From the Vitamin D Council Website
The Vitamin D Newsletter September 2009 — Special Report
Vitamin D and H1N1 Swine Flu
This is an announcement to alert readers to a crucial email I received from a physician who has evidence vitamin D is protective against H1N1. I ask you, the reader, to contact your representatives in Washington to help protect Americans, especially children, from H1N1 before winter comes.
Dr. Cannell: Your recent newsletters and video about Swine flu (H1N1) prompted me to convey our recent experience with an H1N1 outbreak at Central Wisconsin Center (CWC). Unfortunately, the state epidemiologist was not interested in studying it further so I pass it on to you since I think it is noteworthy.
CWC is a long-term care facility for people with developmental disabilities, home for approx. 275 people with approx. 800 staff. Serum 25-OHD has been monitored in virtually all residents for several years and patients supplemented with vitamin D.
In June, 2009, at the time of the well-publicized Wisconsin spike in H1N1 cases, two residents developed influenza-like illness (ILI) and had positive tests for H1N1: one was a long-term resident; the other, a child, was transferred to us with what was later proven to be H1N1.
On the other hand, 60 staff members developed ILI or were documented to have H1N1: of 17 tested for ILI, eight were positive. An additional 43 staff members called in sick with ILI. (Approx. 11–12 staff developed ILI after working on the unit where the child was given care, several of whom had positive H1N1 tests.)
So, it is rather remarkable that only two residents of 275 developed ILI, one of which did not develop it here, while 103 of 800 staff members had ILI. It appears that the spread of H1N1 was not from staff-to-resident but from resident-to-staff (most obvious in the imported case) and between staff, implying that staff were susceptible and our residents protected. Sincerely, Norris Glick, MD Central Wisconsin Center Madison, WI
This is the first hard data that I am aware of concerning H1N1 and vitamin D. It appears vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1. Dr. Carlos Carmago at Mass General ran the numbers in an email to me. Even if one excludes 43 staff members who called in sick with influenza, 0.73% of residents were affected, as compared to 7.5% of staff. This 10-fold difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).
Dr. Cannell: Thanks for your update about the hospital in Wisconsin. I have had similar anecdotal evidence from my medical practice here in Georgia. We are one of the 5 states with widespread H1N1 outbreaks.
I share an office with another family physician. I aggressively measure and replete vitamin D. He does not. He is seeing one to 10 cases per week of influenza-like illness.
In my practice— I have had zero cases. My patients are universally on 2000–5000 IU to maintain serum levels 50–80 ng/ml. Ellie Campbell, DO Campbell Family Medicine 3925 Johns Creek Court Ste A Suwannee GA 30024
That’s good news. Now, if we just had a way for the CDC and the NIH to pay attention.
Critics say we should not recommend vitamin D to prevent influenza until it is proven to do so (It has not been).
The critics are thus saying, although they seem not to know it, you should be vitamin D deficient this winter until science proves being vitamin D sufficient is better than being Vitamin D deficient. Such advice is clearly unethical and has never ever been the standard of care.
This is not rocket science. If I am wrong, and Vitamin D does not prevent influenza, what is lost? A few dollars. If they are wrong, and it does prevent influenza, what is lost? So far, the CDC says 41 kids are dead from H1N1, and the flu season has not yet started.
John Jacob Cannell MD Executive Director
Monday, October 26, 2009
Thursday, October 22, 2009
HEADLINE STORY: ACS bombshell admits cancers are being over-diagnosed. Melanoma could lead the list.
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 Headline Story
OCT. 22, 2009 — An American Cancer Society bombshell declaring that cancer screenings themselves are responsible for over-diagnosis of cancer most likely applies more to skin cancer diagnosis than any other cancer.
“Over-diagnosis” of cancer — the practice of calling benign growths “cancer” thereby creating a cavalcade of unintended health care consequences - is enough of a public issue that ACS this week issued a statement saying that the benefits of “screening” for many cancers, which in many cases leads to overdiagnosis, has been overstated.
“We don’t want people to panic. But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated,” Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told the New York Times in a story published Wednesday.
The story targeted mainly prostate cancer screenings. “The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths,” the Times reported.
But a study published in the British Medical Journal last month showed that melanoma skin cancer incidence is not really increasing, but that aggressive screening has led to an increase in diagnosis — a finding suggested more than a decade ago by Emory University dermatologists.
“In recent years there has been a sharp rise in reported cases of malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. But a British study has found evidence that the epidemic may be due at least in part to ‘diagnostic drift,’ a growing tendency to identify and treat benign lesions as malignant cancers,” The Times reported in a Sept. 28 story. “The findings may raise the temperature in an already-heated controversy.”
Broken down by thickness, the British study showed that only the thinnest lesions were increasing and that the cure rate of removal of those lesions was 100 percent, raising questions as to whether or not they were truly malignant lesions or simply benign tissue.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, told The Times.
According to The Times article, “Finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.”
OCT. 22, 2009 — An American Cancer Society bombshell declaring that cancer screenings themselves are responsible for over-diagnosis of cancer most likely applies more to skin cancer diagnosis than any other cancer.
“Over-diagnosis” of cancer — the practice of calling benign growths “cancer” thereby creating a cavalcade of unintended health care consequences - is enough of a public issue that ACS this week issued a statement saying that the benefits of “screening” for many cancers, which in many cases leads to overdiagnosis, has been overstated.
“We don’t want people to panic. But I’m admitting that American medicine has overpromised when it comes to screening. The advantages to screening have been exaggerated,” Dr. Otis Brawley, the American Cancer Society’s chief medical officer, told the New York Times in a story published Wednesday.
The story targeted mainly prostate cancer screenings. “The cancer society, which with more than two million volunteers is one of the nation’s largest voluntary health agencies, does not advocate testing for all men. And many researchers point out that the PSA prostate cancer screening test has not been shown to prevent prostate cancer deaths,” the Times reported.
But a study published in the British Medical Journal last month showed that melanoma skin cancer incidence is not really increasing, but that aggressive screening has led to an increase in diagnosis — a finding suggested more than a decade ago by Emory University dermatologists.
“In recent years there has been a sharp rise in reported cases of malignant melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. But a British study has found evidence that the epidemic may be due at least in part to ‘diagnostic drift,’ a growing tendency to identify and treat benign lesions as malignant cancers,” The Times reported in a Sept. 28 story. “The findings may raise the temperature in an already-heated controversy.”
Broken down by thickness, the British study showed that only the thinnest lesions were increasing and that the cure rate of removal of those lesions was 100 percent, raising questions as to whether or not they were truly malignant lesions or simply benign tissue.
“Overdiagnosis is pure, unadulterated harm,” Dr. Barnett Kramer, associate director for disease prevention at the National Institutes of Health, told The Times.
According to The Times article, “Finding those insignificant cancers is the reason the breast and prostate cancer rates soared when screening was introduced, Dr. Kramer said. And those cancers, he said, are the reason screening has the problem called overdiagnosis — labeling innocuous tumors cancer and treating them as though they could be lethal when in fact they are not dangerous.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
UV Exposure Is Good For What Ails You
UV Exposure Is Good For What Ails You by Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith 10/16/2009
In “The Truth About The Recent IARC Report,” we said that a deficient/insufficient blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) plays a critical role in the development of more than 60 diseases and medical conditions. But why is vitamin D so critical for our health and wellbeing? Because every cell and organ in the human body requires an optimal level of vitamin D to function normally.
Let’s play the “What If” game for a moment: What if one of the large pharmaceutical companies announced that they had developed a new wonder drug that promised to reduce the incidence and mortality of more than 60 diseases and conditions? Needless to say, the stock price of the company would skyrocket and they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for this product.
But, what if the company announced that, for every 500 deaths prevented by this new product, one person might die prematurely each year because of the adverse side effects of the product? Most likely, people would conclude that a benefit-to-risk ratio of 500 to 1 indicates the benefits exceed the risks.
And what if there was an alternative to the new drug that promised the same benefits but it was known to have toxicity problems if ingested in high doses and there had never been a long-term prospective study proving that the alternative is as good as the new drug? It’s quite possible that those two factors might influence people to opt for the wonder drug rather than the alternative.
OK, game over. Back to vitamin d—also known as ...
Mother Nature’s Wonder Drug
Individuals who maintain an optimal health blood level of vitamin D significantly reduce their risk of developing many diseases and conditions. And, recent studies show that individuals with the highest vitamin D blood levels dramatically reduce their risk of dying from any cause. We have long recommended maintaining a vitamin D blood level of 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) even when most vitamin D experts were only recommending 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). Although we are pleased most experts are currently recommending our target level, new evidence leads us to believe that 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) should really be the minimum level for optimal health and that the new target level should be 175 – 200 nmol/L (70 – 80 ng/mL). (And, we predict that new target level will be universally adopted within the next five years.)
So, what is the average vitamin D level? A recent study indicates that the average vitamin D (25-OH-D) blood level worldwide is 54 nmol/L (21.5 ng/mL). Another study showed that―in sunlight-drenched southern Arizona―the average level was only 10 nmol/L higher at 64 nmol/L (25.6 ng/mL). Clearly, there is a huge gap between the level required for optimal health and the average level found around the world, even for individuals who live in sunlight-rich environments year-round.
What does the average vitamin D level tell us? The huge gap between the actual and recommended blood level of vitamin D tells us three things. First, it tells us that the recommendation for five to 15 minutes of sunlight exposure to your face and hands two or three times per week is woefully inadequate. Second, it tells us that either people are not taking daily vitamin D supplements or they are not taking a supplement with a dose high enough to raise their vitamin D to the optimal health level. Third, it tells us that the recommendation by the dermatology community to avoid UVR exposure and to slather on sunscreen every day of the year has taken a toll on the health of the public.
How can we get enough vitamin D? You cannot get enough vitamin D from the food you eat or the vitamin D-fortified milk you drink to reach an optimal health level. You must obtain the equivalent of approximately 3,000 IUs each day just to break even with the daily demand for vitamin D and 80 percent of this amount (2,400 IUs) must come from UVR stimulation. Therefore, the question that must be answered about UVR-induced vitamin D is not whether there is a need for vitamin D stimulated by UVR exposure but how to get the required UVR exposure. Also, it is very important to remember that there has never been a reported incidence of vitamin D toxicity from UVR stimulation—but there is a very real danger of toxicity if supplements are used. Here are the two options for UVR exposure:
Uncontrolled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Although we can stimulate production of vitamin D through exposure to sunlight, this source is uncontrolled. By that, we mean there is no way for the average person to accurately determine a “safe” level of sunlight exposure to accomplish vitamin D synthesis without burning. In addition, sunlight is an unreliable source of vitamin D-effective energy because it varies by time of day, season of the year, weather conditions and geography. Similarly, there have been numerous studies indicating that vitamin D levels rise during the spring and summer, and decrease during the fall and winter—therefore, sunlight cannot be depended upon to stimulate an optimal health level of vitamin D year-round. Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Professional indoor tanning salons utilize equipment in which the maximum allowable dose of UVR that can be delivered during a tanning session is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And, the conservative FDA-recommended exposure schedule has a built-in safety margin of 50 percent to help prevent overexposure. In addition, the skin type/subtype of each individual is measured prior to allowing the person to tan, so as to determine the initial session time that will avoid overexposure. The bottom line is that all critical variables are carefully controlled by a professional indoor tanning salon—that is why salons are the only year-round public source of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure.
Where’s All the UVR and Vitamin D Research? One of the questions that scientists conducting studies utilizing vitamin D supplements don’t want to ask is: What if, five to 10 years down the road, we find out that supplemental vitamin D doesn’t have the biological potency that UVR-induced vitamin D offers? Think about it—if the premise of these types of studies is that vitamin D has the ability to prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, wouldn’t it make sense to determine whether or not supplemental-induced vitamin D is as good as UVR-induced vitamin D?
We think so—which is why we asked a leading vitamin D scientist why he wasn’t including UVR-induced vitamin D in his studies at a recent meeting we attended. The answer was that, although such research would be a great idea, he “didn’t need the grief” that would come from dermatologists if he included UVR exposure in the protocol.
So there you have it. One vested-interest group―dermatologists―is hindering research comparing whether supplement-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.
Here’s what is needed ASAP: an answer to the critical question of whether increasing the average vitamin D blood level of the American public to at least 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) via supplemental-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as does reaching this level via UVR-induced vitamin D. Once that question has been answered, the required dose of the vitamin D supplement and/or the required time/frequency for UVR exposure can be determined.
A simple benefit versus risk ratio supports our position. Our data shows that 500 to 1,000 individuals die prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of underexposure to UVR for every one individual who dies prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of overexposure to UVR. And you don’t have to just take our word for it. A recent study, titled “Estimating the Global Disease Burden Due to Ultraviolet Radiation,” stated that the relative risk of underexposure to UVR was 3,000 times greater than the relative risk of overexposure to UVR. This new data indicates that our 500 – 1,000 to 1 ratio between the risks of underexposure and overexposure to UVR is actually too conservative—a 2,000 – 3,000 to 1 benefit versus risk ratio is more realistic.
What We Believe
Based on our decade-long, comprehensive study of vitamin D, we conclude that a combination of supplements and routine, controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is the best way to maintain an optimal-health blood level of vitamin D year-round.
If every individual would take a 1,000 – 2,000 IU supplement each day and tan for at least 10 minutes per session (after building up a level of photoprotective facultative pigmentation, or tan, gradually) once or twice each week, the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency would be significantly reduced. In addition, this would dramatically improve the health status of millions of people. (Of course, individuals with darker skin or those who are older will require both a higher supplemental dose and more frequent tanning sessions in order to maintain an optimal health vitamin D level year-round.)
The bottom line is: Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is good for what ails you.
Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith operate the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute in Tucson, Ariz. They have written many articles promoting the benefits of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE). You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.
In “The Truth About The Recent IARC Report,” we said that a deficient/insufficient blood level of vitamin D (25-OH-D) plays a critical role in the development of more than 60 diseases and medical conditions. But why is vitamin D so critical for our health and wellbeing? Because every cell and organ in the human body requires an optimal level of vitamin D to function normally.
Let’s play the “What If” game for a moment: What if one of the large pharmaceutical companies announced that they had developed a new wonder drug that promised to reduce the incidence and mortality of more than 60 diseases and conditions? Needless to say, the stock price of the company would skyrocket and they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for this product.
But, what if the company announced that, for every 500 deaths prevented by this new product, one person might die prematurely each year because of the adverse side effects of the product? Most likely, people would conclude that a benefit-to-risk ratio of 500 to 1 indicates the benefits exceed the risks.
And what if there was an alternative to the new drug that promised the same benefits but it was known to have toxicity problems if ingested in high doses and there had never been a long-term prospective study proving that the alternative is as good as the new drug? It’s quite possible that those two factors might influence people to opt for the wonder drug rather than the alternative.
OK, game over. Back to vitamin d—also known as ...
Mother Nature’s Wonder Drug
Individuals who maintain an optimal health blood level of vitamin D significantly reduce their risk of developing many diseases and conditions. And, recent studies show that individuals with the highest vitamin D blood levels dramatically reduce their risk of dying from any cause. We have long recommended maintaining a vitamin D blood level of 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) even when most vitamin D experts were only recommending 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL). Although we are pleased most experts are currently recommending our target level, new evidence leads us to believe that 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) should really be the minimum level for optimal health and that the new target level should be 175 – 200 nmol/L (70 – 80 ng/mL). (And, we predict that new target level will be universally adopted within the next five years.)
So, what is the average vitamin D level? A recent study indicates that the average vitamin D (25-OH-D) blood level worldwide is 54 nmol/L (21.5 ng/mL). Another study showed that―in sunlight-drenched southern Arizona―the average level was only 10 nmol/L higher at 64 nmol/L (25.6 ng/mL). Clearly, there is a huge gap between the level required for optimal health and the average level found around the world, even for individuals who live in sunlight-rich environments year-round.
What does the average vitamin D level tell us? The huge gap between the actual and recommended blood level of vitamin D tells us three things. First, it tells us that the recommendation for five to 15 minutes of sunlight exposure to your face and hands two or three times per week is woefully inadequate. Second, it tells us that either people are not taking daily vitamin D supplements or they are not taking a supplement with a dose high enough to raise their vitamin D to the optimal health level. Third, it tells us that the recommendation by the dermatology community to avoid UVR exposure and to slather on sunscreen every day of the year has taken a toll on the health of the public.
How can we get enough vitamin D? You cannot get enough vitamin D from the food you eat or the vitamin D-fortified milk you drink to reach an optimal health level. You must obtain the equivalent of approximately 3,000 IUs each day just to break even with the daily demand for vitamin D and 80 percent of this amount (2,400 IUs) must come from UVR stimulation. Therefore, the question that must be answered about UVR-induced vitamin D is not whether there is a need for vitamin D stimulated by UVR exposure but how to get the required UVR exposure. Also, it is very important to remember that there has never been a reported incidence of vitamin D toxicity from UVR stimulation—but there is a very real danger of toxicity if supplements are used. Here are the two options for UVR exposure:
Uncontrolled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Although we can stimulate production of vitamin D through exposure to sunlight, this source is uncontrolled. By that, we mean there is no way for the average person to accurately determine a “safe” level of sunlight exposure to accomplish vitamin D synthesis without burning. In addition, sunlight is an unreliable source of vitamin D-effective energy because it varies by time of day, season of the year, weather conditions and geography. Similarly, there have been numerous studies indicating that vitamin D levels rise during the spring and summer, and decrease during the fall and winter—therefore, sunlight cannot be depended upon to stimulate an optimal health level of vitamin D year-round. Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure. Professional indoor tanning salons utilize equipment in which the maximum allowable dose of UVR that can be delivered during a tanning session is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And, the conservative FDA-recommended exposure schedule has a built-in safety margin of 50 percent to help prevent overexposure. In addition, the skin type/subtype of each individual is measured prior to allowing the person to tan, so as to determine the initial session time that will avoid overexposure. The bottom line is that all critical variables are carefully controlled by a professional indoor tanning salon—that is why salons are the only year-round public source of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure.
Where’s All the UVR and Vitamin D Research? One of the questions that scientists conducting studies utilizing vitamin D supplements don’t want to ask is: What if, five to 10 years down the road, we find out that supplemental vitamin D doesn’t have the biological potency that UVR-induced vitamin D offers? Think about it—if the premise of these types of studies is that vitamin D has the ability to prevent a variety of diseases and conditions, wouldn’t it make sense to determine whether or not supplemental-induced vitamin D is as good as UVR-induced vitamin D?
We think so—which is why we asked a leading vitamin D scientist why he wasn’t including UVR-induced vitamin D in his studies at a recent meeting we attended. The answer was that, although such research would be a great idea, he “didn’t need the grief” that would come from dermatologists if he included UVR exposure in the protocol.
So there you have it. One vested-interest group―dermatologists―is hindering research comparing whether supplement-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as UVR-induced vitamin D.
Here’s what is needed ASAP: an answer to the critical question of whether increasing the average vitamin D blood level of the American public to at least 150 nmol/L (60 ng/mL) via supplemental-induced vitamin D has the same biological potency as does reaching this level via UVR-induced vitamin D. Once that question has been answered, the required dose of the vitamin D supplement and/or the required time/frequency for UVR exposure can be determined.
A simple benefit versus risk ratio supports our position. Our data shows that 500 to 1,000 individuals die prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of underexposure to UVR for every one individual who dies prematurely each year due to the adverse consequences of overexposure to UVR. And you don’t have to just take our word for it. A recent study, titled “Estimating the Global Disease Burden Due to Ultraviolet Radiation,” stated that the relative risk of underexposure to UVR was 3,000 times greater than the relative risk of overexposure to UVR. This new data indicates that our 500 – 1,000 to 1 ratio between the risks of underexposure and overexposure to UVR is actually too conservative—a 2,000 – 3,000 to 1 benefit versus risk ratio is more realistic.
What We Believe
Based on our decade-long, comprehensive study of vitamin D, we conclude that a combination of supplements and routine, controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is the best way to maintain an optimal-health blood level of vitamin D year-round.
If every individual would take a 1,000 – 2,000 IU supplement each day and tan for at least 10 minutes per session (after building up a level of photoprotective facultative pigmentation, or tan, gradually) once or twice each week, the incidence of vitamin D insufficiency would be significantly reduced. In addition, this would dramatically improve the health status of millions of people. (Of course, individuals with darker skin or those who are older will require both a higher supplemental dose and more frequent tanning sessions in order to maintain an optimal health vitamin D level year-round.)
The bottom line is: Controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure is good for what ails you.
Patricia E. Reykdal and Donald L. Smith operate the Non-Ionizing Radiation Research Institute in Tucson, Ariz. They have written many articles promoting the benefits of controlled ultraviolet radiation exposure (CURE). You can e-mail comments or questions to reyksmith@aol.com.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Lack of Vitamin D Linked to High Blood Pressure
Lack of Vitamin D Linked to High Blood Pressure Effect seen 15 years later, researchers report
By Ed EdelsonHealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Low blood levels of vitamin D in younger women tripled their risk of high blood pressure 15 years later, new research has found.
Vitamin D deficiency, defined as less than 80 nanomoles per liter of blood, was measured in 1993 at the start of the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study, explained study author Flojaune C. Griffin, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
By that measure, more than 80 percent of the 559 women first tested in the study had vitamin D deficiency, while 2 percent were being treated for high blood pressure and another 4 percent had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
No association between vitamin D levels and high blood pressure was seen at that time. But in 2008, when 19 percent of the women had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and 6 percent had the condition but didn't know it, the incidence of high blood pressure was three times higher for women who had vitamin D deficiency at the study's start, after adjusting for the effects of age, obesity and smoking, Griffin said.
Griffin was to report on the findings Thursday at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research Conference in Chicago.
What happened to the women in the intervening years in terms of vitamin D intake is unknown, Griffin said. "We don't have any information about how the women were eating beyond that baseline measurement," she noted.
The recommended intake of vitamin D has risen since the study began. Current guidelines call for an intake of 400 International Units (IU) for people under 60 and 600 IUs for those aged 60 and older, Griffin said.
"Exposure of skin to the sun is the most potent way to increase vitamin D levels," she added. "The main food sources include fatty fish, such as wild salmon. Also, milk and milk products are fortified with vitamin D."
There is no way of knowing whether increased vitamin D intake over the years might have affected the incidence of high blood pressure, a major risk factor for such cardiovascular problems as heart attack and stroke, Griffin said.
"This study underscores a growing amount of accumulated data that low vitamin D levels are associated with high blood pressure," said Dr. John P. Forman, an associate physician in the renal division of Brigham and Women's Hospital.
But it's still not certain that raising vitamin D intake can help prevent high blood pressure, Forman added. "We need large randomized trials on that," he said.
Still, he noted, "there are a growing number of studies associating lower vitamin D levels and high blood pressure. This one probably has the longest follow-up."
More information
By Ed EdelsonHealthDay Reporter
THURSDAY, Sept. 24 (HealthDay News) -- Low blood levels of vitamin D in younger women tripled their risk of high blood pressure 15 years later, new research has found.
Vitamin D deficiency, defined as less than 80 nanomoles per liter of blood, was measured in 1993 at the start of the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study, explained study author Flojaune C. Griffin, a doctoral candidate at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
By that measure, more than 80 percent of the 559 women first tested in the study had vitamin D deficiency, while 2 percent were being treated for high blood pressure and another 4 percent had undiagnosed high blood pressure.
No association between vitamin D levels and high blood pressure was seen at that time. But in 2008, when 19 percent of the women had been diagnosed with high blood pressure and 6 percent had the condition but didn't know it, the incidence of high blood pressure was three times higher for women who had vitamin D deficiency at the study's start, after adjusting for the effects of age, obesity and smoking, Griffin said.
Griffin was to report on the findings Thursday at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research Conference in Chicago.
What happened to the women in the intervening years in terms of vitamin D intake is unknown, Griffin said. "We don't have any information about how the women were eating beyond that baseline measurement," she noted.
The recommended intake of vitamin D has risen since the study began. Current guidelines call for an intake of 400 International Units (IU) for people under 60 and 600 IUs for those aged 60 and older, Griffin said.
"Exposure of skin to the sun is the most potent way to increase vitamin D levels," she added. "The main food sources include fatty fish, such as wild salmon. Also, milk and milk products are fortified with vitamin D."
There is no way of knowing whether increased vitamin D intake over the years might have affected the incidence of high blood pressure, a major risk factor for such cardiovascular problems as heart attack and stroke, Griffin said.
"This study underscores a growing amount of accumulated data that low vitamin D levels are associated with high blood pressure," said Dr. John P. Forman, an associate physician in the renal division of Brigham and Women's Hospital.
But it's still not certain that raising vitamin D intake can help prevent high blood pressure, Forman added. "We need large randomized trials on that," he said.
Still, he noted, "there are a growing number of studies associating lower vitamin D levels and high blood pressure. This one probably has the longest follow-up."
More information
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
WHY LOTION?
Using a quality indoor tanning lotion when you tan is extremely important to the health of your tan and your skin. If you don't use an indoor tanning lotion you actually waste about half of your tanning session because the light reflects off your skin instead of being absorbed by it. Many of our high quality indoor tanning lotions contain skin firming and anti-aging products too which can actually take the place of many of your skin care products that you may currently be using. We cannot stress enough about how using a lotion is essential to developing and maintaining your tan. Tanning without lotion is like brushing your teeth without toothpaste!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)