Vitamin D levels in Postmenopausal Women

In a new study just published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jackson, Leboff and other authors went back and looked at the data from the Women's health Initiative Calcium plus Vitamin D Clinical Trial. This trial looked at over 3000 postmenopausal women age 50-70.

They were looking to see if there was a correlation as would be expected between postmenopausal women's vitamin D levels, and the latitude where they live, as well as the amount of sun in their area of the country as well as their oral intake of vitamin D.

They found that although it would be presumed that these factors would be reflected in the blood level of a woman, it was not the case. There was a rough correlation but it was not the strict correlation that was expected.

They found that their model could explain only 21% of the variation in vitamin D levels after they adjusted for many other factors including food, outside activity, race, age, and the amount of sun their region gets per year.

The authors theorize that because so many people are aware that the sun can cause skin cancer, most people use sunblock or stay covered when they go out in the sun which was not the case many years ago before the relation between skin cancer and sun was recognized. They theorize that this may be why women in more southern climates did not necessarily have higher levels of vitamin D in their blood, as would have been expected.

The authors appropriately note also that the women had only one vitamin D  blood test and because the study was done over several years that one blood test may not have been representative of what happened over the years.

The absolute numbers in the study were that over 50% of the sample of US postmenopausal women had blood levels less than 20 ng/ml. In addition, 13% of the women had blood levels less than 10 ng/ml. Note that if they were using the newly recognized minimal normal level of vitamin D i.e. greater than 30 ng/ML that these percentages would hvae been much higher. The 20 ng/milliliter level is only enough to prevent rickets.

The authors' summarize that models that predict blood levels of vitamin D by  looking at oral intake and/or vitamin D made from sun exposure to the skin should now "be used with caution in making assumptions about the relation between vitamin D status and health outcomes."

This corroborates what I have said in my book and in my blog many times. Everybody should be getting a vitamin D blood test, at least once a year, just like they get a cholesterol or diabetes test once a year.

It is also why I chose to make available in my vitamin D store, an at-home blood test. In this way people who do not go to the doctor often or who do not have insurance, can find out their own blood level which is the only really accurate way to know where you stand in regards to vitamin D adequacy.

REFERENCE

 

Vitamin D Protects Children from Influenza A

I am delighted to see a new article in the May issue of the prestigious American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which confirms advice I had been giving my patients last fall in the flu season.

In this amazing article by Hiroynik Ida and others, from December 2008 through March 2009 they researchers conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of vitamin D3 supplements in schoolchildren. In one group of children they gave the children 1200 IU of vitamin D3 every day and the other group of children received placebos.

They then specifically looked for influenza A infections in the two groups of children. The H1NI flu of this past winter is an Influenza A virus. In children who were sick they specifically diagnosed influenza A with nose swab cultures, the classical way of diagnosing these infections.

The findings were that the children who were given the vitamin D3 had a 42% reduction in the frequency of influenza A infections. This is obviously a major reduction.

Another significant finding, which I have spoken about in my book and in this blog, was that in children who had a previous diagnosis of asthma, asthma attacks were reduced by 83% in the group of children taking the vitamin D3.

I am delighted to see these type of  studies coming out, confirming what I have discussed in my book and what I have been telling my patients in my practice.

The wonderful thing about this study is that it was not an associational study. Rather they used the gold standard-double-blind crossover placebo-controlled type of trial. This is the only type of research that many conventional physicians will accept as valid. Most previous studies on the effect of vitamin D in relation to influenza were associational only.

All children over the age of 1 in our country, until their early teens, should be on at least 1000 IU of vitamin D3 every day. With blood tests even higher levels can be taken to optimize the children's health.

Please help me spread the word about this to your friends and family.

Reference

 

Environmental POP’s Contribute to Diabetes and Obesity

As most of my patients, friends, and readers know I have a special interest in the role that the environment plays in human health. That is why I am a professor at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and their  environmental medicine Center of Excellence in Arizona.

Increasing evidence has consistently been found that environmental pollutants play a significant role in human disease.

Now a new article has come out in the government-sponsored journal Environmental Health Perspectives which shows that persistent organic pollutants (POP's) lead to insulin resistance a condition which is asscociated with diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. POP's are organic compounds that are resistant to being broken down by our environment through the normal processes. Therefore they persist in the environment and accumulate in human tissue and get magnified in food chains.

Epidemiologic studies have suggested that exposure to persistent organic pollutants in our diet might be a contributing factor to diabetes. POP's are known to accumulate in some foods such as fatty fish.

In this study, when the authors exposed adult male rats to crude, but not refined, salmon oil, the rats developed insulin resistance,  abdominal obesity, and liver problems.

In rats given refined salmon oil this did not happen.

In addition the authors studied fat cells and found that POPS led to significant inhibition of insulin action at the cellular level, which is what we call insulin resistance.

This is a very interesting article because it shows that it may not be just fat that contributes to diabetes and obesity but an environmental contaminant in the fat, that makes it more likely that these diseases will occur.

This is just one more reason to eat organic as much as we possibly can.

REFERENCE

 

Environmental POP's Contribute to Diabetes and Obesity

As most of my patients, friends, and readers know I have a special interest in the role that the environment plays in human health. That is why I am a professor at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and their  environmental medicine Center of Excellence in Arizona.

Increasing evidence has consistently been found that environmental pollutants play a significant role in human disease.

Now a new article has come out in the government-sponsored journal Environmental Health Perspectives which shows that persistent organic pollutants (POP's) lead to insulin resistance a condition which is asscociated with diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. POP's are organic compounds that are resistant to being broken down by our environment through the normal processes. Therefore they persist in the environment and accumulate in human tissue and get magnified in food chains.

Epidemiologic studies have suggested that exposure to persistent organic pollutants in our diet might be a contributing factor to diabetes. POP's are known to accumulate in some foods such as fatty fish.

In this study, when the authors exposed adult male rats to crude, but not refined, salmon oil, the rats developed insulin resistance,  abdominal obesity, and liver problems.

In rats given refined salmon oil this did not happen.

In addition the authors studied fat cells and found that POPS led to significant inhibition of insulin action at the cellular level, which is what we call insulin resistance.

This is a very interesting article because it shows that it may not be just fat that contributes to diabetes and obesity but an environmental contaminant in the fat, that makes it more likely that these diseases will occur.

This is just one more reason to eat organic as much as we possibly can.

REFERENCE

 

Do phthalates cause ADD?

For many years now, observational studies as well as experimental studies have noted the biological consequences of phthalate exposure on neurological development in children.

Now, in what I would call a landmark study, Engel and colleagues, looked at the association of phthalate exposure in the womb and subsequent offspring behavior.

Phthalates are used in the manufacture of plastics. They are very common in women's cosmetics including nail polish, as well as in children's toys, paints, food products, and textiles. Liquid soap, hairspray and perfume often contain phthalates.

This was a multiethnic population that was enrolled in the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health study which took place in New York City between 1998 and 2002.

The researchers took third trimester urine specimens from the mothers and analyzed these urine specimens for phthalate's breakdown products. Subsequently they evaluated the behavioral and cognitive development of the children between the ages of four and nine years old.

The findings are astonishing. Higher concentrations of phthalates in the mother during pregnancy were associated with poorer scores on the following indices in the children: aggression, conduct problems, attention problems, depression, and externalizing problems as well as behavioral symptom Index scales.

It was also noted that higher phthalate levels in the mother were also connected with poorer scores on the global executive composite index and the emotional control scale.

The authors also commented that the areas of behavior that are adversely associated with intrauterine phthalates are associated with children who are diagnosed with conduct or attention deficit — hyperactivity disorders.

This study puts a whole new light on the prevalence of these behavioral disorders diagnosed in our society and  in so many children. Combine this with low vitamin D levels in the mother (which is needed to repair DNA mutations), along with poor diet, and we begin to see why these behavioral disorders are so common in our society.

This is one of the reasons why I advise all of my pregnant patients to use only health-food-store nail polish, no perfumes, non-toxic makeups and an organic diet when they are pregnant.

Please give me your comments and thoughts on this most important article.

REFERENCE

,

 

Vitamin D Helps Protect against Colon Cancer

Colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in men and women in the United States according to data from the American Cancer Society.

A recent study published in the British Medical Journal looked at the association between people's vitamin D blood levels, their dietary intake of vitamin D and calcium, and their risk of colorectal cancer in European populations. 520,000 people from 10 Western European countries participated in this study. This is an enormous number! The people who were in the study gave blood samples and completed dietary and lifestyle questionnaires between the years 1992 and 1998.

The findings confirm what other studies, which I talk about in my book have shown us. Lower levels of vitamin D in the blood were associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer. Higher concentrations of vitamin D in the blood were associated with a lower risk for this cancer. Specifically, people who had the highest blood levels of vitamin D in this study, had a 40% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those in the lowest levels of vitamin D in the blood.

In my opinion, this is just one more reason, further confirmed why everybody should take a basic dose of vitamin D, and should try to optimize their levels of vitamin D if they are able to get blood tests.

For people who do not have a blood test, and who are otherwise healthy adults I recommend 2000 IU of vitamin D daily.

Reference 1

Reference 2