Vitamin D3…Is the USDA recommended amount right?…How much is?

Video discusses vitamin d3 and the government recommended amounts (USDA)…Is that enough or not?

Vitamin D and depression: how SAD!

Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a type of winter-time depression experienced by people those who live in northern latitudes such as those of New York, Seattle, all of Canada, and Northern Europe.

I believe it is primarily a disorder of sunlight/vitamin D deficiency.

Vitamin D, when administered in late winter, produces a positive effect on mood in only five days.[1]

One theory for this is that vitamin D stimulates the brain to produce more serotonin.

In a wintertime experiment, serum vitamin D levels doubled in six months through supplementation and dramatically increased scores on a wellbeing assessment.[2]

Two groups were given either 1,000 IU or 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily. And although both groups improved, the higher dose produced better results.

In another investigation, researchers studied the association between vitamin D levels and the risk of mood disorders in the elderly.

The results were impressive. Those whose vitamin D levels were deficient—defined as less than 20 ng/ml—had 11.7 times the incidence of depression when compared to those whose vitamin D levels were highest.

Usually an association is considered meaningful when a measured factor correlates to a 50% increase or decrease.

In this case, the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and risk of mood disorders was a staggering 1,169 percent![3]

In addition, the researchers measured cognitive ability (mental capabilities).

In two of four tests, those with vitamin D deficiency exhibited cognitive performances that were 5.22 times and 3.22 times poorer than those who were not deficient.

Everyone that has ever ventured outside on a sunny spring day after a long winter, or even visited a tanning bed during winter, know how much the mood is elevated by the experience.

It is likely that the combination of light and vitamin D produce the effect.

Keep your vitamin D levels high this winter!

[1] Lansdowne, A. et al. Vitamin D3 enhances mood in healthy subjects during winter. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998;135:319-23.
[2] Vieth, R. et al. Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3 adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4,000 IU) per day on biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients. Nutr J 2004;3:8.
[3] Wilkins C. et al. Vitamin D Deficiency Is Associated With Low Mood and Worse Cognitive Performance in Older Adults. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry;2006;14:1032–1040).

The latest on vitamin D and cancer: Dr William Grant’s brilliant review.

Dr William Grant, who writes and compiles research as fast as I can read it, gave me a tremendous assist in keeping me abreast of the current research as I wrote my book.

His latest paper is entitled “How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer?

An examination using Hill’s criteria for causality[1]” Although the link between vitamin D deficiency and cancer should well-established, there are those who stubbornly demand more proof while millions more die of cancer caused by vitamin D deficiency.

In this paper, there is sufficient proof to convince all but the most biased reader.

He uses a well-accepted scientific assessment, known as Hill’s criteria for causality, which determines whether the presence or absence of one factor causes the presence of another.

In this case the “causal” factor is vitamin D deficiency, and the caused factor (result) is cancer.

Here are the qualifications for causality as established by Dr. A Bradford Hill:

1. Strength of association

2. Consistency (repeated observation)

3. Specificity (one agent, one result)

4. Temporality (exposure precedes effect)

5. Biological gradient (dose-response relation)

6. Plausibility (e.g., mechanisms)

7. Coherency (no serious conflict with the generally known facts
of the natural history and biology of the disease)

8. Experimental verification (randomized, controlled trial)

9. Analogy with other causal relationships

Using these criteria, Dr. Grant discusses the voluminous research pointing out that the vitamin D-deficiency theory of cancer causality in most deadly cancers satisfies most, if not all, of Hill’s criteria.

In other words, there is little doubt that vitamin D deficiency is a primary cause of cancer.

For those who are scientifically inclined, I suggest you read the paper, which you can find online by searching the citation below.

If you are not so inclined, take my word for it; this paper makes an irrefutable case.

Neglect your sunlight and your optimal vitamin D levels at your peril.

But remember, never burn!

[1] Grant, W. How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill’s criteria for causality Dermato-Endocrinology 2009:1:14-21.

Great news! An inexpensive vitamin D test is now available.

When I first started advising people to have their blood levels of vitamin D tested [25(OH)D or calcidiol], the cost for the test at our local LabCorp was about $150, which was prohibitively expensive. Though the prices have come down rapidly, most labs still charge as much as $60-$100. The great news is that Carol Baggerly, through her non-profit organization, Grassroots Health, has arranged for tests for only $30. The following is an excerpt from an email I received from Carol today:

1. Sign up to participate in an international effort to solve the vitamin D deficiency epidemic now.
2. Get your vitamin D tested for only $30 with a blood spot test from ZRT
logon to www.ordervitamindtest.org
3. Fill in the health questionnaire
4. Order your test kit–choose your subscription option; it’s a 5 year project and we need to have vitamin D measurements each 6 months for that period
Spread the word: get at least two more people to do the same.

The importance of this test cannot be overemphasized; it is the most critical of all blood tests, even surpassing tests for cholesterol, triglycerides, etc.

I have no financial interest in this testing and post this information simply to do my part in enhancing human health through vitamin D awareness. I also attest that at that price, Carole and her organization are making nothing; hers is a labor of love.

The test is available in every state but New York.

I told you so! A new study shows that vitamin D is critically important to prevent breast cancer.

There was an uproar recently about a study indicating that vitamin D supplementation had no affect on breast cancer risk.[1] The press picked it up and regurgitated it ad nauseam as if were the end-all-be all of scientific studies. I told you then that it was bad research because it used a miniscule quantity of vitamin D—400 IU per day—rather like trying to attack an elephant with a bb gun. In fact, a 400 IU daily supplementation for seven weeks has been shown to lead to reduced vitamin D levels in winter, whereas tanning bed exposure raises vitamin levels by 150% in the same time period.[2] It should be no surprise that a vitamin D supplement that is so tiny that it leads to deficiency would not help women to prevent breast cancer. Now we have a new study from Germany showing that women with the highest vitamin D levels have a 55% reduced risk of breast cancer compared to those with the lowest levels.[3] Another study showed that three years of supplementation with calcium and vitamin D correlated to a reduced risk of all cancers in women by up to 77%.[4] However, the supplementation was 1,100 IU per day, not 400. What can I say? I told you so. [1] Chlebowski R, et al. Calcium Plus Vitamin D Supplementation and the Risk of Breast Cancer. JNCI Published online 11-11- 2008. [2] Holick, M. et al. Boston University. “Effects Of Vitamin D And Skin’s Physiology Examined.” Science Daily 21 February 2008 . [3] Abbas, S. et al. Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D and premenopausal breast cancer risk in a German case-control study. Int J Cancer 2009;124:250-5. [4] Lappe, J. et al. Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:1586–91.