Health In Motion

Here we go again, with another study this week reminding us that perhaps we should be a bit cautious in embracing vitamin D as “the answer.” The report, from the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, concluded that vitamin D levels in the blood were not related to overall cancer mortality.

The JNCI study included 16, 818 people and was performed between 1988 and 1994; continuing with follow-up through the end of 2000. It monitored a number of factors, including race/ethnicity, latitude where people lived (which could influence sun exposure vitamin D levels), and lifestyle choices, among other variables.

The key finding of the study? Blood vitamin D levels did not have an appreciable effect on the overall risk of dying from cancer. When the researchers broke down the risks of cancer deaths based on a number of cancer sites, the only significant reduction they found was for colorectal cancer, which was 72 percent less than in people with lower levels of vitamin D. In other words, vitamin D is no magic bullet. Huge news? Not really!

Many researchers agree that vitamin D has a wide array of benefits beyond bone health, but caution the public not to assume that it is a cure all. From a common sense perspective, that statement is true, as multiple lifestyle factors (including more wholesome foods and increased exercise) must be present in the fight for good health.

However, let’s be crystal clear about the issue. Media headlines screaming that vitamin D is ineffective against most cancers is absolutely sending the wrong message. It implies that it has no therapeutic or preventative value other than what we currently understand, which is a gross misjudgment of the power of this vitamin.

While this study is getting an amazing amount of exposure; a fact largely left out is the authors admitting to one severe limitation; namely that vitamin D levels were measured ONLY ONCE in six to twelve years. It was also unclear if these level fell or rose in subsequent years. This is supposed to be a credible substantiation of the claim that vitamin D is ineffective against cancer?

Note the research conclusion which substantiates this limitation: “additional studies with large numbers of samples of measured (vitamin D) levels, preferably at multiple time points, are needed to confirm the total cancer mortality findings of this paper and to obtain more accurate risk estimates for mortality from specific cancers.”

The NCI also supports the outdated notion of 400 IU (International Units) of vitamin D a day. They nix the idea that larger amounts of vitamin D are superior to the ridiculously low RDA , while advocating a 2,000-IU tolerable upper limit of vitamin D as suggested by the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine (IOM).

But here’s an interesting little fact. Most of us make about 20,000 units of vitamin D after roughly 20 minutes of summer sun. This is about 100 times more vitamin D than the government says you need every day.

So why should we listen to supposed experts limiting our intake? They simply don’t have answers, which is why they keep studying the subject. They are learning as they go along, and giving professional advice as their understanding broadens through increased studies. However, at the moment this understanding is still in the infancy stage. Hence the statement from researchers of this study: “More definitive data on both benefits and potential adverse effects of high doses are urgently needed.”

Though a large study, I believe it has been prematurely, foolishly and unadvisedly trumpeted by researchers and the mainstream media. Its inherent faults imply amateurism and smack of bias. I’m simply astounded that there are not more journalists doing some investigative work to allow readers to gather sufficient facts to make a credible decision. Simply parroting such results is sloppy writing.

If you totally avoid the sun, recent research indicates you need about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day. You would need to drink about 40 glasses of milk or take 10 multivitamin tablets daily to receive this amount. Neither of these options is recommended.

The only way to receive adequate levels of vitamin D in your blood is to regularly go into the sun, use a sun bed (avoiding sunburn), or have your physician administer a 25‑hydroxyvitamin D test. Optimal levels are around 50 ng/mL (125 nM/L).

Otherwise you need to take supplemental vitamin D3 cholecalciferol. Since many of us get a lot more vitamin D from sunshine than we realize, most need about 2,000 units a day extra. Remember though, vitamin D does not only come from supplements. It is also present in many foods including salmon, mackerel, cod liver oil, tuna, and so on. But sun exposure is still the most important way to increase blood levels of vitamin D.

For credible advice on this subject, check out the Vitamin D Council. It posts current research indicating vitamin D deficiency plays a role in causing seventeen varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, and periodontal disease.

As the Vitamin D Council states, “this does not mean that vitamin D deficiency is the only cause of these diseases, or that you will not get them if you take vitamin D. What it does mean is that vitamin D, and the many ways in which it affects a person’s health, can no longer be overlooked by the health care industry nor by individuals striving to achieve and maintain a greater state of health.”

So is vitamin D really ineffective against most cancers? If you bet the farm on the assumption of one weak study, then you are playing Russian Roulette with your health. Proceed at your own risk!