Vitamin D Supplementation VERY Effective

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

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

Rickets

These numbers highlight previous research that has shown many North Americans to have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D. Rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has been well understood for many years, but how much D levels play in overall health and well-being is just becoming to be understood more fully. Levels under 30 ng/ml are below what's necessary for good health.

According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 25-57% of adults are vitamin D insufficient, and other studies have suggested the number is as high as 70%.  Cardiologists from the University of Kansas study found that people with deficient levels of vitamin D were more than twice 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 we should get 90% of our vitamin D from the sun and only 10% from food. We need sunlight to make vitamin D in our bodies, so 20 minutes per day minimum exposure is necessary to maintain proper blood levels. With the fear of skin cancer looming, many have taken to using sunscreens to reduce sun exposure. 

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 expose the skin for a long time. To combat this, adults should get their vitamin D levels checked by their doctors and take vitamin D supplements. 

This study 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 a return to health from those deficient. I have wondered why so many doctors and medical policy stiffs have been so adamant at denying the research results on vitamin D, and the only thing I can think of is they just despise being wrong. I don't think its a pharmaceutical conspiracy like many tend to, but hanging on to old beliefs is the only way I can make sense of  the blindness in light of some pretty solid data. I mean I can understand skepticism, but previous studies have been fairly well done, and they are vast in number. 

I just think the old guard will never accept that they were wrong about supplementation from the start, no matter how well-intentioned they might have been; and I think many are wrong to advocate minimal sun exposure for the masses. Some increases in skin cancer can be from chronic pharmaceutical use, particularly those that are immunosuppressive. 

It was easy to blame the sun, but that was also 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 supporting the principle.

Choose Wisely: More on Vit D

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.

Vitamin D Insufficiency Linked to HBP

Wow!  More out of the vitamin-D-has-greater-importance-than-we-ever-thought camp: Low vitamin D levels in the blood lead to unhealthy blood vessels.  You heard right, new research shows a link between vitamin D concentrations and cardiovascular health.

A study conducted by researchers from the Emory/Georgia Tech Predictive Health Institute showed that participants with the lowest D levels had an increased blood pressure, and thus increased risk of heart disease and stroke.  Even more amazing is that when the participants increased their blood levels of vitamin D, their blood pressure went down.  Amazing...

Here's how they found out: The 554 participants in the study were Emory or Georgia Tech employees with an average age of 47 and in general good health.  Blood levels of vitamin D were measured.  The average concentration of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (a stable form of the vitamin reflecting diet as well as that produced in the skin) in participants' blood was 31.8 nanograms per milliliter.  In this group, 14% had 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels considered deficient (less than 20 nanograms per milliliter), and 33% had levels considered insufficient (less than 30 nanograms per milliliter).

Researchers monitored the blood vessels' ability to relax by using a blood pressure cuff.  To allow blood to flow back into the arm, blood vessels must relax and enlarge--a change measured by ultrasound.  The researchers also examined the resistance to blood flow imposed by the arteries.

After controlling for factors like age age, weight and cholesterol, people with lower vitamin D levels still had stiffer arteries and impaired vascular function.  Lead author Ibhar Al Mheid, MD, a cardiovascular researcher at Emory University School of Medicine said,

"We found that people with vitamin D deficiency had vascular dysfunction comparable to those with diabetes or hypertension."

The researchers believe that vitamin D acts to strengthen the endothelial cells and muscles that surround blood vessels.  Al Mheid also believes that it could be reducing levels of angiotensin, a hormone that drives increased blood pressure, or regulating inflammation.  Wow, I wonder what these results mean for the overuse of statins?

But again, the best part: Those study participants with low blood vitamin D levels that then increased their concentrations by either supplementing or spending more time in the sun, were rechecked after six months and showed improvement to their vascular health measures and lowered their blood pressure.  Booyah!  Forty-two participants with vitamin D insufficiency whose levels later went back to normal had an average drop in blood pressure of 4.6 mmHg.  The study's findings were reported at this year's annual American College of Cardiology meeting in New Orleans.

What can I say other than "heck yes!"  Why should I care about these results?  Because it makes the universe more understandable to me.  I know with certainty that human health operates within universal laws.  I know that the increased incidence of high blood pressure today is not due to a lack of statin medication.  I also know that health is not random (genetics), and that vitamin D insufficiency is epidemic in North America.  Furthermore, it is not lost on me that blood vitamin D levels are low in many people at a time when dermatologists have scared people out of the sunshine and into big hats and SPF5000.

Here is just some more evidence that sun energy is essential to human health.  Everybody needs unprotected sun exposure on a daily basis, period.  Supplementation helps, but nothing--and I mean nothing--beats the healing energy of our life-giving sun.

Vitamin D-Fence

Exciting news out of Finland: Vitamin D may provide protection against type 2 diabetes. In a recent study conducted by the National Public Health Institute, Helsinki, people with higher blood levels of vitamin D had a 40 percent lower risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those with lower levels of the vitamin.

And in another study, vitamin D was shown to lower the risk of developing many cancers. Wow! This study, conducted at Creighton University Medical School in Omaha, Nebraska, looked at 1,179 postmenopausal women who were free of any known cancers 10 years before the study started. The women were separated into three groups; one took calcium supplements, another, calcium supplements plus 1,100 IU vitamin D, and the third took placebo pills. After four years, the group taking the calcium plus vitamin D showed a 60% lower risk of developing cancer. But even more exciting was that after seven years, the risk was lowered by 77%. Booyah!

These finding show the mega-importance of taking a daily vitamin D supplement. According to this and other studies, taking three times the RDA levels of vitamin D3 (much better than the D2 derivative) will provide the beneficial effects. In practical terms it means taking 1,000 IU vitamin D3 every day. As experts point out, though, you never want to take more than 2,000 IU a day, as this can cause liver and kidney damage, among many other problems.

Vitamin D can be found naturally in fish and fish oils, and it is added to milk, cereals and orange juice. But the main source of vitamin D is the sun--ultraviolet rays stimulate the skin to produce vitamin D. Although the American Cancer Society acknowledges the finding "are intriguing", they are currently cautious about recommending supplementation. Most Americans, however, are deficient in this essential nutrient; and with the concerns about people getting "too much" sun, it stands to reason that supplementation is a must.

Just think, something as simple as supplementing with vitamin D can significantly lower your risk of developing type 2 diabetes and many cancers (breast, colon and ovarian). In my mind, it's a no-brainer. And the low cost of supplementation makes it an even more obvious health choice. According to Edward D. Gorham, adjunct professor of family and preventive medicine at the University of California, San Diego and a researcher on two vitamin D/cancer studies, "There's enough evidence to recommend that people take 1000 IU of vitamin D every day. Doing so would only cost about 5 cents per person per day and could prevent several thousand cancer deaths each year." If that ain't enough to get you supplementing, nothing will.

Vitamin D Prevents Arterial Disease?

You all know how I feel about vitamin D--I think supplementing with it is essential to good health. Vitamin D is necessary for bone growth and maintenance, proper immune function, and the regulation of many important metabolic functions like sugar regulation and parathyroid function. Now new findings suggest that vitamin D may protect against peripheral arterial disease.

Peripheral arterial disease, or PAD, is a disease of the blood vessels where blood flow is diminished due to hardening of the arterial walls which leads to narrowing or occlusion of the vessel. Diminished blood flow of PAD occurs most often in the leg and can lead to cramping, numbness and discoloration. Left untreated it could eventually lead to amputation.

The research was based on a government survey of 4,839 adults. Vitamin D levels were measured in the adults, and they found that the people in the lowest 25 percent of vitamin D levels were 80 percent more likely to have PAD than those in the highest 25 percent. Hmmm...very interesting.

It might be a little premature to make the connection between high vitamin D levels and a lowered risk of PAD. These findings may simply be due to the people with the highest vitamin D levels were just healthier overall. Perhaps they were regular exercisers, and perhaps they spent a lot of time outdoors. Vitamin D is produced in the skin when exposed to sunlight. Perhaps the group with the highest vitamin D levels eat well and perhaps some of them take supplements. These are all things which would need to be distinguished in a more specific research project. But these recent results are encouraging. Hey, I wouldn't be surprised. Vitamin D is amazing; and there are probably many other health benefits that we don't know of yet with some known vitamins and nutrients. I take vitamin D supplements regularly and so should you. If these findings regarding PAD are found to be correct, then you'll be ahead of the game.

Too Many Kids Vit D Deficient

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 Wii--sorry--are for "sometimes". That's it, d-d-d-dagnamit! Vitamin D deficiency is no joke--don't treat it like one.

Low Dietary Vit D Stroke Risk for Japanese-American Men

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.

Oral Steroids Linked to Vit D Deficiency

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.

Sun Me

Last post I discussed vitamin D insufficiency resulting from too little sun, and I'm not holding back knocking dermatologic scare tactics keeping people out of the sun. The addition of sunscreen lotions to our moisturizing products and makeup has become pervasive. Aside from keeping us from getting our necessary vitamin D, sunscreens have a direct effect on our health.

As a recap, we need sun exposure; sunlight causes the production of vitamin D in our skin. Vitamin D is necessary for many functions, and being low in vitamin D can cause a bevy of problems. I'm not going over all of them here. I've written plenty of posts on vitamin D insufficiency; they are all here (here, here, and here). I also recommend reading my article on vitamin D--it'll direct you on how to get tested and find out your vitamin D levels. Vitamin D insufficiency is epidemic today, and people are developing chronic illness as a result. Educate yourself on the dangers, get tested, take supplements and get sun, that simple.

What I want to discuss is the direct danger of using sunscreen. This product has been so ingrained into our lifestyle that people accept it's safety as if it were soap. I encourage you to think twice. Let's look:

Melanin, the brown pigment that is released when skin is exposed to sunlight, absorbs UV radiation and dissipates the energy as harmless heat, blocking the UV rays from damaging skin tissue. It is nature's amazing photoprotectant--more than 99.9% of these molecules repel photon energy. Compare this to some ingredients in popular sunscreens--the most effective only repelling 81% photon energy, and some as low as 10%.

Because of its poor dissipation of photon energy, sunscreens actually allow more free radical formation. My regular readers know what these damaging chemicals are, but for those of you who don't, free radicals oxidize molecules and tissue potentially leading to cancer and other degenerative diseases including premature aging.

Not only are sunscreens poor photoprotectants, but some of their ingredients have been implicated as increasing the concentration of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which can also cause oxidative damage to DNA, cells and tissues leading to inflammatory diseases and premature aging. In one study, the sunscreen acted as a protector for the first twenty minutes; after 60 minutes, however, it increased the number of ROS in the skin.

Some studies (also here and here) have even implicated sunscreen as increasing the risk of developing malignant melanoma, the deadliest of all skin cancers. However, two meta-analyses (and here) failed to show a causal effect of sunscreen use on melanoma development, despite the correlation found in the other studies. So the jury is still out on whether sunscreen increases the skin cancer risk.

What is pretty clear, though, is the health risk posed by some of the synthetic compounds found in sunscreens. From Wikipedia:

In 2007 two studies by the CDC highlighted concerns about the sunscreen chemical oxybenzone (benzophenone-3). The first detected the chemicals in greater than 95% of 2000 Americans tested, while the second found that mothers with high levels of oxybenzone in their bodies were more likely to give birth to underweight baby girls.

Finally, there has been some concern over nanoparticles used in many sunscreens. Nanoparticles could increase rates of certain cancers or diseases similar to those caused by asbestos.

With all the potential dangers linked to using sunscreens, along with their blocking our vitamin D producing capacity (as well as studies showing sun exposure lowering death rates of cancer patients), why the heck would anybody continue using them regularly? Like I said last post--I'm done. I'm getting my daily sun sans sunscreen. If I go to the beach, I'll put some on after about twenty minutes, then I'll get under my umbrella. Short bouts of sun, that's it. That's how I'm doing it. How 'bout you?

Vitamin D Better Than Flu Shot

Health care trumps sick care again, but this time on the road. That's right, health care traveled to sick care's arena--the illness center--and beat sick care at its own game. Booyah!

A recent Japanese study showed that children taking 1,200 IU of vitamin D supplements daily during the winter and early spring helped prevent seasonal flu and asthma attacks. A timely victory in my analysis of true health care versus government-championed sick care.

Sick care pushes the seasonal flu shot, which my regular readers might recall has been fingered by experts as inconclusive in its effectiveness. Proponents of health care, on the other hand, myself included, really push upping the vitamin D intake. I think 1,200 IU is pretty good for children, and most adults need much more, like 5,000 IU per day. As we become more aware of the pervasiveness of vitamin D insufficiency in all Americans, including children, getting adequate sunlight and supplementing becomes paramount.

The study conducted at Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo showed that children taking the vitamin D supplements were almost half as likely as catching the flu as those taking placebo. And as an added benefit, children taking vitamin D were almost six times less likely to suffer an asthma attack. Holy inhalers! That's quite a hit to pharmaceutical manufacturers. You mean, that a simple $8 bottle of vitamin D can prevent what a $30.00-$60.00 Albuterol inhaler treats. Well bless my Obamacare--I wonder if vitamin D is covered on the plan.

According to Dr. Adit Ginde, of University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health: "This is the first time a study has been done that rigorously shows that vitamin D supplementation can reduce a type of influenza in a dedicated clinical trial." Ginde and colleagues published a study a year ago showing that asthmatics with lower vitamin D levels were at five times the risk for colds and flu.

Take that, sick care. Another victory in the arena of truth in health. I'll keep 'em coming.

I'm Quitting SPF

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.

Vitamin D Testing Determines "How Much?"

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.

Higher Vitamin D Levels Necessary

Aw yeh...looks like vitamin D proponents might be right: higher blood concentrations of the sun-vitamin dramatically cut the risk of several major diseases, including breast cancer.  Booyah!  A recent study shows that adults need 4,000-8,000 IU per day to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases--breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis and type 1 diabetes.

Some in the scientific community had warned of toxicity related to increased levels of vitamin D in the blood, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) even noted there were preliminary signals that there might be some harms associated with consuming high levels of vitamin D daily, even at amounts under the recommended upper safe limit.  But the IOM since last year has deemed 4,000 IU a day safe, a much lower level than the 10,000 IUs they consider to be at the lowest level of potential risk.

The study looked at several thousand people who took supplements ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 IU per day.  The volunteers also underwent blood tests to determine vitamin D metabolite levels circulating in their blood.  Researchers were surprised by what they found, that the levels required to ward of illnesses like cancer were so much higher than the 400 IU a day needed to vanquish rickets in the 20th century.

Well I, of course, love these results because I'm a BIG proponent of vitamin D supplementation.  Studies have uncovered that many North Americans are deficient in this essential life-giving nutrient.  Chalk it up to our fear of melanoma--thanks dermatologists.  Either way, this study is good evidence that supplementing is safe and effective at warding off chronic illnesses.  Give the body what it needs and it will do what it's supposed to do.  Guaranteed.

More Benefits to Vitamin D

You've probably read my earlier post on vitamin D and therefore know how important I think it is to the overall health of an adult. But new findings show that supplementing vitamin D early on is also very healthy for children. According to a British study, giving infants extra vitamin D (that is, above and beyond what they are getting from milk and sunlight) reduced the risk of children developing Type 1 diabetes by almost 30%.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic condition in which the body is unable to produce enough insulin to bring sugar into the cells. As a result, sugar builds up in the blood and damages various tissues and organs. Along with regular tobacco and alcohol use, high blood sugar is one of the most damaging conditions known to man--it leads to many diseases and disorders including amputations, blindness, kidney failure, and the list goes on and on and on...

Once a person develops Type 1 diabetes, they have it for life, and they'll have to give themselves insulin shots forever. Isn't it comforting to know that by just supplementing with a little vitamin D, your child stands a greater chance of warding off this dreaded disease? It does to me. So guess whose little angel is getting daily vitamin D supplements?

Subtle Lies in Drug Advertising

I just happened to see this commercial on T.V. today for an osteoporosis drug being plugged by The Flying Nun. I have to say, it got me a little PO'd. Here's why: The opening line is a blatant distortion of the truth, and with a little investigation, one will find that Ms. Sally Field isn't being exactly honest about her story, either. But, distortions are precisely what these commercials are geared for...to sell more drugs.

"I always thought calcium and vitamin D and exercise would keep my bones healthy, but I got osteoporosis anyway, so my doctor started me on once a month Boniva...," is how the piece begins. Hmm. As far as I was taught, that's exactly what women must do to prevent osteoporosis. Was there something I missed in doctor school? Let me do some fact checking, I thought.

Sally Field, also known as Norma Rae, was diagnosed with osteoporosis in 2005. She was, according to her own accounts, a regular exerciser. But did she really keep up with the nutritional requirements necessary to prevent the bone-thinning disease? Not according to this article on WebMD, which discloses that her vitamin D levels were, in fact, LOW!!! Thank you, I thought so.

When I saw the commercial, the first thing coming to mind was that people who don't know better are going to think that their current preventive routine of good diet and exercise isn't enough. And in truth, if you are missing a step--women or men--you aren't doing enough. You must take daily calcium (1,000 mg for women under 50, and 1,200 mg thereafter), daily vitamin D (1,000 mg) and do weight bearing exercises regularly (so cardio alone is not enough, ladies). Asian and Caucasian women are at the highest risk, but don't be fooled my African American and Hispanic sisters, you can get osteoporosis, too.

Pharmaceutical companies want you to question what you're doing currently, so that you'll go ask your doctor if you need Boniva (way too many people asking their doctors for drugs by name these days). That leads to the greatest amount of drug sales. It's called DTC (direct-to-consumer) marketing, and we know it works. Pharmaceutical sales have skyrocketed since the practice started. From Source Watch:

A November 2006 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office report noted that "studies we reviewed found that increases in DTC advertising have contributed to overall increases in spending on both the advertised drug itself and on other drugs that treat the same conditions. For example, one study of 64 drugs found a median increase in sales of $2.20 for every $1 spent on DTC advertising. Consumer surveys suggest that DTC advertising increases utilization of drugs by prompting some consumers to request the advertised drugs from their physicians, who studies find are generally responsive to these requests. The surveys we reviewed found that between 2 and 7 percent of consumers who saw DTC advertising requested and ultimately received a prescription for the advertised drug."

And the use of celebrities, and now celebrity doctors, increases the likelihood that consumers pay attention to a drug campaign; thus the use of Gidget in GlaxoSmithKline's Boniva commercials.

Now you might say, "Isn't DTC better for public health, to become better aware of illnesses and to catch them early?" To that I'd say, "Catching illness early is always better than catching it late, but prevention is even better. And best of all is living a lifestyle that promotes and maintains good health. That is done by getting proper nutrition, hydration, rest, exercise and bodywork, not by taking drugs."

Taking drugs is useful as a last line of defense. But the pharmaceutical industry, and let's face it, the entire medical paradigm, pushes drug use as a first line of defense. Oh, they'll pay lip service to healthy behaviors, but that's all they're doing. Nobody is paying Jack LaLane big bucks to sell gym memberships (yes, I know, but the juicers are his).

So I appreciate Nora Walker's dedication to fighting osteoporosis. But being dishonest about her experience to make the story sound better and get people to ask their doctors about Boniva, a post-menopausal osteoporosis drug, isn't helping the public health at all. It's simply perpetuating an already faulty paradigm that has people trying to maintain their health from the outside in, instead of the inside out, the way it's supposed to be.

Get Smart!

My wife told me today of a mommy she met at the park. The mommy asked my wife if she gives my daughter soy milk. My wife said no - we don't drink it so she didn't really see the point in starting my daughter on it. The mommy then said she only gives her child soy milk, and never cow's milk, although she has been noticing her child's teeth were decaying.

Now, pediatricians will o.k. a child's drinking soy milk instead of cow's milk if the soy product is fortified with vitamin D and calcium. That's because soy milk is not as great a source of these two nutrients. Furthermore, soy milk contains compounds - called phytates - that decrease the absorption of calcium and other minerals. Vitamin D is necessary for proper bone development, immune function and cell growth. Calcium is necessary for healthy bones, muscles, blood vessels, and nerves. Both nutrients play a major role in tooth development and health. Deficiency in either can cause weakened or underdeveloped bones and teeth, including tooth decay.

O.k. here's my problem with what my wife told me. I think there is a major cultural shift happening in this country, and it's towards natural health. I'm all for natural health - heck, I'm a chiropractor, for crying out loud (and I did write a book about it - The Six Keys to Optimal Health) - however, I think that if you are going to do things naturally, you've got be smart about it.

You see, the medical paradigm is actually the safest alternative for people who do not want to think for themselves. On a purely statistical basis, medical wisdom is the safest, lowest maintenance way to care for your body. Do what your doctor tells you and, for the most part (probably around 75% - I'm pulling this number out of my keester, but it's more for illustrating a point, anyway), you should be o.k. True, for the minority of people, following the conventional wisdom might be harmful, useless, or minimally beneficial at best. So for these people, thinking outside of the box is often necessary.

That's where "alternative" health practices originated (and in this case we're discussing natural, but it can just as well mean any other alternative therapy - magnets, leaches, exorcisms, whatever); they came from man's desire to heal himself outside of what he was told worked, but, unfortunately, hadn't for him (or his parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, etc.). As the alternative therapy began helping more people, it began to rise within the mainstream, moving closer, itself, to becoming conventional wisdom.

Here's the point: if you are going to practice natural or alternative health methods, be informed. Don't give your child a product without knowing everything about that product, and definitely do not substitute a well-known health product (vitamin/nutrient) for one of today's latest health-food flavors of the month. I know, I know, soy is safe - I just said it, didn't I? However, if you notice your child's teeth decaying - WAKE UP! Either look it up and educate yourself, or call your pediatrician or dentist and find out if there's a vitamin deficiency causing it.

The bottom line is this - if you are going to be the master of your own health, then you gotta know the way to do it: read the instructions, watch the demonstration video, take the weekend seminar. If you don't have the time to buck up, then just do what conventional wisdom (read: modern medical science) tells you - it's simply the safest way to go.

Vegetarianism and Health Rant

A reader recently commented on a piece I wrote on vegetarianism and vitamin/protein deficiency.  She said I was wrong when I commented that people should "drop the vegetarian thing" if they wanted to improve their health.  She said she the vegetarians she knows are "extremely healthy," as they eat eggs, cheese, and some even fish.  She essentially asked me if she's missing the point, or is it just me that's crazy (just kidding, Caroline).

By all means I stand by my original point: It is difficult for vegetarians to get sufficient protein.  Now I'm not saying there are no healthy vegetarians--that would be ludicrous; but I will say that many vegetarians I have met don't appear as healthy-looking to me.  Does that mean they are not healthy?  No.  It's just an observation.  However, saying that, I do look at people all day, almost every day--I am paid to evaluate health.  But can I prove my observations?  No.

What I am quite certain of is that vegetarians, like all people, need a proper intake of protein on a daily basis.  As far as I know, eating fish is not vegetarian, so we don't have to discuss that any further.  But, yes, an ovo-lacto vegetarian should probably be okay, provided he or she is getting enough protein every day.

My reader was right when she pointed out that people who eat no meat, fish, eggs or dairy are called vegans.  These people need to get their protein from vegetable sources--beans, avocados, nuts, grains, and so on.  Everybody needs a minimum amount of protein every day (women 46 grams of protein per day, men 56 grams), therefore each meal should contain some.

Since we can all anecdotally speak of whom we know or what our personal experiences are, let it be stated that mine are just opinions.  But since opinions are like...well, you know...I've got one too, and I am not afraid to share it.

Yes, vegetarians are often skinny.  Big deal!  Skinny ain't health.  In fact, for people that exercise, children and teens, and pregnant/lactating women, protein is needed big-time.  I wouldn't recommend vegetarianism (sorry, veganism) to any of these groups unless it's a part of a long-standing cultural practice.  For Americans that have picked up vegetarianism for their political beliefs (call it humanitarian, call it what you will), if you are in one of the groups mentioned above--well, I wouldn't do it.

So my original article was in response to a woman that called me about her 17-year-old daughter who was having some cognitive difficulties.  She suspected vitamin deficiency, and was asking about vitamin testing.  HELLO!  Seventeen-year-old girl, mother concerned about vitamin deficiency?  I stand by my assessment and would say it again and again and again (oh...I guess I am now)--DROP THE VEGETARIANISM.  Give that girl a steak, send her to the gym, slap a little sense into the little princess--you are too young to be playing with your health that way.  The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada warn that poorly planned vegan diets can be deficient in vitamin B₁₂, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.

We have canine teeth for a reason.  Duh!  We are meant to eat a variety of foods, meat included.  Yes, vegetarians can survive.  They are skinny (couldn't have anything to do with that in a seventeen-year-old girl, now could it?).  But healthy?  Don't know.  I certainly wouldn't take the chance with my daughters.

But hey...for some people their politics is their religion.  Wouldn't eat a slaughtered animal but no problem eating a plant violently pulled from the ground, removed from it's life source.  Imagine that...taking the life of a living thing.  Or should plant life be minimized?  To the people that vehemently (and for some, violently) oppose meat eating, pick up a biology book and learn something about the life cycle--life must consume life--crazy thing that.

For those that want to be vegetarians, please...go ahead.  But when it comes to your kids' health, make sure they do it the right way, that's all.

Thank you Caroline for stimulating my thoughts...or rant...whichever.

Essential Vitamins for Total Body Wellness

Vitamins are an important part of nutritional health, but they are not meant to stand alone.  Vitamins are to supplement a healthy diet, one rich in whole, natural foods.  However, I believe that receiving all the necessary nutrients from the diet alone, in this day and age, is nearly impossible.  To enjoy optimal health, then, supplementing with good vitamins is essential. 

Watch the video below to find out what I call the basics as far as vitamin supplements go.  You'll also get a basic understanding of how each vitamin works to bring you optimal nutritional health.

For more on essential fatty acids, vitamin B, vitamin C, and vitamin D, you can check my chiropractic website to get the most up-to-date nutritional information.  And if you are looking for a nutritional consultation, you can call my Los Angeles sports chiropractic office to set one up.

When it comes to great health, your nutrition is vital; and supplementing with essential vitamins is the wisest choice to make.

Prostate Cancer Prevention Cap, Hold the Foam

Good news for men who drink coffee: Java might prevent prostate cancer. Yes! And my other favorite pastime--exercise--might prevent it as well. But wait fellas, it gets even better: BEER might prevent prostate cancer, too! Damn, life can be good.

Prostate cancer is the most common non-skin cancer in America--more common than breast cancer, more common than colon cancer. More than 192,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer this year, and more than 27,000 men will die from the disease. Dang!

Prostate cancer is uncontrolled cell growth in the prostate gland--the walnut shaped gland that sits beneath the bladder and produces an alkaline solution that protects sperm in the acid environment of the vagina. Prostate cancer starts as primary tumors in the gland itself but can travel--or metastasize--to other parts of the body, particularly the bones or lymph nodes.

Prostate cancer is generally slow-growing--good news as it can be caught early in many cases with good treatment outcomes. Prostate cancer is also preventable through ejaculation frequency (that's right master baiters, clearing out the ducts can be beneficial, but beware hairy palms), taking omega 3 fatty acids, vitamin B6, vitamin D, and now drinking coffee, beer and exercising.

In Harvard's Health Professionals Follow-Up Study on coffee and prostate cancer, there was a clear relationship between the amount of coffee consumed and prostate cancer risk: The more coffee men drank, the more positive the effect observed. Caffeine was not the protective substance, however, as decaffeinated coffee also showed positive results. Researchers believe it has something to do with insulin and glucose metabolism. As one of the scientists put it, "A number of studies have found that coffee is associated with a reduced risk of diabetes." The researchers cautioned that the link is not yet fully conclusive...but it certainly looks good.

The second study showed that the death rate from prostate cancer for men who exercised vigorously was 12 percent lower than for those who didn't. Although researchers do not know exactly why exercise protects against prostate cancer, it might have something to do with immune function and reduced inflammation.

Finally, recent reports tell of the protective properties of a substance found in beer, xanthohumol, which in tests blocked a biological pathway that allows prostate cancer to be fueled by the male hormone testosterone. Yay! Don't fret ladies, they also found that xanthohumol blocks estrogen receptors, which may lead to prevention of breast cancer. Double yay!

So drink up, gents (and ladies have a pint, too). If beer is not your thing, then have a cup of Joe, and do thirty minutes on the treadmill. You'll be doing the right thing for your prostate that way.