More Vit D research

If it's on your mind and it has to do with multiple sclerosis in any way, post it here.

More Vit D research

Postby bromley » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:45 am

User avatar
bromley
Family Elder
 
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:00 pm

Postby topcat72 » Mon Sep 04, 2006 7:33 am

The more I read about Vit D the more I am convinced of its involvement with MS:

From the much maligned Mercola site:



Vitamin D For MS Patients

Taking vitamin D supplements may positively influence the immune systems of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), according to researchers.


Vitamin D status affects chemicals that modulate the immune system called cytokines, and these changes may benefit patients with MS.


The researchers drew their conclusions after analyzing samples from 10 MS patients who took a supplement of 25 micrograms (units) of vitamin D daily for 6 months. The patients showed increased levels of vitamin D in their blood, as well as a change in cytokine levels. But the investigators note that the study has not been in progress long enough to observe changes in the clinical symptoms of the participating MS patients.


The results were not completely unexpected as the investigators had seen similar results in an animal model of MS. Doctors should be aware of the detrimental effects of vitamin D insufficiency for their MS patients and make sure they are vitamin D adequate.


The study findings are supported by the fact that the number of cases of MS is nearly zero near the equator and increases with latitude in both hemispheres. The increased sunlight near the equator allows the body to produce more vitamin D, and may theoretically reduce the incidence of MS.


However, Cantorna also pointed out that vitamin D at high doses is toxic. "MS patients should not take large amounts of vitamin D supplements. They should increase their vitamin D intake under the supervision of their doctors," she warned.


The current recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D is 400 micrograms (units) per day.

Sources of vitamin D include adequate exposure to sunlight and cod liver oil.


Experimental Biology 2001 Conference in Orlando, Florida April 6, 2001



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Well this is simple enough. It appears clear that MS patients improved on doses of vitamin D that are 2.5 time that of the RDA, since 25 micrograms is equal to 1,000 units of vitamin D. It would seem reasonable to have those with MS have regular sun exposure on their skin so they can produce vitamin D. For most of us though there is about six months of the year or more when this is not possible.

Most people are deficient in vitamin D, but if you decide to use vitamin D you will want to be very careful about testing your levels as it is easy to overdose.




A tad simplistic, but does lean to the same inference.

Raj
The rules of life and bonds of sorrow, in reality are the one manifestation
Before realizing the ultimate truth, how can then one attain liberation?

Mirza Ghalib (1797 - 1869)
User avatar
topcat72
Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:00 pm

toxicity

Postby jimmylegs » Mon Sep 04, 2006 4:40 pm

hi ya other studies on it are good too. i wish when ppl say it can be toxic, that they would be specific about the kind of dose. i have taken 50 000 IU per day for 10 days, the regimen info obtained from a hospital, and it only got me where i'm supposed to be, no adverse effects.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby CureOrBust » Tue Sep 05, 2006 4:32 am

wait a second, the quoted article says
The current recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D is 400 micrograms (units) per day.

and then:
25 micrograms is equal to 1,000 units of vitamin D

Now, my Vit D tablets are 25 micrograms each, which means they are saying that the dietary allowance would be 16 tablets a day! I actually feel very comfortable with the 4 a day i do take. If anything, a little low...

I have yet to see any info regarding the difference between supplimented Vit D and naturally produced, via the sun?
User avatar
CureOrBust
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2898
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:00 pm
Location: Sydney, Australia

rda of vitamin d

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:16 am

hi there, the RDA for vitamin d is nowhere near 16,000 IU. it is more like 400IU and they wrote mcg by mistake.

as far as i know cholecalciferol (d3) that you supplement is the same as cholecalciferol made by skin. you can get vitamin d supplements that are not the same, but those would be ergocalciferol (d2) synthesized from mushrooms or something.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby treez » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:49 am

The R.D.A. for vit. D is 400 i.u. per day. The only difference between the skin produced sun exposure and supps. is the skin source is self limiting, you can't get an overdose by excessive sun exposure. Oral supps. bypass this and an overdose would be possible, however much that would take??

Overdose concern isn't short megadoses, it is a long term high dose that starts to cause problems. The first and foremost I have read about is hypercalcimia(did I spell that one right?).

Also, I think R.D.A is supposed to be up for "reevaluation" in 2008. It is being suggested that 1000i.u. may be a more appropriate daily recommendation, instead of the current 400i.u.
User avatar
treez
Family Elder
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: Michigan, USA

Re: toxicity

Postby JFH » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:13 am

jimmylegs wrote:... i wish when ppl say it can be toxic, that they would be specific about the kind of dose. ...
I suspect that such unspecific comments are for legal rather than medical purposes 8)
John
I am what I am
User avatar
JFH
Family Elder
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:00 pm
Location: England

Postby Wonderfulworld » Tue Sep 05, 2006 9:26 am

I feel a bit worried now.
I tend to take about 800 to 1200 iu's a day.
Does anyone know if this is likely to cause problems over time?
:o
Thanks
Wonderfulworld
Family Elder
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Ireland

Vitamin D dose

Postby lyndacarol » Tue Sep 05, 2006 5:56 pm

National Public Radio (NPR) did a story on vitamin D on June 22, 2006 (You can find a transcript of it at their website--archives.) Also, in the September Reader's Digest an article gave similar info. Some scientists are now recommending more D; word is that the RDA will be reviewed in the next year or two; RDA will probably be changed to at least 2000IU (International Units) per day--some say even 4000IU per day (the Cooper Institute in Dallas among others).
Last edited by lyndacarol on Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lyndacarol
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:00 pm

doses and so forth

Postby jimmylegs » Tue Sep 05, 2006 6:08 pm

ya it's long term high doses that are dangerous but you can have single dose toxicity if you're really serious about it, like say 500,000 iU i think? and yes hypercalcemia i think? that's what i've read about too.

also i have seen studies that the same mechanism which kicks in to deal with sun-generated cholecalciferol, can work on supplemented cholecalciferol too, within limits. i'm remembering a figure of 10,000IU cholecalciferol manufacture in a short time period of skin exposure to sunlight, which was described as potentially being some kind of metabolic limit. that's why when i did my ten days at 50,000 IU per day, i broke up the doses. even so i could only do 25,000 and 25,000 because it was so concentrated i only had two drops to work with. it got me up to 150 nmol/l (gotta get tested again this month because of the lag effect) with no side effects and i'm still taking (supposedly) 4000IU per day but i'm kinda lazy with it cause the lower concentration is diluted in olive oil which i decided is YUCK! got some cal-mag-d pills for a while instead.

so anyway no worries won, 800 to 1200 IU per day wouldn't even be considered adequate for maintenance in some ppls opinions. you're fine.
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby Wonderfulworld » Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:25 am

Thanks Jimmy and Linda, whew!
I do notice increased disease activity 1-2 months after taking less Vit D. Could be conincidental but I don't think so.
Thanks
Wonderfulworld
Family Elder
 
Posts: 773
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 3:00 pm
Location: Ireland

Postby Nick » Thu Sep 07, 2006 12:12 pm

DIRECT-MS is presently funding phase 2 of a study in Toronto that is attempting to determine the upper level of toxicity. I will issue a press release announcing this and other activities shortly.

There is no RDA for vitamin D. There is an advised intake because no one really knows how much is ideal for humans to consume. Hopefully our current trial will inspire some deep pockets to formally determine an RDA for this critical vitamin.

A vital aspect of vitamin D that is often overlooked is how much is necessary for an individual to achieve effective immune suppression. To determine this is difficult due to the dearth of research at present.

However, this paper by Embry et al has a great graph on page 3 which illustrates that an ideal serum concentration of vitamin D, for immunosuppression, is about 100 nmol/L. To achieve this internal concentration from only supplements, an individual would have to consume 4,000 IU/d of vitamin D3.

Vitamin D toxicity is typically defined as hypercalcemia (you missed the e dear!). Phase 1 of the aforementioned trial did NOT find any elevated calcium levels at a 4,000 IU/D intake.

8)

Cheers
Nick
Last edited by Nick on Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Nick
Family Elder
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:00 pm

100 MOL!?

Postby jimmylegs » Thu Sep 07, 2006 5:56 pm

hey nick u meant 100 "n"mol/L i presume!
jimmylegs
Volunteer Moderator
 
Posts: 8944
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:00 pm

Postby Nick » Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:43 pm

I did and thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Cheers
Nick
User avatar
Nick
Family Elder
 
Posts: 165
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:00 pm

Still more reasons to take vitamin D

Postby lyndacarol » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:41 pm

More info coming in:

Reuters reported September 13 that "Vitamin D halves pancreatic cancer risk." The study was led by Halcyon Skinner of Northwestern University in Chicago, working with colleagues at Harvard University. The researcher was quoted, "Vitamin D has shown strong potential for preventing and treating prostate cancer, and areas with greater sunlight exposure have lower incidence and mortality for prostate, breast and colon cancers, leading us to investigate a role for Vitamin D in pancreatic cancer risk."

Now just today on our local NBC news I heard that other researchers had mapped out cases of kidney cancer and found...ta da...more cases occur in northern climates than near the equator, leading them to think that sunlight and the vitamin D made from it might play a role in lower incidence of kidney cancer!

Of course, being me, I wonder if insulin is involved here, too. After all, "normal insulin production is dependent on Vitamin D."
User avatar
lyndacarol
Family Elder
 
Posts: 2253
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:00 pm

Next

Return to General Discussion

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Contact us | Terms of Service