A+ for Vitamin D

Not all Ds are bad. You should add some to your health report card according to Dr. David Servan-Schreiber and a growing number of scientists.

Dr. Servan-Schreiber is the author of a book I heartily recommend because of how helpful it’s been in my own battle with cancer. Evidently others agree as Anticancer: A New Way of Life is now the number one selling book on cancer in the world.

The good doctor also has a great website with lots of helpful data. I just read the article on the role vitamin D plays in preventing cancer and other diseases.

“Substantial scientific evidence now exists supporting the role of vitamin D in prevention of cancer. Multiple research findings have reasonably established that an adequate serum vitamin D status is independently associated with substantially lower incidence rates of several types of cancer, including breast, colon, ovary, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (my type of cancer) and several other types.

“The appropriate intake of vitamin D for cancer risk reduction depends on the individual’s age, skin type, lifestyle, and latitude of residence. Recent scientific evidence indicates that intakes of 1000–2000 IU per day could prevent a substantial proportion of cancers and would also be effective in reducing risks of falls, fractures, heart diseases and strokes, multiple sclerosis and type I childhood diabetes.”

My family physician put me on vitamin D months ago for my general health; I’m encouraged to learn of its cancer-fighting properties. I take a D3 supplement daily. The 2,000 I.U.s are five times the MDR (Minimum Daily Requirement), which is set way too low.

Vitamin D is inexpensive, easy to take and normally has no side effects. There’s little danger of toxicity unless you take mega-doses (10,000 I.U.s) over several months.

Bottom Line: aDD more “D” to your Diet.

Don’t Delay!


One thought on “A+ for Vitamin D

  1. D is for don’t.

    most people in northern latitudes have a deficiency that needs to be corrected, true?.

    RECOMMENDED Summer Sunlight Exposure Levels Can Produce Sufficient (20 ng ml−1) but Not the Proposed Optimal (32 ng ml−1) 25(OH)D Levels at UK Latitudes
    Note that “only 2.9 % have proposed optimal levels of 32  ng/ ml” [80 nmol/L]
    Now why is it that 97% of people have lower concentrations of vitamin D in their blood than the putative ‘optimum’?
    Could it have something to do with this
    IN the Framingham study the lowest cardiovascular disease risks were found in participants with with baseline 25(OD)D levels of 20 to 25 ng/ml, but increased with both higher and lower values suggesting that increased cardiovascular risk occurred at levels below 30 ng/ml.”
    The heart attack risk is increased at lower levels than are now being considered optimum levels, that’s just one disease so maybe there is a trade off and on balance the attaining the higher levels and reducing risks of all the other diseases will lead to a longer heathier life?

    IN NHANES III higher mortality was observed in participants with 25 OH)D above 49ng/ml”.
    That English UVB exposure does not put vitamin D levels up to 32 nm/ml in 97 % of people is obviously because
    either :-
    A – Natural selection hasn’t got round to it yet, 97% of the English are still adapted to running around with no clothes on.

    B – It wouldn’t be good for them to have levels that high.

    Mad dogs and ….

    CONTRARY to what is expected, many studies have come to the conclusion that vitamin D concentrations are generally higher among people in northern Europe than among people in southern Europe [30], [31]. Our average serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are in line with the earlier Swedish values estimated in the MORE study [30]. These values were, independent of season, approximately 30% higher than the average among people from central and southern Europe. The results have been explained by a diet containing more vitamin D-fortified foods, lighter skin and wearing lighter clothing when being outdoors during the summer [30], [31]. Our results indicate that our genes, as well as environmental factors, contribute to our vitamin D status. Higher vitamin D concentrations in northern countries may have a genetic basis.

    Why are Europeans white?

    For a given amount of sun whites will have higher levels of vitamin D than blacks for genetic reasons, in fact they have higher levels for the same exposure than even southern Europeans. There are dangers in humans of tropical ancestry trying to raise their vitamin d levels to Northern Europeans’ natural levels, let alone trying to attain the very high putative ‘optimums’ that are now close to being officially recommended for everbody and which only 3% of English people reach with normal sun exposure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s