• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Vitamin D decreases mortality risk


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 lucid

  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 13 August 2008 - 02:55 AM


25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels and the Risk of Mortality in the General Population Michal L. Melamed, MD, MHS; Erin D. Michos, MD, MHS; Wendy Post, MD, MS; Brad Astor, PhD


Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(15):1629-1637.

Background In patients undergoing dialysis, therapy with calcitriol or paricalcitol or other vitamin D agents is associated with reduced mortality. Observational data suggests that low 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (25[OH]D) are associated with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and cancers. However, whether low serum 25(OH)D levels are associated with mortality in the general population is unknown.

Methods We tested the association of low 25(OH)D levels with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality in 13 331 nationally representative adults 20 years or older from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) linked mortality files. Participant vitamin D levels were collected from 1988 through 1994, and individuals were passively followed for mortality through 2000.

Results In cross-sectional multivariate analyses, increasing age, female sex, nonwhite race/ethnicity, diabetes, current smoking, and higher body mass index were all independently associated with higher odds of 25(OH)D deficiency (lowest quartile of 25(OH)D level, <17.8 ng/mL [to convert to nanomoles per liter, multiply by 2.496]), while greater physical activity, vitamin D supplementation, and nonwinter season were inversely associated. During a median 8.7 years of follow-up, there were 1806 deaths, including 777 from CVD. In multivariate models (adjusted for baseline demographics, season, and traditional and novel CVD risk factors), compared with the highest quartile, being in the lowest quartile (25[OH]D levels <17.8 ng/mL) was associated with a 26% increased rate of all-cause mortality (mortality rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.08-1.46) and a population attributable risk of 3.1%. The adjusted models of CVD and cancer mortality revealed a higher risk, which was not statistically significant.

Conclusion The lowest quartile of 25(OH)D level (<17.8 ng/mL) is independently associated with all-cause mortality in the general population.


Author Affiliations: Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, and Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York (Dr Melamed); Divisions of Cardiology (Drs Michos and Post) and General Internal Medicine (Dr Astor), Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; and Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore (Drs Post and Astor).



http://archinte.ama-...act/168/15/1629

#2 hamishm00

  • Guest
  • 1,053 posts
  • 94
  • Location:United Arab Emirates

Posted 13 August 2008 - 11:32 AM

Ok, so what vitamin D supplement is the best here to raise these levels?

As you all know there are 5 types:

Vitamin D1: molecular compound of ergocalciferol with lumisterol, 1:1
Vitamin D2: ergocalciferol or calciferol (made from ergosterol)
Vitamin D3: cholecalciferol (made from 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin).
Vitamin D4: 22-dihydroergocalciferol
Vitamin D5: sitocalciferol (made from 7-dehydrositosterol)

I was originally focussing on vitamin d3, because of studies that have linked that with reduced risk of cancer, but recently I've been taking a vitamin D complex ( I assume it contains all 5, but I could be wrong here). I've been wanting to switch back to the D3, but it's harder to obtain. Should I bother, or is a vitamin D complex better for mortality (as opposed to cancer per se)?

I know there are members here who supplement heavily with D3. What are your thoughts on this?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 SusanK

  • Guest
  • 22 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Arizona

Posted 13 August 2008 - 04:58 PM

I heard D3 is best, but probably should keep your eye on the studies as this is becoming a HOT topic.

Cool Vit. D factoid: I learned that UVA rays do not increase the body's production of D, but UVB rays do.

#4 makoss

  • Guest
  • 76 posts
  • 0
  • Location:NYC

Posted 13 August 2008 - 06:19 PM

Dr. Davis of the Heart Scan Blog mentions that as we age, we lose the capacity to activate Vitamin D in the skin.

http://heartscanblog...mmed-aging.html

#5 malbecman

  • Guest
  • 733 posts
  • 156
  • Location:Sunny CA

Posted 14 August 2008 - 12:00 AM

D3 is considered best but make sure you are using the softgel form, not the hard capsules/caplets. The absorption from those formulations is not supposed to be very good when
compared to the softgels.

#6 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 18 September 2008 - 10:02 PM

The Sunday Evening Update program this last week featured Dr. William Davis and he affirmed that vitamin D3 was a critical supp for overall health. The interview included many other interesting aspect of health and nutrition as well (interview begins about 10 minutes into the recording).

#7 OneScrewLoose

  • Guest
  • 2,378 posts
  • 51
  • Location:California
  • NO

Posted 19 September 2008 - 12:31 AM

For those who supplement D3, how much do you take, and why?

#8 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 79
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:31 AM

For those who supplement D3, how much do you take, and why?


I just spent 15 minutes on heartscanblog.blogspot.com checking out Dr Davis's opinion on the best form, pill, tablet, powder capsule, or gel. I had good luck with a powder capsule and was surprised to discover that Dr Davis is adamant. An oil containing gel is the only choice. Now I am worried. I used the NSI and LEF powder capsules c 12,000 iu to get from 29.7 to 45.?. I used so much because 2400 units only got me to 29.7, and checking the spread of dose response curves, I decided I was a low responder and needed 12,000 iu. In the dose/response study they used alcohol to dissolve the vitamin D and get better absorption. So that is what I did, dissolved the powder crystals in alcohol. I didn't use the dissolving in alcohol procedure after the Vitamin D test. So if Dr Davis is right, when I go in for my next test, I might have lower numbers.

I took the D3 to avoid bone loss and apoptosis. I am approaching 70 the period when those problems loom larger. Vitamin D is not a vitamin, it is a hormone, normally made in the body. I had been taking Arimidex to dampen excess estrogen, but found it unnecessary after increasing my Vitamin D. My prostate functioned much better after the increase.

#9 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 13 October 2008 - 07:05 PM

Vitamin D a key player in overall health.

Norman also lists 36 organ tissues in the body whose cells respond biologically to vitamin D. The list includes bone marrow, breast, colon, intestine, kidney, lung, prostate, retina, skin, stomach and the uterus.

According to Norman, deficiency of vitamin D can impact all 36 organs. Already, vitamin D deficiency is associated with muscle strength decrease, high risk for falls, and increased risk for colorectal, prostate and breast and other major cancers.

"It is becoming increasingly clear to researchers in the field that vitamin D is strongly linked to several diseases," said Norman, a distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry and of biomedical sciences who has worked on vitamin D for more than 45 years. "Its biological sphere of influence is much broader than we originally thought. The nutritional guidelines for vitamin D intake must be carefully reevaluated to determine the adequate intake, balancing sunlight exposure with dietary intake, to achieve good health by involving all 36 target organs."



#10 Phoebus

  • Guest
  • 851 posts
  • 237
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US

Posted 13 October 2008 - 07:35 PM

I had good luck with a powder capsule and was surprised to discover that Dr Davis is adamant. An oil containing gel is the only choice. Now I am worried. I used the NSI and LEF powder capsules c 12,000 iu to get from 29.7 to 45.?. I used so much because 2400 units only got me to 29.7, and checking the spread of dose response curves, I decided I was a low responder and needed 12,000 iu. In the dose/response study they used alcohol to dissolve the vitamin D and get better absorption. So that is what I did, dissolved the powder crystals in alcohol.


i wonder if taking the powder containing capsules with some oil at the same time wouldn't be just as effective as the gel? the caps dont last long in the body, its not like they are making through to the other end intact. another possiblity is to actually open the caps and mix the D into some oil like flax oil and then take that. seems like it would work.

#11 lucid

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,195 posts
  • 65
  • Location:Austin, Tx

Posted 13 October 2008 - 07:45 PM

I had good luck with a powder capsule and was surprised to discover that Dr Davis is adamant. An oil containing gel is the only choice. Now I am worried. I used the NSI and LEF powder capsules c 12,000 iu to get from 29.7 to 45.?. I used so much because 2400 units only got me to 29.7, and checking the spread of dose response curves, I decided I was a low responder and needed 12,000 iu. In the dose/response study they used alcohol to dissolve the vitamin D and get better absorption. So that is what I did, dissolved the powder crystals in alcohol.


i wonder if taking the powder containing capsules with some oil at the same time wouldn't be just as effective as the gel? the caps dont last long in the body, its not like they are making through to the other end intact. another possiblity is to actually open the caps and mix the D into some oil like flax oil and then take that. seems like it would work.

That would likely work; however vitamin D particle size when entering the lipid suspension would probably matter, so the store bought products might still be superior. Its not very expensive to buy Vit D softgels, so mixing your own is not even worth the trouble even if it is effective.

#12 pro-d

  • Guest
  • 117 posts
  • 1
  • Location:London, England

Posted 13 October 2008 - 11:08 PM

I use Bio Tech capsules and while I'm a low responder too (I now est. 10k as my optimal dose) I'm interested to know if liquid vitamin D, cream or injections are as effective as softgels or indeed capsules?

If it's equal to capsules, implying a similiarity regardless of route, then the issue really is dose response. I say this because I know someone, unrelated to me, who reaches double the level I do on the same amount from Bio Tech. I do however take my capsules with a spoonful of natural fruit yoghurt.

#13 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 14 October 2008 - 12:26 AM

pro-d, was your HDL low before you started supplementation? I'm wondering whether there is a trend between low responders and low HDL after reading on the heart scan blog about people with low vitamin D not being able to raise HDL until after they achieved 60 ng/ml on the 25-hydroxyvitamin D test.

Stephen

#14 aikikai

  • Guest
  • 251 posts
  • 0

Posted 14 October 2008 - 07:54 AM

D3 is considered best but make sure you are using the softgel form, not the hard capsules/caplets. The absorption from those formulations is not supposed to be very good when
compared to the softgels.


That problem should be solved when using other fatty supplements (fish oil eg) or fatty food in conjunction with the capsules (powder form of D3).

Edited by aikikai, 14 October 2008 - 07:55 AM.


#15 pro-d

  • Guest
  • 117 posts
  • 1
  • Location:London, England

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:13 AM

Stephen, my serum HDL was 1.11mmol/L, which seems to read as fine because it's >1.00 but I've no idea what a good max. level is. I have seen people on here post higher HDL values than me (around 1.5 on average) so it's quite possible.
Last year I had a fasted (correct method) cholesterol reading and among other things, total cholesterol was 5.61. This year I'm 5.4 (but they did it by surprise, didn't get to fast - which is weird, so I'm probably lower after a 12hr fast). Not sure if that's a significant decrease (that is if probable LDL reduction really matters), particularly as I also wasn't given broken down results.

Edited by pro-d, 14 October 2008 - 10:15 AM.


#16 stephen_b

  • Guest
  • 1,735 posts
  • 231

Posted 14 October 2008 - 06:27 PM

Stephen, my serum HDL was 1.11mmol/L, which seems to read as fine because it's >1.00 but I've no idea what a good max. level is. I have seen people on here post higher HDL values than me (around 1.5 on average) so it's quite possible.
Last year I had a fasted (correct method) cholesterol reading and among other things, total cholesterol was 5.61. This year I'm 5.4 (but they did it by surprise, didn't get to fast - which is weird, so I'm probably lower after a 12hr fast). Not sure if that's a significant decrease (that is if probable LDL reduction really matters), particularly as I also wasn't given broken down results.

That's quite close to mine (1.18 mmol/L) and almost in the low range according to wikipedia. Before starting supplementing 2000 IU/day, my levels were 27 mg/dL (0.7 mmol/L). Hopefully with my current 6000 IU/day, my HDL will be higher yet.

Stephen

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#17 pro-d

  • Guest
  • 117 posts
  • 1
  • Location:London, England

Posted 14 October 2008 - 10:26 PM

That's pretty interesting. I think I've seen people report HDL of up to 1.6/1.8, so I'd like to get there if I can.

I was 10nmol/L (<5ng/ml) 2yrs ago, which was the same time my 1.11nmol/L HDL was measured. Keep me informed on how you get on. I'm hoping to get a detailed cholesterol test done before year end.

Edited by pro-d, 14 October 2008 - 10:26 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users