Posted on 07/05/2021 9:26:40 AM PDT by Signalman
Vitamin D has a host of health benefits, however, new research suggests that there's another reason you should at least consider taking a supplement.
According to a new study that was highlighted at the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 virtual annual meeting, having sufficient vitamin D levels is associated with an increased likelihood of surviving breast cancer.
Researchers measured vitamin D levels at the time of breast cancer diagnosis in nearly 4,000 people and then survival outcomes a decade later.
"Our study shows that patients who had sufficient vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis—blood concentration of at least 20 nanograms per milliliter—had a lower risk of death or cancer recurrence," Song Yao, PhD, a molecular epidemiologist and professor of oncology with the Department of Cancer Prevention and Control at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, and one of the lead study authors told Eat This, Not That!
Nicole Williams, MD, and breast medical oncologist with The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center – Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research Institute adds the study revealed that women who had sufficient levels of vitamin D had 27% lower odds of dying of any cause during the 10-year follow up. They also had a 22% lower likelihood of death from breast cancer compared to women who were deficient in vitamin D.
While she says the findings of this study may serve as an opportunity to create an important intervention to improve breast cancer outcomes in women with the disease, "it is too early to broadly adopt vitamin D supplementation in our breast cancer patients as a way to improve survival."
She adds that additional research is needed to assess whether a change in vitamin D levels over time is associated with breast cancer prognosis, or the likely development of the disease. For context, the main assessment in this study was a one-time measurement of vitamin D levels at the time of diagnosis.
The study also revealed that Black women had the lowest vitamin D levels, which Williams says may partially explain why they're are at higher risk of poorer outcomes after a breast cancer diagnosis. An increased risk of death after a breast cancer diagnosis isn't the only major medical issue Black women face—many experts also point out this community of women is disproportionately affected by myriad health issues and disparities due to structural and systemic racism.
There are also a few limitations of this study.
"Our study is an observational study, which means that we cannot prove definitively that increasing vitamin D levels by supplementation after breast cancer diagnosis will improve patients' survival outlook," says Yao.
"Epidemiologic studies like this are an important step in understanding where we have opportunities to improve health, and we look forward to seeing the connections between vitamin D and cancer explored through further studies," he adds.
At the present time, a target of 90 ng/dl as measured by blood test is recommended as fortification against the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 infections.
I expect that recommendation is made without good evidence.
Once the blood level reaches 32 ng/ml, the body starts inactivating and reducing vitamin D.
People with 50 ng/ml have more kidney stones.
Unless you work in the fields or on a lifeguard tower, take 2,500 iu a day year round
That will cause excess in some people. For people without access to the sun, 10 micrograms per day is often enough. If it isn’t, one could eat sardines, eggs, or other foods with vitamin D.
20 years ago I had prostate cancer. I was in a group of men (over 30 men) taking 39 treatments to kill it. Every man, 100%, was low on vitamin D. We were given mega doses until we got our levels up as we took our Proton radiation. I take it today and have hardly been sick with anything since. I would have to think awhile, but I don’t remember even having a cold since then. I take 5k units in the AM and 5k in the evening. I know that’s too much, but after 20 years, why change? I would rather gamble on too much than not enough. I’m a believer.
Every man, 100%, was low on vitamin D.
The government forces milk sellers to add vitamin A to skim milk. Many people have excess vitamin A.
Having a lot of stored vitamin A reduces vitamin D. Giving vitamin D supplements did not prevent prostate or breast cancer many times people tried it.
Maybe excess vitamin A causes prostate and breast cancer.
Been taking a VitD3 suppliment every day for years.
Strange thing, I haven’t been sick since I started this :)
Currently taking 10,000 iu per day. Have been tested for the China flu three times, all negative. See tag line.
Many experts...structural and systemic racism.
Couldn’t leave that out of a report on a study on vitamin D.
NO, you just need to get outside. I do have some vitamins I take, but D is only needed in the WINTER. Just go outside!
Reading about the combined beneficial effects of zinc and VitD, I decided to have my D-level checked in my regular bloodwork for the first time. I was concerned from reading that maybe my D level might be high.
It was 31, which is at the bottom of the recommended range of 30 to 100 (optimum range 40-80) ng/ml. I was surprised and started taking 5000IU 2X daily with my morning and evening pills.
In 3 months it checked at 51, and three months later at 48. This is right in the "best" range to be at in what I read so I am fine with being near 50 two different times.
I am large, and my Dr said that unlike water soluble materials, getting the D level up in "large" people would be expected to require a higher dose.
"Suffice it to say that humans can make it (vitamin D), IF we get adequate sunshine, or eat very large amounts of healthy ocean fish. Here in the temperate zone, we used to get a lot of sunshine in the summer, but very little in the winter. Years ago, the typical farmer, working all day in the summer sun might generate 40,000-60,000 IU’s of vitamin D each day, much of which his body stored in his fat cells. These higher doses of stored D3 were later available to him in the winter months."
These were pre-sun-avoidance and pre-sunscreen days back then.
Note that when they do high supplementation for treating certain diseases or D deficiency, from 24,000 to 60,000IU daily or weekly may be given.
"Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. This level is many times higher than the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for most adults of 600 IU of vitamin D a day."
So you have to take A LOT!!! of D supplementation - 100X the RDA for MONTHS - to get to toxicity levels.
Note that K2 is recommended along with D to make sure the D doesn't have a negative effect of calcium levels. K2 supports good calcium levels.
Note that K2 is recommended along with D to make sure the D doesn’t have a negative effect of calcium levels. K2 supports good calcium levels.
Excess vitamin d reduces vitamin k. You only need more vitamin k if you take excess vitamin d.
Taking 30 micrograms of vitamin d per day is enough to reduce vitamin k in many people.
Many publications tested whether increasing vitamin D in people with a level between 20 ng/ml and 30 ng/ml would produce a specific benefit. Almost always, it does not benefit.
get some before the govetards attempt to ban it off the shelves because its safe and beneficial
Oncologists have been telling BC patients to take Vit-D for the past 10 years.
This study tells us nothing new.
Have seen charts where hypertension is number 1.
Hope my post #31 doesn’t sound rude. Glad you shared the article here. I was just reacting to the article.
Years ago, studies were done on Vit-D and cancer, and oncologists have been telling their patients to take it for a long time.
Maybe the purpose of this new study was to gather more evidence. Happy to read that it seems to be working for patients.
So, expose that vulnerable skin to the sun, right?
Bkmk
“Many publications tested whether increasing vitamin D in people with a level between 20 ng/ml and 30 ng/ml would produce a specific benefit. Almost always, it does not benefit.”
Perhaps they’re right, but there are mountains of anecdotal reports to the contrary (including many in this thread) - as well as the conflicting opinions of some physicians and Vitamin D researchers.
Right.
When Signalman goes outside at night in a hoodie and facemask, it’d hard to get sun D! :-) jk
Is there a difference between vit D and Vit D3?
Is there a difference between vit D and Vit D3?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.