[FreeKeys]

Didn’t an NIH study about 10 years ago prove that 2,000 IU / day resulted in a marked decline in cancer rates?

[neverdem]

Didn’t an NIH study about 10 years ago prove that 2,000 IU / day resulted in a marked decline in cancer rates?

I don't recall.

[1_Rain_Drop]

Maybe Vit D is proving to reduce/prevent cancer and THAT is a problem for pharma. Which is more fun, taking Vit D or chemo? Which costs more and employs more?

Didn't another report come out today praising Vit D?

[CaliforniaCon]

RE: “Didn’t an NIH study about 10 years ago prove that 2,000 IU / day resulted in a marked decline in cancer rates?”

**************

Probably; that would explain why the brand I’m buying has capsules with 2000 IU each of “D” -—

Recommendations change all the time. Soy was good.......until it wasn’t — Vitamin E — same thing — take this, no, don’t take it — MAKE UP YOUR MINDS, EXPERTS!

I’m so sick of this I could spit nails!

[Frank Sheed]

It is not how much you choose to take; it is how much your circulating blood level is. If you are seriously below the norm, you DO need supplements.

I question this study until I read more. I know people who take Vitamin D and can’t get their levels anywhere near normal. That means they are using what they are ingesting.

Since Vitamin D is stored in fat, it is not until the fat stores are saturated that one can get into trouble; the circulating blood level can then rise and dramatically. That’s why I’d never recommend messing with taking fat soluble vitamins—like D—unless they are being measured and yes, by a good lab.

F