Re: Vitamin D Prevents Cancer

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

In addition to the paper below, some of its authors are putting on a complimentary one day seminar about diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency, in San Diego. It appears the seminar will contain data about the preventative effects against cancer.

Do we have anyone who lives close enough to attend and report back to us what is said?

It is scheduled for: Wednesday 9 April 2008

At: 12:30 pm to 6:00 pm

At Garrett Auditorium, University of California, San Diego.

To register call: 619 823 7062, or go to:

http://grassrootshealth.org/register/

The seminar is titled:

"Diagnosis and Treatment of Vitamin D Deficiency"

Rodney.

======================================

>> > Hi folks:> > Hot off the press ....... and it would be interesting to see the> study referred to in the first three lines of the abstract, below. > Anyone know which it is?> > "Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency"> > JJ Cannell, BW Hollis, M Zasloff & RP Heaney> > Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero, California> 93422; Medical University of South Carolina, Departments of Biochemistry> and Molecular Biology, ton, South Carolina, USA; town> University, Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Washington, District> of Columbia, USA; Creighton University Medical Center, Department of> Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.> > "The recent discovery ¨C in a randomised, controlled trial ¨C that> daily ingestion of 1100 IU of colecalciferol (vitamin D) over a 4-year> period dramatically reduced the incidence of non-skin cancers makes it> difficult to overstate the potential medical, social and economic> implications of treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such> deficiencies common, probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency stands> implicated in a host of diseases other than cancer. The metabolic> product of vitamin D is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and maintenance,> secosteroid hormone that targets > 200 human genes in a wide variety of> tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it> targets. A common misconception is that government agencies designed> present intake recommendations to prevent or treat vitamin D deficiency.> They did not. Instead, they are guidelines to prevent particular> metabolic bone diseases. Official recommendations were never designed> and are not effective in preventing or treating vitamin D deficiency and> in no way limit the freedom of the physician ¨C or responsibility> ¨C to do so. At this time, assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is> the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure that treatment is> adequate and safe. The authors believe that treatment should be> sufficient to maintain levels found in humans living naturally in a> sun-rich environment, that is, > 40 ng/ml, year around. Three treatment> modalities exist: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B radiation or> supplementation. All treatment modalities have their potential risks and> benefits. Benefits of all treatment modalities outweigh potential risks> and greatly outweigh the risk of no treatment. As a prolonged> ¡®vitamin D winter¡¯, centred on the winter solstice, occurs at> many temperate latitudes, ¡Ü 5000 IU (125 ¦Ìg) of vitamin D/day> may be required in obese, aged and/or dark-skinned patients to maintain> adequate levels during the winter, a dose that makes many physicians> uncomfortable."> > PMID: 18076342> > Rodney.>

[Guest guest]

OK folks:

I think this is the study referred to earlier. The results are

absolutely stunning, imo. A HUGE protective effect against overall

cancer risk, from 1400-1500 mg of supplemental calcium daily, plus

1100 IU of vitamin D:

" When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12

mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232. " So it looks like it

takes twelve months of vitamin D supplementation for the benefits to

take full effect?

Here is the abstract:

" Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results

of a randomized trial. "

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.

Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68131,

USA. jmlappe@...

" BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental

calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common

cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are

lacking.

" OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the

efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing

incident cancer risk of all types.

" DESIGN: This was a 4-year, population-based, double-blind,

randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was

fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer

incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly

selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged

>55 years in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude

41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500

mg supplemental calcium/day alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium

plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/day (Ca + D), or placebo.

" RESULTS: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was

lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P <

0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative

risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were

0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis

was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the

Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not

change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic

regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D

concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer

risk.

" CONCLUSIONS: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status

substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This

trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170. "

PMID: 17556697

And this is not a huge amount of vitamin D, either. If 2000 IU /day

is safe, as most authorities now believe, I wonder if it would

provide still greater protection. That will no doubt soon be known.

Rodney.

--- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Hot off the press ....... and it would be interesting to see the

> study referred to in the first three lines of the abstract, below.

> Anyone know which it is?

>

> " Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency "

>

> JJ Cannell, BW Hollis, M Zasloff & RP Heaney

>

> Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero,

California

> 93422; Medical University of South Carolina, Departments of

Biochemistry

> and Molecular Biology, ton, South Carolina, USA; town

> University, Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Washington,

District

> of Columbia, USA; Creighton University Medical Center, Department

of

> Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

>

> " The recent discovery ¨C in a randomised, controlled trial ¨C that

> daily ingestion of 1100 IU of colecalciferol (vitamin D) over a 4-

year

> period dramatically reduced the incidence of non-skin cancers

makes it

> difficult to overstate the potential medical, social and economic

> implications of treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such

> deficiencies common, probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency stands

> implicated in a host of diseases other than cancer. The metabolic

> product of vitamin D is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and

maintenance,

> secosteroid hormone that targets > 200 human genes in a wide

variety of

> tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it

> targets. A common misconception is that government agencies

designed

> present intake recommendations to prevent or treat vitamin D

deficiency.

> They did not. Instead, they are guidelines to prevent particular

> metabolic bone diseases. Official recommendations were never

designed

> and are not effective in preventing or treating vitamin D

deficiency and

> in no way limit the freedom of the physician ¨C or responsibility

> ¨C to do so. At this time, assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is

> the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure that treatment is

> adequate and safe. The authors believe that treatment should be

> sufficient to maintain levels found in humans living naturally in a

> sun-rich environment, that is, > 40 ng/ml, year around. Three

treatment

> modalities exist: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B radiation or

> supplementation. All treatment modalities have their potential

risks and

> benefits. Benefits of all treatment modalities outweigh potential

risks

> and greatly outweigh the risk of no treatment. As a prolonged

> ¡®vitamin D winter¡¯, centred on the winter solstice, occurs at

> many temperate latitudes, ¡Ü 5000 IU (125 ¦Ìg) of vitamin D/day

> may be required in obese, aged and/or dark-skinned patients to

maintain

> adequate levels during the winter, a dose that makes many

physicians

> uncomfortable. "

>

> PMID: 18076342

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

In January we had a series of posts about calcium supplements increasing heart attack risk in women. In post 26711, iron and calcium are discussed as contributing to aging.

So the combo of Vit D and calcium is beneficial (?) Or unless it’s really only the Vit D and not the combo which is responsible for the anti-cancer benefit discussed below.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2008 01:14:18 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Vitamin D Prevents Cancer

OK folks:

I think this is the study referred to earlier. The results are

absolutely stunning, imo. A HUGE protective effect against overall

cancer risk, from 1400-1500 mg of supplemental calcium daily, plus

1100 IU of vitamin D:

" When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12

mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232. " So it looks like it

takes twelve months of vitamin D supplementation for the benefits to

take full effect?

Here is the abstract:

" Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results

of a randomized trial. "

Lappe JM, Travers-Gustafson D, Davies KM, Recker RR, Heaney RP.

Osteoporosis Research Center, Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68131,

USA. jmlappe@... <mailto:jmlappe%40creighton.edu>

" BACKGROUND: Numerous observational studies have found supplemental

calcium and vitamin D to be associated with reduced risk of common

cancers. However, interventional studies to test this effect are

lacking.

" OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to determine the

efficacy of calcium alone and calcium plus vitamin D in reducing

incident cancer risk of all types.

" DESIGN: This was a 4-year, population-based, double-blind,

randomized placebo-controlled trial. The primary outcome was

fracture incidence, and the principal secondary outcome was cancer

incidence. The subjects were 1179 community-dwelling women randomly

selected from the population of healthy postmenopausal women aged

>55 years in a 9-county rural area of Nebraska centered at latitude

41.4 degrees N. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive 1400-1500

mg supplemental calcium/day alone (Ca-only), supplemental calcium

plus 1100 IU vitamin D3/day (Ca + D), or placebo.

" RESULTS: When analyzed by intention to treat, cancer incidence was

lower in the Ca + D women than in the placebo control subjects (P <

0.03). With the use of logistic regression, the unadjusted relative

risks (RR) of incident cancer in the Ca + D and Ca-only groups were

0.402 (P = 0.01) and 0.532 (P = 0.06), respectively. When analysis

was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the

Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not

change significantly for the Ca-only group. In multiple logistic

regression models, both treatment and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D

concentrations were significant, independent predictors of cancer

risk.

" CONCLUSIONS: Improving calcium and vitamin D nutritional status

substantially reduces all-cancer risk in postmenopausal women. This

trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00352170. "

PMID: 17556697

And this is not a huge amount of vitamin D, either. If 2000 IU /day

is safe, as most authorities now believe, I wonder if it would

provide still greater protection. That will no doubt soon be known.

Rodney.

--- In <mailto: %40> , " Rodney " <perspect1111@...>

wrote:

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> Hot off the press ....... and it would be interesting to see the

> study referred to in the first three lines of the abstract, below.

> Anyone know which it is?

>

> " Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency "

>

> JJ Cannell, BW Hollis, M Zasloff & RP Heaney

>

> Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero,

California

> 93422; Medical University of South Carolina, Departments of

Biochemistry

> and Molecular Biology, ton, South Carolina, USA; town

> University, Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Washington,

District

> of Columbia, USA; Creighton University Medical Center, Department

of

> Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

>

> " The recent discovery &die;C in a randomised, controlled trial &die;C that

> daily ingestion of 1100 IU of colecalciferol (vitamin D) over a 4-

year

> period dramatically reduced the incidence of non-skin cancers

makes it

> difficult to overstate the potential medical, social and economic

> implications of treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such

> deficiencies common, probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency stands

> implicated in a host of diseases other than cancer. The metabolic

> product of vitamin D is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and

maintenance,

> secosteroid hormone that targets > 200 human genes in a wide

variety of

> tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it

> targets. A common misconception is that government agencies

designed

> present intake recommendations to prevent or treat vitamin D

deficiency.

> They did not. Instead, they are guidelines to prevent particular

> metabolic bone diseases. Official recommendations were never

designed

> and are not effective in preventing or treating vitamin D

deficiency and

> in no way limit the freedom of the physician &die;C or responsibility

> &die;C to do so. At this time, assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is

> the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure that treatment is

> adequate and safe. The authors believe that treatment should be

> sufficient to maintain levels found in humans living naturally in a

> sun-rich environment, that is, > 40 ng/ml, year around. Three

treatment

> modalities exist: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B radiation or

> supplementation. All treatment modalities have their potential

risks and

> benefits. Benefits of all treatment modalities outweigh potential

risks

> and greatly outweigh the risk of no treatment. As a prolonged

> ¡®vitamin D winter¡&hibar;, centred on the winter solstice, occurs at

> many temperate latitudes, ¡Ü 5000 IU (125 œÌg) of vitamin D/day

> may be required in obese, aged and/or dark-skinned patients to

maintain

> adequate levels during the winter, a dose that makes many

physicians

> uncomfortable. "

>

> PMID: 18076342

>

> Rodney.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Good question, Francesca. A rather long answer.

I think we all acknowledge there are essential nutrients, two of which are calcium and iron. With zero intake of either of them we would not survive very long. But many many nutrients are dangerous in large quantities. So the issue is how much of each is appropriate/ideal/necessary? The answer for most nutrients is, of course, that no one knows with absolute certainty.

The data in that paper from a double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial show that, of 1179 post-menopausal women who were healthy at the start of the study, about six percent who were taking the placebo developed cancer over the four years of the experiment; BUT ONLY 3.3% OF THOSE TAKING JUST THE CALCIUM SUPPLEMENT DEVELOPED CANCER; and JUST 1% OF THOSE TAKING BOTH THE CALCIUM AND THE VITAMIN D CAME DOWN WITH CANCER.

Of course this is just one study and another one may show different results in the future - perhaps not so good, possibly better. But in this study taking just calcium appears to have prevented 45% of the cancers that would have occurred in these women without the calcium. The result for the calcium+vitamin D is even more impressive - it appears to have prevented almost 80% of the cancers that would have occurred.

This is absolutely startling. It is not even known if the amounts of calcium and D given in this experiment were optimal. It may be, when dosages are finally perfected, and if treatment is started earlier instead of waiting until old age before implementing it, that it will be possible to prevent more than 80% of all cancers by this method. Absolutely startling, imo, if confirmed.

But that is not all. What is even more impressive is this: in the group taking both supplements, after 28 months into the experiment there was not a single additional case of cancer between then and the end of the study at four years. These results, if repeatable, *could* be interpreted as indicating that once the reserves of these nutrients had been restored to appropriate levels these women became immune to cancer.

This is, frankly, a little difficult to believe. But it is peer-reviewed research from an academic institution known for its expertise in matters relating to calcium/vitamin D/bone. Of course it will be reassuring when someone else repeats the experiment and gets similar results, hopefully. But in the meantime should we wait five to ten years until the results are unequivocally confirmed while another 10% to 15% of us come down with unnecessary cancers?

We each place our bets. My bets will be placed, until I see additional information which suggests otherwise, on erring on the high side with vitamin D and being a little more studious about getting a total intake of calcium of around 1500mg.

These dosages may turn out to be not the optimal ones. But that applies to just about everything we do. There is little about which we have perfect knowledge. [OT: As an example, just recently I struck spinach off my list of regularly eaten green vegetables because of the high MET and iron contents. My guess now is that it might have been better to have eaten less of it these past years. But science is a gradual accumulation of knowledge. A century ago Shackleton, for example, didn't understand the dangers of eating too much pemmican. Fortunately, these days we do and avoid the stuff, or anything remotely like it. But very gradually we are edging closer to the truth. My bet is that deleting spinach will provide me with a very slightly better lifespan. But of course it is always possible that in a few years new information may prove otherwise. We see.]

But as regards this study, making a shift to higher vitamin D and ~1500 mg of calcium seems to have trivial risks compared with the chance?/possibility?/likelihood? of avoiding 80% of cancers. Risks that are especially trivial for people who have CVD biomarkers as remarkable as those of people on CRON.

Here is the chart which shows the data from the study. Take a look at it, and if you do not find it absolutely astonishing then you do not understand it (apologies to Ernest Rutherford!). It is, IMO, probably the most startling set of data about health I have ever encountered.

http://www.grassrootshealth.org/img/graph_allcancer.gif

Let's hope it is really true.

EOR !!!

Rodney.

>> In January we had a series of posts about calcium supplements increasing> heart attack risk in women. In post 26711, iron and calcium are discussed> as contributing to aging.> > So the combo of Vit D and calcium is beneficial (?) Or unless it¹s really> only the Vit D and not the combo which is responsible for the anti-cancer> benefit discussed below.

[Guest guest]

I ask the same question that is oft asked of exercise, how do these

" overdosing " studies apply to CRON? How much further, if any, risk

reduction do we achieve for the risks, known and unknown, of

'overdosing " D " , or calcium or whatever?

bill4cr

> >

> >

> > Hi folks:

> >

> > Hot off the press ....... and it would be interesting to see the

> > study referred to in the first three lines of the abstract, below.

> > Anyone know which it is?

> >

> > " Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency "

> >

> > JJ Cannell, BW Hollis, M Zasloff & RP Heaney

> >

> > Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero,

> California

> > 93422; Medical University of South Carolina, Departments of

> Biochemistry

> > and Molecular Biology, ton, South Carolina, USA; town

> > University, Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Washington,

> District

> > of Columbia, USA; Creighton University Medical Center, Department

> of

> > Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.

> >

> > " The recent discovery ¨C in a randomised, controlled trial ¨C that

> > daily ingestion of 1100 IU of colecalciferol (vitamin D) over a 4-

> year

> > period dramatically reduced the incidence of non-skin cancers

> makes it

> > difficult to overstate the potential medical, social and economic

> > implications of treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such

> > deficiencies common, probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency stands

> > implicated in a host of diseases other than cancer. The metabolic

> > product of vitamin D is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and

> maintenance,

> > secosteroid hormone that targets > 200 human genes in a wide

> variety of

> > tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it

> > targets. A common misconception is that government agencies

> designed

> > present intake recommendations to prevent or treat vitamin D

> deficiency.

> > They did not. Instead, they are guidelines to prevent particular

> > metabolic bone diseases. Official recommendations were never

> designed

> > and are not effective in preventing or treating vitamin D

> deficiency and

> > in no way limit the freedom of the physician ¨C or responsibility

> > ¨C to do so. At this time, assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is

> > the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure that treatment is

> > adequate and safe. The authors believe that treatment should be

> > sufficient to maintain levels found in humans living naturally in a

> > sun-rich environment, that is, > 40 ng/ml, year around. Three

> treatment

> > modalities exist: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B radiation or

> > supplementation. All treatment modalities have their potential

> risks and

> > benefits. Benefits of all treatment modalities outweigh potential

> risks

> > and greatly outweigh the risk of no treatment. As a prolonged

> > ¡®vitamin D winter¡¯, centred on the winter solstice, occurs at

> > many temperate latitudes, ¡Ü 5000 IU (125 ¦Ìg) of vitamin D/day

> > may be required in obese, aged and/or dark-skinned patients to

> maintain

> > adequate levels during the winter, a dose that makes many

> physicians

> > uncomfortable. "

> >

> > PMID: 18076342

> >

> > Rodney.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Bill:

In the case of CVD, the benefits implied by the improvements in biomarkers suggest that after implementing CRON there isn't much risk left to eliminate.

For cancer there is much less evidence available. But the improvement in cancer risk in that one Ca+D study exceeded the benefits shown in restricted mice.

Nevertheless, we are still a long way from having definitive evidence about whether there are improvements to be had beyond CRON in either case. So you may be right.

Rodney.

> > >> > > > > > Hi folks:> > > > > > Hot off the press ....... and it would be interesting to see the> > > study referred to in the first three lines of the abstract, below.> > > Anyone know which it is?> > > > > > "Diagnosis and treatment of vitamin D deficiency"> > > > > > JJ Cannell, BW Hollis, M Zasloff & RP Heaney> > > > > > Atascadero State Hospital, 10333 El Camino Real, Atascadero,> > California> > > 93422; Medical University of South Carolina, Departments of> > Biochemistry> > > and Molecular Biology, ton, South Carolina, USA; town> > > University, Departments of Surgery and Pediatrics, Washington,> > District> > > of Columbia, USA; Creighton University Medical Center, Department> > of> > > Medicine, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.> > > > > > "The recent discovery ¨C in a randomised, controlled trial ¨C that> > > daily ingestion of 1100 IU of colecalciferol (vitamin D) over a 4-> > year> > > period dramatically reduced the incidence of non-skin cancers> > makes it> > > difficult to overstate the potential medical, social and economic> > > implications of treating vitamin D deficiency. Not only are such> > > deficiencies common, probably the rule, vitamin D deficiency stands> > > implicated in a host of diseases other than cancer. The metabolic> > > product of vitamin D is a potent, pleiotropic, repair and> > maintenance,> > > secosteroid hormone that targets > 200 human genes in a wide> > variety of> > > tissues, meaning it has as many mechanisms of action as genes it> > > targets. A common misconception is that government agencies> > designed> > > present intake recommendations to prevent or treat vitamin D> > deficiency.> > > They did not. Instead, they are guidelines to prevent particular> > > metabolic bone diseases. Official recommendations were never> > designed> > > and are not effective in preventing or treating vitamin D> > deficiency and> > > in no way limit the freedom of the physician ¨C or responsibility> > > ¨C to do so. At this time, assessing serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is> > > the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure that treatment is> > > adequate and safe. The authors believe that treatment should be> > > sufficient to maintain levels found in humans living naturally in a> > > sun-rich environment, that is, > 40 ng/ml, year around. Three> > treatment> > > modalities exist: sunlight, artificial ultraviolet B radiation or> > > supplementation. All treatment modalities have their potential> > risks and> > > benefits. Benefits of all treatment modalities outweigh potential> > risks> > > and greatly outweigh the risk of no treatment. As a prolonged> > > ¡®vitamin D winter¡¯, centred on the winter solstice, occurs at> > > many temperate latitudes, ¡Ü 5000 IU (125 ¦Ìg) of vitamin D/day> > > may be required in obese, aged and/or dark-skinned patients to> > maintain> > > adequate levels during the winter, a dose that makes many> > physicians> > > uncomfortable."> > > > > > PMID: 18076342> > > > > > Rodney.> > >> >>