Currently viewing the category: "vitamin D deficiency"

Whoa, check it: Japanese-American men with diets low in vitamin D had greater risk of stroke later in life. This according to recent long-term study looking at 7,400 Japanese-American men living in Hawaii. Just another confirmation that the sun nutrient, vitamin D, is paramount in maintaining health and wellness.

The study, which began in the mid-to-late-1960s, looked at Japanese-American men between the ages of 45 and 68, and examined and interviewed them about their dietary habits at that time. The men were then followed up with 34 years later, whereby 960 were found to have died of stroke. The men with the lowest vitamin D in their diets had a 22% greater risk of stroke, and a 27% greater risk of ischemic stroke (blood-clot type). No difference existed for hemorrhagic (bleeding) stroke, however.

“Our study confirms that eating foods rich in vitamin D might be beneficial for stroke prevention,” said study author Dr. Gotaro Kojima, a geriatric medicine fellow at the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii in Honolulu. He also stated that it is unknown at this time whether these results could be extrapolated to women or other ethnic groups.

So here I present just another study showing the importance of vitamin D supplementation, and again I ask how there can still be so many “authorities” unconvinced of the need to supplement. True, vitamin D can be found in foods like fortified milk, breakfast cereals, fatty fish and egg yolks, which are all good sources. And, of course, nothing beats the vitamin D production of our skin from the exposure to direct sunlight.

The good doctor Kojima does point out that synthesizing vitamin D from the sun becomes more difficult as people age, so older people especially should increase their dietary intake, and in my opinion take a good D supplement.

Once again, I’d like to point out that many experts, myself included, believe that the recommended blood D levels are too low; and while they may prevent some diseases, like rickets, optimum levels are almost 2-3 times more than the medical and dietary standards.

So Japanese-American men (and all people for that matter) need to get adequate sunlight (15-20 minutes sans sunscreen daily), eat vitamin D rich foods, and supplement. Hey, you can follow the authoritarian naysayers and skip supplementation, OR you can just freakin’ supplement. Which do you think comes with a heavier price to pay if wrong? Well then…nuff said.

I was recently asked by a twitter follower how much vitamin D is needed, and how much is too much. This question is much more complex than can be done justice in 140 characters, so I decided to write a quick guide to determining your vitamin D needs.

You’ll need to start by getting your blood D levels checked. Okay, there’s lots of differing opinion on how, and what, and where, and so forth. Let’s just keep things simple: Next time you are at the doctor’s getting a physical, ask him or her to do a vitamin D test (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D test). They will run the blood you are already providing them with, although my physician often forgets, requiring me to go back in for a second blood letting. Whatever–it’s worth it to me.

You’ll probably have to pay for the test if you live in the U.S. The last one I got cost me somewhere in the $200 range, and that was after insurance covered a minimal portion. Listen, I believe so strongly in getting blood levels of D checked, that the cost is also worth it to me. (Life Extensions Foundation endorses a $47 test that you can get by calling the 800-number in their article here).

You will get your results within a couple of days. The numbers can vary depending on the lab, but good reference points for adults are between 30-100 ng/mL for optimal levels. Levels of Serum D between 20-29 ng/mL indicate insufficiency, while anything below 20 ng/mL is a frank deficiency (that includes in children as well, although anything above 20 ng/mL is considered optimal for pediatrics).

If your blood D levels come in at 29 ng/mL or less, your doctor may prescribe 50,000 international units (IU) for a short course to bring you back up to par. After that, taking anywhere from 1,000-10,000 IUs per day is recommended to keep levels up, of course, those numbers depend on the source. The standard is that you want to bring the numbers above 30 ng/mL, but according to some, optimal levels are above 50-60 ng/mL (this is the range I’d shoot for as I trust these sources, and here).

Obviously, what you need depends on your current levels, so again, getting tested is a must. I want to emphasize that vitamin D is the sun-nutrient, and in my opinion, getting adequate sunlight is the best approach. But I do realize that parts of the world get very little sunlight at various times of the year, so I am a believer in supplementation.

So, there is no easy answer to the “how much vitamin D” question. Get tested, find where you are, and then go from there. Hope that helps.

More bad news for junk food, as a recent study published in the journal Neurology shows that elderly people having higher levels of certain vitamins and omega 3 fatty acids in their blood score better on mental acuity tests than those who eat the junk.  Further, researchers found that eating better might even reduce the brain shrinkage associated with with Alzheimer’s disease. Booyah!

The study, conducted at Oregon State University, and one of the first of its kind, looked at 104 people at an average age of 87, and specifically measured a wide range of blood nutrient levels (instead of basing results on food questionnaires, which are less precise and less reliable).

“The vitamins and nutrients you get from eating a wide range of fruits, vegetables and fish can be measured in blood biomarkers,” said Traber Maret Traber, a principal investigator at the Linus Pauling Institute and study co-author. “I’m a firm believer these nutrients have strong potential to protect your brain and make it work better.”
Yes, so am I! I’ve been preaching for years. Always happy to see the science back up a universal truth–whole, natural foods are healing and health enhancing. We’ve gone through millions of years of evolution feeding ourselves the foods of the earth–can’t think of any Doritos shortages that challenged mankind, can you?
The principle vitamins they found to help neurological health are some of my personal favs–vitamins B, C, D and E, as well as the omega 3 fatty acids–which increased mental quickness and brain size.
Elderly people that had diets high in unnatural and unhealthy foods, like those laden with trans-fats, fared worse on cognitive tests. Although the researchers found that age and education had major effects on cognitive function and brain size, nutrient status accounted for 17% of the variation in scores, and 37% of the differences in brain volume.
Well, what can I say other than…been tellin’ ya. Eat well–it’ll take you far. This study looked at people with typical American diets–some good, some…well, not so much. But it’s not too late to make the switch–in fact, perfect time for the new year. 
I’ll leave it to study co-author Gene Bowman of the Oregon Health and Science University to conclude with, “It is very exciting to think that people could potentially stop their brains from shrinking and keep them sharp by adjusting their diet.” Indeed.

More evidence showing the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, as a large new study shows that people with low blood concentrations of this vital nutrient are at an increased risk for dying of any cause. Any cause? Yes, and even more startling was that  by simply boosting low levels with vitamin D supplementation it cut peoples’ risk of dying in half.

According to the latest study, which looked at 10,899 patients at the University of Kansas Hospital, 70% were deficient in vitamin D, and they were also at significantly higher risk for a variety of heart diseases, including  hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy and diabetes. D-deficiency also nearly doubled a person’s likelihood of dying, whereas correcting the deficiency with supplements lowered the risk of death by 60%.

rickets_boy

Rickets

These numbers highlight previous research that has shown many North Americans to have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D. While Rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has been well understood for years,  the degree to which blood levels of vitamin D play a role in overall health and well-being is just starting to become clear: We now know that levels falling below 30 ng/ml are incompatible with good health.

According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 25-57% of adults are vitamin D insufficient, while other studies have suggested the number is as high as 70%.  Cardiologists from the University of Kansas study have found that people deficient in D were more than two times as likely to have diabetes, 40% more likely to have high blood pressure and about 30% more likely to suffer from cardiomyopathy (diseased heart muscle) than people without D deficiency.”We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was,” said Dr. James L. Vacek, a professor of cardiology at the University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center. “It was so much more profound than we expected.”
Vacek believes that so many people are deficient because they aren’t getting enough sun. Humans should get 90% of their vitamin D from the sun, while only getting 10% from food. We need sunlight to make vitamin D in our bodies, so 20 minutes per day is the minimum necessary exposure to maintain proper blood levels. With the fear of skin cancer looming large, many have taken to using sunscreens to reduce total sun exposure.

130571880-18130246

Experts say that in the Northern United States and Canada the sun isn’t strong enough during winter months to make sufficient vitamin D, even if the weather was warm enough to induce people to expose their skin for an extended period. To combat this seasonal deficiency, adults should get vitamin D levels checked by their doctors, and take vitamin D supplements.
This study definitely comes at an opportune time, as many in the medical field have dismissed previous vitamin D research as inconclusive, particularly the role supplements can play in returning the health to normal (or optimal) for those suffering from deficiency. I have wondered  for some time why so many doctors and med-policy stiffs have been so adamant at denying the research results on vitamin D. The only thing I can think of is that they just despise being wrong. I don’t believe it’s a pharmaceutical industry conspiracy necessarily, as many have been wont to do, but purely a clinging to old, outdated beliefs; really that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me, in light of some pretty solid data. I can certainly understand the uncertainty, but many of the previous studies have been well done, and they are vast in number, so really…what’s the problem?
I just think the old guard will never accept that they were wrong about supplementation from the start, no matter how well-intentioned their skepticism might have been; and I think many are wrong today for advocating minimal sun exposure for the masses. Some increases in skin cancer can be from chronic pharmaceutical use, too, you know…particularly medications that are immunosuppressive. It was easy to blame skin cancer on the sun in the past, but that was wrong. The sun is the most life-giving source in the solar system—avoiding it is just unwise. This latest vitamin D study is simply more evidence to support a universal truth.

People that take oral steroid medications, particularly children, could be at an increased risk for serious vitamin D deficiency. So says a recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  Some conditions people take these drugs for are asthma, certain types of arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune diseases like Crohn’s disease, lupus and multiple sclerosis.

Researchers looked at nearly 23,000 Americans in a government health survey, and found that those using oral steroid medications were twice as likely as non-users to have a severe vitamin D deficiency. Eleven percent (2,530 people) of those on steroids had a vitamin D level below 10 ng/mL–far below the minimum requirement to remain healthy. That compared with five percent (1,150 people) of study participants not on steroids.

Blood levels of vitamin D lower than 10 ng/mL:

associated with the most severe deficiency diseases: rickets in infants and children, and osteomalacia in adults. A concentration above 15 ng/ml (37.5 nmol/L) is generally considered adequate for those in good health. Levels above 30 ng/ml (75 nmol/L) are proposed by some as desirable for achieving optimum health, but there is not yet enough evidence to support this. ~ Wikipedia (as of 10/31/11)

The link was especially strong among children. Steroid users younger than 18 were 14 times more likely to have a vitamin D deficiency than kids not taking the medications.

The authors of the study point out the findings do not prove causality, but this should alert doctors and parents to keep an eye on vitamin D levels of the children taking these drugs.  Something else parents can do is make sure their children are out in the sun as much as possible. Some parents may inadvertently keep their asthmatic kids indoors, but I think this is a mistake. Lots of sunshine is necessary for the production of vitamin D. At the very least, the inhaler should be countered each time with a good vitamin D supplement.

As the severity of vitamin D insufficiency in North America is dismissed, data showing its pervasiveness continues to accumulate.  The smart reader will continue to get plenty of sun-screen free sun, and supplement if necessary (not so for those getting sun daily). And making sure that if you or your child are on oral steroids, you get your blood vitamin D levels checked.

Two more reports out today showing a further necessity for improving vitamin D levels in North Americans–specifically women and children.  The first, a study showing that women with breast cancer and low vitamin D levels have more aggressive tumors and poorer outcomes, while the second showed vitamin D deficiency is common in American children and linked with obesity.

The first study conducted at the University of Rochester Medical Center (URMC) tracked 155 women who had surgery for breast cancer between January 2009 and September 2010.  Researchers looked at blood vitamin D levels of the women one year before and one year after the surgery.  They found an association between low vitamin D levels (less than 32 milligrams per milliliter of blood) and poor scores on every major biological marker used to predict a breast cancer patient’s outcome.

This is the first study to look at the link between vitamin D levels and breast cancer progression. Previous studies have concentrated on vitamin D deficiency and the risk of cancer development only.

The second study looked at vitamin D levels in 237 healthy obese and non-obese white and black children, aged 8 to 18; they found most to be vitamin D deficient.  But equally interesting is that they found low D levels in these children to be associated  with higher body mass index (BMI) and fat levels, and lower levels of “good” high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol.

You know, both of these studies really bring up only one thought in my mind–how are there still ‘experts’ claiming that supplementing with vitamin D is unnecessary?  A story published last year in the New York Times (which shockingly, some people still take as gospel) declared just that–that recommendations for vitamin D supplementation were primarily fueled by the vitamin industry.  I’m aghast that so-called respected media outlets (?) and health authorities are passing this advice.  They paint vitamin D proponents as dangerous…really?  I guess the old adage ‘for non-believers, no proof is sufficient’ really rings true.


I hope that people are wise enough to see the evidence before us.  Simple: most North Americans are not getting enough vitamin D; vitamin D insufficiency can lead to a plethora of health problems; children are at serious risk; and we don’t even know to what extent low vitamin D levels are affecting human health.

Choose your authorities wisely, people.  Hold onto the old guard experts and expect much of the ‘same-old, same-old’ for your health future.

I’m no sucker–I’m quitting the SPF. That’s right, we’ve been duped…badly. Made suckers by dermatologists, but no more.

SPF or sun protective factor is a measure of sunscreen lotions’ effectiveness at blocking out UV radiation. Sun protective lotions have pervaded our skin products and make-up. It’s everywhere, and it’s screwing people up. Here’s how:

Over the last decade for certain, and probably even longer, I have observed numerous clients (and one family member) in my Beverly Hills chiropractic office, with bandaged healing wounds on their faces, necks, shoulders and arms.

“What the heck is that,” I’d ask. “Oh, my dermatologist says it’s a mild form of skin cancer, so they removed it.” Some people would have like ten of these wounds on their head and shoulder regions. WTF???

OK, I’d think, I’m not going to question the dermatologists–they’re doctors! (hum of Mormon Tabernacle Choir crescendos in background) But why so many now, today? Why not a decade ago? Global warming?

More like dermatologic marketing. When you practice in a relatively useless and heavily impacted specialty like dermatology, the lack of viable cases can lead to stagnant revenue. So…why not scare the pants off people and pick a properly positioned political issue that fits in perfectly with dermatology–skin cancer! Yeah, that’ll work.

OK, so what’s the problem? Skin cancer exists, right? Yes, it certainly does, but the anti-sun campaign has led to some serious health consequences. We are currently in a vitamin D insufficiency epidemic. I’ve been very vocal about the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, and now I have a personal experience to boot.

My wife and I just got our vitamin D levels checked (if you haven’t done this, then do it soon–I can’t recommend it highly enough). Mine came back at 38, my wife’s 32. Anything over 35 is considered “normal.” So, my wife has entered dangerous territory, yet I’m not without risk either. According to some sources, optimal vitamin D levels are 50-65. And I take daily vitamin D supplements! What the heck???

Here’s what the heck. We’ve been fooled by a medical specialty trying to keep their heads above water–it’s been purely professional survival. Not buying it? Read my article on the dangers of vitamin D deficiency, get your vitamin D levels checked (I’ll bet they’re low), and then we’ll talk. Supplement with vitamin D and STOP using sunscreen regularly–only wear it when you know you’ll be baking in the sun all day. Get that crap out of your daily moisturizers, your make-up and any other daily product the marketing hounds have put it in. My next post will be on the direct dangers of using sunscreens that go beyond not getting enough vitamin D. Stay tuned.

Get those kids in the sun, parents–one out of every five American children aged 1 to 11 is vitamin D deficient. Dang! And the numbers are worse for blacks and Hispanics. Almost 90% of African American children and 80% of Hispanic children could be vitamin D deficient. Double Dang! All this coming from a new analysis at Harvard Medical School and Children’s Hospital in Boston.

Vitamin D deficiency can lead to many illnesses including infections, diabetes and even some cancers. Even the severity of asthma symptoms has been shown to be increased in children with low vitamin D levels. But the most common ailment attached to vitamin D deficiency is bone weakness, or rickets, common a century ago but still happening today with all to often frequency. D-D-D-Dang!

The RDA for treating and preventing rickets is 400 IU vitamin D daily, which can be obtained by drinking four glasses of fortified milk. Vitamin D can also be obtained from sun exposure, which unfortunately may be lacking in children residing in northern climates and those with darker skin tones. The explosion of computers and video games is also a risk factor for children that do not spend enough time outdoors. Further, many kids are not getting enough milk, cheese or fish–all good sources of vitamin D.

So what’s the answer? How about a good vitamin D supplement for junior? Can’t get them off the Madden 2010 and playing outdoors??? (many children found to be vitamin D deficient were also overweight or obese–D-D-D-Duh!). Then you’ve got to pick up a good supplement, period.

Then slap yourself across the noggin AND GET JUNIOR RUNNING OUTDOORS D-D-D-DANGIT! I mean, what’s the major malfunction??? It’s not rocket science: Kids need to be outdoors running, playing, wrestling, carousing, whatever–it’s the natural order of things. Video games–and that includes the Wiisorry–are for “sometimes“. That’s it, d-d-d-dagnamit! Vitamin D deficiency is no joke–don’t treat it like one.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.