taking orthomolecular levels of vitamins, minerals, and numerous antioxidants and other dietary supplements for life extension purposes, increasingly since I started at 14 years of age (in 1967).

By orthomolecular, I mean very high potencies, ala Linus Pauling, Abram Hoffer, etc...

[nowayout]

There is some research suggesting that D3 levels above 40 ng/ml may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer. Levels above 32 ng/ml might raise the risk of prostate cancer. And levels above 30 ng/ml might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Can you please cite those studies? That all seems opposite of what is commonly thought.
Thanks!

See the appropriate section of this Institute of Medicine report, currently the best quality meta-study on vitamin D available:

http://www.iom.edu/R...-Vitamin-D.aspx

[smithx]

Here's a link to the full, 1133 page report:
http://download.nap....id=13050&free=1

[mikey]

There is some research suggesting that D3 levels above 40 ng/ml may raise the risk of pancreatic cancer. Levels above 32 ng/ml might raise the risk of prostate cancer. And levels above 30 ng/ml might increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Can you please cite those studies? That all seems opposite of what is commonly thought.
Thanks!

See the appropriate section of this Institute of Medicine report, currently the best quality meta-study on vitamin D available:

http://www.iom.edu/R...-Vitamin-D.aspx

I'm sorry to say that this was considered to be the first time the IOM has been corrupted, providing information on vitamin D to the public that caused the world's leading vitamin D research scientists to basically condemn what the IOM report said.

For instance, Walter Willett, Chairman of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard wrote this article with vitamin D research scientist Heike Bischoff-Ferrari - http://www.hsph.harv...tion/index.html.

As well, Dr. Robert Heaney, a professor of medicine at Creighton University in Omaha, Neb., who is the one of the most credible long-time calcium researchers in the world, and a noted vitamin D researcher, dismissed it. Heaney said “They are way too conservative. There is evidence to support higher numbers.”

Dr. Heaney was on the panel when the panel last issued recommendations, in 1997.

However, oddly, he was not included on the panel this time. The panel asked for his suggestions that were based on the most up-to-date published data on vitamin D, but did not use them.

Heaney rarely has harsh words but he was quoted as saying of the new guidelines,"...The principal casualty of this is the credibility of the IOM - there were no day-to-day vitamin D scientists on the panel, and the working vitamin D community says they're off base," Heaney said.

Perhaps one reason the IOM lost their credibility was because there was a rat in the house.

Glenville Jones, PhD is one of the authors of the IOM report. He’s also the co-inventor of drug made by a company called Cytochroma. This drug is still in development…but what condition will they treat with their top-secret drug?

You got it.

Vitamin D deficiencies!

Dr. Jones also sits on the scientific advisory board of a drug company called Receptor Therapeutics.

These guys also made a synthetic vitamin D treatment for cancer…in fact THREE synthetic vitamin D treatments for cancer. (Drug companies use synthetic vitamin D because they can patent it and make a huge profit. You can’t patent natural vitamin D.)

So the IOM report makes it seem like you don't need to take much vitamin D AND if you take too much - which are doses that are much lower than the ultra-high doses where adverse effects might truly occur, bad things might happen.

But if you do happen to get cancer…guess who plans to have a vitamin D drug you can take?

Here’s a suggestion: Take anything published by the current IOM with a grain of salt.

And avoid anything made by Cytochroma and Receptor Therapeutics.

You might want to also read http://www.vitamindc...tamin-d-report/ and
http://www.healthiertalk.com/vitamin-d-conspiracy-leads-straight-big-pharma-3396 and http://www.michaelmo...Inadequate.html

[nowayout]

There will always be conspiracy theorists. The "Vitamin D Council" is a self-appointed interest group that exists for one purpose only - to promote vitamin D as the cure-all to everything, and of course they are going to be furious at being contradicted by something as inconvenient as reality. The IoM panel didn't just suck their recommendations out of their thumbs. Everything they say is based on research studies (more than 1000 if I remember correctly) that are prodigiously cited in their report.

Edited by viveutvivas, 21 October 2012 - 04:04 PM.

[mikey]

There will always be conspiracy theorists. The "Vitamin D Council" is a self-appointed interest group that exists for one purpose only - to promote vitamin D as the cure-all to everything, and of course they are going to be furious at being contradicted by something as inconvenient as reality. The IoM panel didn't just suck their recommendations out of their thumbs. Everything they say is based on research studies (more than 1000 if I remember correctly) that are prodigiously cited in their report.

The Vitamin D Council can be criticized, but Drs. Robert Heaney, Walter Willett, Bruce Hollis, Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Reinhold Vieth and numerous other highly respected vitamin D research scientists found the IOM's report to be more than just deficient. It was said to have harmed their credibility.

And if you have been a long-term student of nutrition, as I am, the report doesn't pass the most basic smell tests.

The IOM actually ignored the counsel of the world's leading vitamin D research scientists. IOM consulted with them but did not use the science that these scientists shared.

As well, the panel of authors was hand-selected to exclude real day-to-day vitamin D research scientists, while including Glenville Jones, who had conflicts of interest.

Corporations have invaded the most sacred of our institutions.

Just as the Supreme Court was corrupted when it took an unprecedented move and invaded the vote in Florida to give George Bush the presidency and later passed Citizens United, the IOM has also been corrupted by corporate conflict of interest.

Go by their recommendations to the detriment of your health.

I'm following the independent vitamin D research scientists' recommendations and taking enough vitamin D to have a blood level of 60 ng/mL of OH-vitamin D.

[niner]

Vitamin D deficiency is clearly bad, but there are problems with high levels as well.

Melamed finds a broad minimum in mortality curve centered at ~35ng/ml.

Longecity thread about the Danish study

Longecity thread on link between High D levels and Atrial Fibrillation

Rising D levels above 21 ng/ml associated with increased CRP

Vitamin D's murky relationship with allergy

Higher D levels associated with increased risk of aggressive prostate cancer

Higher D levels associated with increased risk of aggressive pCa (newer paper)

[JohnD60]

It would seem to me that the Melamed study failed to control for socioeconomic background. Uneducated people work outside, and as a result have high serum D levels without supplementation. But uneducated people also have a higher probability of having bad health care and bad habits such as smoking. The study hypothesis correlates most strongly with Mexican Americans and Smokers.

Edited by JohnD60, 22 October 2012 - 01:59 AM.

[nowayout]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

[stephen_b]

Higher D levels associated with increased risk of aggressive pCa (newer paper)

The last paper you quoted seems to have issues. From its abstract, "The 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D]-prostate cancer relation was examined in a nested case-control study within the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study of 50- to 69-year-old Finnish men."

When I went to this second study, it said:

A total of 29,133 male smokers 50 to 69 years of age from southwestern Finland were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: alpha-tocopherol (50 mg per day) alone, beta carotene (20 mg per day) alone, both alpha-tocopherol and beta carotene, or placebo.

This is a study consisting entirely of older male smokers depleting their gamma tocopherol by taking only alpha tocopherol. I'm not sure it's very applicable generally.

[Hebbeh]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

We have a winner. If you are sickly to begin with and don't spend time outside...well, it should be obvious.

[niner]

The last paper you quoted seems to have issues. From its abstract, "The 25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D]-prostate cancer relation was examined in a nested case-control study within the Alpha-Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene Cancer Prevention Study of 50- to 69-year-old Finnish men."

When I went to this second study, it said:

A total of 29,133 male smokers 50 to 69 years of age from southwestern Finland were randomly assigned to one of four regimens: alpha-tocopherol (50 mg per day) alone, beta carotene (20 mg per day) alone, both alpha-tocopherol and beta carotene, or placebo.

This is a study consisting entirely of older male smokers depleting their gamma tocopherol by taking only alpha tocopherol. I'm not sure it's very applicable generally.

The fact that they're all smokers is a confounder, but you could test the effects of the interventions by looking at the placebo arm. If the D/pCa results hold up across all arms of the study, then you have some pretty decent data. If it doesn't, then I would lean toward the placebo results. If they didn't consider any of this, that would tend to blow it as quality evidence. It's consistent with other studies, though.

[niner]

OK, I just looked at the paper, and it looks like they dealt with the problem correctly:

Unconditional logistic regression models that adjusted for the matching factors were used for subgroups of the following factors: age, BMI, number of cigarettes per day and years smoked, vitamin D, calcium, and selenium intake, alcohol consumption, and serum α-tocopherol, β-carotene, retinol, and total and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (stratified by medians); leisure physical activity (low vs. high), season of blood collection, disease aggressiveness, time to case diagnosis, history of diabetes, family history of prostate cancer, and α-tocopherol and β-carotene intervention groups.

[stephen_b]

Isn't the Finnish study the same one that was used by some to conclude that smokers shouldn't supplement beta-carotene? But at least this conclusion came from dosing beta-carotene, whereas the vitamin D was just measured in all of the groups. Another way to look at the data is that maybe the higher levels of D are indicative of those individuals not utilizing it as well as the ones who had more positive health outcomes.

It bears mentioning that this study did not control for vitamin D. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of more trials controlling for vitamin D like the Creighton study PMID 17556697).

Edited by stephen_b, 22 October 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[smithx]

What's the correct amount of Vitamin D to take? And more to the point, what's the blood level we should be trying to maintain?

This article discusses the controversy, and notes that fractures and falls increased when blood levels of Vitamin D were raised from 20ng/ml to 40ng/ml in a group of older women.

From http://www.medscape....warticle/773030 (requires registration)

Vitamin D Consensus Remains Elusive Despite Recommendations

Nancy A. Melville
Oct 22, 2012

MINNEAPOLIS, Minnesota — The report by the Institute of Medicine on the dietary intake of vitamin D was designed to help clear up confusion, but it hasn't.

The report, which was discussed here at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2012 Annual Meeting, states that supplementation levels of 600 to 800 IU/day will meet the needs of 97% of the population. However, there is little consensus on this; other guidelines recommend up to 1500 IU/day.

As clinicians continue to grapple with conflicting guidelines, bone expert Neil Binkley, MD, associate director of the Institute on Aging and codirector of the Osteoporosis Clinical Center and Research Program at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, offered a few unofficial guidelines of his own to in keep in mind when advising patients.

He urged clinicians to remember that the IOM report represents a "big picture" perspective, which might have little to do with the patient sitting across from you.

"The IOM report even stated that a margin of safety for public recommendations is prudent. I think most clinicians would agree with that." The recommendations, therefore, should not be regarded as being etched in stone, he asserted.

"Diagnostic end points are simply lines in the sand, and soft diagnostic cut-points are necessary to practice medicine in all fields," he explained.

Interpreting 25(OH)D Levels

Consider, for instance, the fine line between osteoporosis and osteopenia, Dr. Binkley said.

"A 65-year-old woman with a T-score of –2.4 has osteopenia, but her 10-year fracture probability is 13%. The same woman with a T-score of –2.6 has crossed the line in the sand to osteoporosis, but her fracture risk over 10 years is 14%."

"Similarly, our patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels of 29 ng/mL are not different from those with 31 ng/mL."

Although serum 25(OH)D levels are currently recognized as the gold standard for defining vitamin D levels, the physiologic effect of different levels on different people is not well understood.

"We can titrate thyroid-stimulating hormone levels to optimal levels of thyroid replacement, but this is not the case with 25(OH)D. This is simply a blood level," Dr. Binkley emphasized.

Assay Variability

In addition, he noted, assays should be approached with a healthy dose of skepticism.

For one thing, assays have substantial variability. "The tests are administered by a person with an instrument; neither is perfect, and there will be much variability," he said.

He described a study in which he and his colleagues sent serum samples to 8 laboratories that used various 25(OH)D assay methods (Clin Chim Acta. 2010;411:1976-1982). They found significant interlaboratory variability.

The Vitamin D External Quality Assessment Scheme (DEQAS) is currently working to standardize lab assessments and reduce that variability. This is difficult because the matrix effect introduces many confounders to throw off assay readings, Dr. Binkley explained. Among the confounders are 24,25(OH)D (present in 10% of the 25[OH]D serum levels), 25(OH)D3-sulfate, and the metabolites of both ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol.

Clinical Application

Although standardization efforts should help address many of the issues related to the assessment of 25(OH)D, Dr. Binkley likened the current situation to the very early stage of lipid analysis. "I would suggest we are, today, in 25(OH)D measurement where we were 50 or 60 years ago with lipid measurement," he said.

"We need to link outcomes to blood levels that are achieved and we need to understand what analytes to measure. Until we do that, meta-analyzing data isn't going to answer the question of how much is enough for your patient or mine," he noted.

There is little disagreement about the risks posed by levels of vitamin D that are too low (e.g., rickets, osteomalacia, and fractures) or too high (e.g., hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and fractures).

"Too little is bad and too much is bad, so it's important to let moderation and clinical judgment be your guide," he said.

It is also important to factor in the known variability and potential confounders when assessing the vitamin D status of a patient. "If you get a measurement for a patient that is, for instance, 20 ng/mL, recognize that the real value is likely somewhere between 10 and 35 ng/mL," Dr. Binkley said.

"For many patients, 1000 to 2000 IU of vitamin D daily is required to maintain a 25(OH)D level at 30 ng/mL or above," Dr. Binkley said. "In my opinion, vitamin D inadequacy is common, but I think fixing this is cheap and virtually side-effect free."

Bone specialist Ian Reid, MD, professor of medicine and endocrinology at Auckland Medical School in New Zealand, warned against pushing levels too high. He cited a study in which women who received a single annual dose of 500,000 IU of cholecalciferol were at a significantly increased risk for fracture (JAMA. 2010;303:1815-1822). The significance of this study is that if you take a group of people who are at about 20 ng/mL and you put them up to 40 ng/mL, you increase fractures and falls by about 20%," Dr. Reid said.

Dr. Binkley countered that "there is a difference between the administration of 500,000 IU/year of vitamin D and daily administration." "I don't think we understand the mechanisms by which a blast of vitamin D leads to an increased risk of falls and fractures immediately following that," he said.

Nevertheless, Dr. Reid said he supports a more conservative approach. "I think the evidence is that we should be happy if people are around 15 to 20 ng/mL," he said. "Those who are lower should be supplemented with 400 to 800 IU/day. This approach is safe and does not make assumptions about the benefit of higher levels of vitamin D that have not yet been demonstrated in clinical trials."

Dr. Binkley and Dr. Reid have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2012 Annual Meeting. Presented October 14, 2012.

[Kevnzworld]

I think that it is inadequate to look at vitamin D levels solely when looking at fracture risk and osteoporosis . There are so many cofactors relating to bone growth and density beyond vitamin D, including K, magnesium, calcium, boron etc.
Most experts ( the vitamin D council ) believe that 25ohd levels should be 50-80Ng to maximize D's immune function benefits.


http://www.vitamindc...in-d-deficient/

[dear mrclock]

vitamin d is not the cure all as people believe. can we move on now. just take it when you really really have a need to take it and remember no matter how much and how long you take, it can be stored in your liver for months so dont be ridiculous dosing regularly for years.

[niner]

I think that it is inadequate to look at vitamin D levels solely when looking at fracture risk and osteoporosis . There are so many cofactors relating to bone growth and density beyond vitamin D, including K, magnesium, calcium, boron etc.
Most experts ( the vitamin D council ) believe that 25ohd levels should be 50-80Ng to maximize D's immune function benefits.

I agree in an overall sense; when I put together an osteopenia program for myself, vitamin D was just the start. However, when looking at a population, it's possible to look at each factor to see how much it varies and how much that variation correlates with fracture. You can also look at co-variance of the factors, and ultimately, D emerges as a very important one.

I'm not sure I'd call the vitamin D council "most experts". They certainly have some D expertise, but I think they are looking at the world through vitamin D-colored glasses, or maybe blinders. I want a vitamin D level that optimizes my personal health, overall. Because of my own risk factors, my target level (30 ng/ml) is lower than it would be for some other people.

[kismet]

See the appropriate section of this Institute of Medicine report, currently the best quality meta-study on vitamin D available:

http://www.iom.edu/R...-Vitamin-D.aspx

Are you sure? AFAIK their nutrient recommendations are highly reliable but notoriously out of date even once released. Why would we prefer the IOM and their analysis of a handful observational studies (that were available back then) over the current literature, including the most important nutrition journals like the Am J Clin Nutr?

As MR pointed out and as I did, meta-analyses confirm targets of 30 or 35ng/ml, at least as per epidemiology. This is still higher than the old school recommendations of >10-20ng/ml.

[nowayout]

See the appropriate section of this Institute of Medicine report, currently the best quality meta-study on vitamin D available:

http://www.iom.edu/R...-Vitamin-D.aspx

Are you sure? AFAIK their nutrient recommendations are highly reliable but notoriously out of date even once released. Why would we prefer the IOM and their analysis of a handful observational studies (that were available back then) over the current literature,...

A handful? Back then? Are you looking at the same report? The IoM report we are speaking of was released in 2011 and looked at about 1,000 studies available up to that time.

[Kevnzworld]

In regards to vitamin D levels and cancer prevention, here is a study ( mostly epidemiological ) that concluded and recommends "raising minimum year-around 25 (oh)D levels to 40-60 ng , ( 100-150nmol )"

http://www.cenegenic...Perspective.pdf

[stephen_b]

Having Sex Protects Against Vitamin D Toxicity. Hey, I don't make these things up.

[Guest]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

Although most epidemologic studies try to account for physical activity this is a always something that has to be factored in. Thatswhy more randomized controled trials are necessary to confirm (or reject) findings from population statistics. There is actually pretty good evidence that Vitamin D is helpful in dealing with upper respiratory tract infections and general aiding the immune system and treating autoimmun illnesses. There are few randomized trials testing for cancer CDV who some interpret as quite promising and others as inconclusive - we will know more as soon as the VITAL-trial finishes. So if you are deficient it is probably a very good idea to get your D-levels up.

Targeting 30 ng/ml does seem to be a bit lowish considering the randomized trials. But 60ng/ml is certainly too much considering mortality results from epidemological studies.


What I still don't get is what accounts for the excess mortality at higher levels. We know that there is some increase in prostate cancer risk and possibly CVD (due to calcium deposits ?) - but percentage wise what is more important for the excess mortality: the rising cancer risk or the rising cardiovascular risk at higher D-levels?

[Hebbeh]

http://www.scienceda...21024175229.htm

Nearly 80 Million Americans Won't Need Vitamin D Supplements Under New Guidelines


ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2012) — Nearly 80 million Americans would no longer need to take vitamin D supplements under new Institute of Medicine guidelines, according to a study by Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine researchers.

Results were published Oct. 24, 2012 in the journal PLOS ONE.
The new guidelines advise that almost all people get sufficient vitamin D when their blood levels are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml). Older guidelines said people needed vitamin D levels above 30 ng/ml.
Holly Kramer, MD, MPH and colleagues examined data from 15,099 non-institutionalized adults who participated in the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Study (NHANES III). The sample included 1,097 adults who had chronic kidney disease, which has been linked to low vitamin D levels.
In the survey population, 70.5 percent of adults with healthy kidneys had vitamin D blood levels that would be considered insufficient under the older guidelines. But under the newer Institute of Medicine guidelines, only 30.3 percent of these adults had insufficient vitamin D levels.
Among adults with chronic kidney disease, 76.5 percent had insufficient vitamin D under the older guidelines, while only 35.4 percent had insufficient levels under the Institute of Medicine guidelines.
Because NHANES III is a representative sample, researchers were able to extrapolate results to the general population. Kramer and colleagues estimate that a total of 78.7 million adults considered to have insufficient vitamin D levels under the older guidelines would now have sufficient levels under the Institute of Medicine guidelines. "The new guidelines have an impact on a large proportion of the population," Kramer said.
The Institute of Medicine guidelines are based on nearly 1,000 published studies and testimony from scientists and other experts. (The Institute of Medicine committee that wrote the new guidelines for vitamin D and calcium includes Ramon Durazo-Arvizu, PhD, a professor in Loyola's Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology).
The Institute of Medicine committee found that vitamin D is essential to avoid poor bone health, such as rickets. But there have been conflicting and mixed results in studies on whether vitamin D can also protect against cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases and diabetes, the Institute of Medicine committee found. Moreover, excessive vitamin D can damage the kidneys and heart, the committee reported.
However, the Institute of Medicine guidelines are controversial. For example, the Endocrine Society continues to endorse the older guidelines. Kramer said that people who are confused about how much vitamin D they need should consult with their doctors.
Kramer is first author of the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health. She is an associate professor in Loyola's Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology and Department of Medicine, Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. Her co-authors are Durazo-Arvizu; Guichan Cao, MS; Amy Luke, PhD; David Shoham, PhD; and Richard Cooper, PhD of Loyola's Department of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology and Chris Sempos, PhD of the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements.

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Loyola University Health System, via Newswise.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

• Holly Kramer, Chris Sempos, Guichan Cao, Amy Luke, David Shoham, Richard Cooper, Ramon Durazo-Arvizu. Mortality Rates Across 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) Levels among Adults with and without Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PLoS ONE, 2012; 7 (10): e47458 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047458

[Mind]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

This is a good quote because it applies to almost every substance life-extensionists take in order to stay healthy. It should be pretty obvious to everyone who reads the forums here and is vaguely familiar with aging theories, that levels of hormones (like vitamin D) and other markers for youth and vigor decline with age. There is nothing we can do about it. Supplementing is like a bandaid approach, but it is the best we got. From what I have read, exogenous supplementation, while not being anything remotely close to real rejuvenation, probably helps slow aging a little.

Edited by Mind, 25 October 2012 - 09:13 PM.

[niner]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

This is a good quote because it applies to almost every substance life-extensionists take in order to stay healthy. It should be pretty obvious to everyone who reads the forums here and is vaguely familiar with aging theories, that levels of hormones (like vitamin D) and other markers for youth and vigor decline with age. There is nothing we can do about it. Supplementing is like a bandaid approach, but it is the best we got. From what I have read, exogenous supplementation, while not being anything remotely close to real rejuvenation, probably helps slow aging a little.

I disagree. There are too many cases where physical activity has been controlled for to blame all (or even most) of vitamin D's effects on it. This hormonal substance has been studied to death, and frankly, the physical activity argument is pretty simplistic.

If for some dietary or lifestyle reason you are not getting enough of a critical nutrient, you have to supplement. Either that or change your diet or lifestyle. There's simply no question that remediation of deficiencies improves health. I don't think that life extensionists particularly suffer from in inability to distinguish correlation from causation; I do think that they suffer from an inability to distinguish between a crappy in vitro study and a decent study in a mammal, but that's another story.

[Kevnzworld]

I think most of the vitamin D promotion relies on misidentifying association as causation. Higher vitamin D levels are probably in most cases simply an accidental by-product of a healthy (physically active, outside) lifestyle, not a cause. It is the (outside) physical activity that causes improved health, not the vitamin D, and also the better health that allows outside physical activity, causing higher vitamin D levels as a by-product.

My experience is that people who spend time outdoors exercising generally wear sunscreen, hats and sun protective clothing. I live in the desert and am outdoors daily. I was also supplementing with 1000iu of D3. My levels were still deficient.
I don't think that outside physical activity, especially in higher latitudes, in the morning or in the fall- spring period can raise vitamin D levels much anyway.