Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Vitamin D & Long Life

Lewis

Member
Vitamin D plus calcium tied to longer life

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Older adults who take vitamin D and calcium supplements may live a bit longer than their peers, a new research review suggests.
Researchers found that older adults who were given vitamin D and calcium supplements were 9 percent less likely to die over three years than those given placebo pills.
Vitamin D on its own, however, showed no effect on death rates.
The findings are based on data from eight past clinical trials -- where people were randomly assigned to take vitamin D (with or without calcium) or get inactive placebos for comparison.
Those types of studies offer the strongest kind of evidence on whether the supplements have health effects or not, said Dr. Lars Rejnmark, the lead researcher on the review.


A 9 percent dip in death risk over a three-year period might sound small. To put it in context, Rejnmark's team -- some of whom have connections to supplement makers that market vitamin D and calcium products -- estimates that to prevent one death, 151 older adults would have to take vitamin D and calcium for three years.
But that effect is "at least as pronounced" as the benefits linked to cholesterol-lowering statins and blood pressure drugs, said Rejnmark, an associate professor at Aarhus University in Denmark.


"In my view, a 9 percent reduced mortality in the general population of elderly is of major importance," Rejnmark told Reuters Health by email.
"Except for stopping smoking," he added, "there are not many other known interventions that are capable (of) such a reduction in the risk of death."
EIGHT TRIALS, 70,000 PEOPLE
Rejnmark and his colleagues report the findings in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.


For their study, the researchers combined the results from eight clinical trials that involved more than 70,000 older adults altogether -- mostly women.
In each trial, people were randomly assigned to take vitamin D or a placebo; some studies used a combination of vitamin D and calcium.
The doses varied, but most trials used a daily vitamin D dose of 10 to 20 micrograms. That's in the recommended range: in the U.S., health officials suggest that most adults get 15 micrograms (or 600 IU) of vitamin D per day, while people older than 70 should strive for 20 micrograms (or 800 IU).
In trials that used calcium, the dose was 1,000 milligrams per day. In general, women older than 50, and all adults older than 70, are told to get 1,200 milligrams of calcium each day.


Vitamin D and calcium are probably best known as bone-builders. Older women often take the supplements to ward off the bone-thinning disease osteoporosis.
And some trials have found that the supplement combination can prevent falls and bone fractures in the elderly.
But that probably does not explain the lower death risk in this study. When the researchers factored in hip and spine fractures, they did not account for the dip in death risk.


Another possibility is that supplements curbed people's risk of dying from cancer. There's some evidence that calcium and vitamin D may lower the odds of colon cancer, Rejnmark said. But he added that the evidence is not yet "firm."
SUPPLEMENTS MAY CARRY RISKS
For now, Rejnmark said the findings support getting the recommended amounts of vitamin D and calcium.
But that doesn't mean supplements don't carry any risks.
In particular, Rejnmark noted, some research has linked calcium supplements (not calcium-rich food) to an increased risk of heart attack in older adults -- though it's not clear if the supplement is to blame.


As for known side effects, calcium supplements may boost a person's risk of kidney stones. And very high levels of vitamin D can cause symptoms like nausea, vomiting, constipation and poor appetite.
In the U.S., the Institute of Medicine says people should get no more than 100 micrograms, or 4,000 IU, of vitamin D each day. The upper limit for calcium in older adults is 2,000 milligrams.


People can, of course, get calcium and vitamin D through food too. Dairy foods are rich in calcium; other sources include greens like broccoli and kale, and fortified juices and breakfast cereals. Food sources of vitamin D are relatively few, but include fatty fish like salmon and tuna, plus fortified milk, juice and cereals.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/LaoDDQ Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, online May 17, 2012.
 
What's the benefit of living longer?? We're all gonna go at some time.

I believe in taking care of ourselves, but these studies consistently contradict eachother from year to year....... :eeeekkk
 
What's the benefit of living longer?? We're all gonna go at some time.

I believe in taking care of ourselves, but these studies consistently contradict eachother from year to year....... :eeeekkk

That's right. This is why I'm so critical of medical ideologies and statistics, backed by big Pharma and government of course.

I noticed one thing about vitamin studies. The evidence is overwhelming vitamins work and the medical world can't deny any longer that their drugs lost out --- big time. So they play along and admit to it because they can't deny the obvious truth. So, they have these studies tooting the benefits of vitamins, but if you ever noticed, they put the disclaimer at the end (as was in this article), "but don't take too many. Always ask your doctor first if it's right for you" and thus place the fear of "overdosing" in people minds. Of course most doctors will say "get a balanced diet and you'll have enough" and dissuade people from taking them anyway. Wouldn't you if you had stocks in the dope they give out and it may affect your lifestyle and retirement regardless of the health of the person?

Now, what the article is really saying is just what I did yesterday: If you want vitamin D, take off your shirt and work in the yard all afternoon like I did and you'll get plenty. There's something to the old advice "get plenty of fresh air and sunshine" the latter of which they frown upon these days as if God put a big cancer-causing orb in the sky.
 
There are negative side effects of overdosing on certain vitamins, but usually the risk is minimal. Most vitamins are water soluble, so you end up eliminating the excess. You'd have to take a HUGE amount in order to start seeing those negative side effects.

On the other hand, there are some vitamins that are fat soluble, and those can easily accumulate into an excessive dose since they're not eliminated as readily. The fat soluble vitamins are K, A, D, and E.
 
Too much of some vitamins can also be a bit of a risk during pregnancy. It's good to keep track of which vitamins, etc.
 
Too much of some vitamins can also be a bit of a risk during pregnancy. It's good to keep track of which vitamins, etc.

Yes, such as excess vitamin A during pregnancy. This is particularly true for one of the three forms of Vitamin A, retinoic acid, which can cause central nervous system defects in a developing baby.

Excess vitamin D can lead to hypercalcemia, which while asymptomatic, can greatly increase the risk of kidney stones.
 
Yes, such as excess vitamin A during pregnancy. This is particularly true for one of the three forms of Vitamin A, retinoic acid, which can cause central nervous system defects in a developing baby.

Excess vitamin D can lead to hypercalcemia, which while asymptomatic, can greatly increase the risk of kidney stones.

elizabethbraddock:

I think it bears out that sometimes a surfeit of 'health foods', when not properly advised, can actually harm people, not least expectant mothers.
 
elizabethbraddock:

I think it bears out that sometimes a surfeit of 'health foods', when not properly advised, can actually harm people, not least expectant mothers.

It's like anything else in life: moderation is the key. Even things that are good for you can be bad in excess.
 
There are negative side effects of overdosing on certain vitamins, but usually the risk is minimal. Most vitamins are water soluble, so you end up eliminating the excess. You'd have to take a HUGE amount in order to start seeing those negative side effects.

On the other hand, there are some vitamins that are fat soluble, and those can easily accumulate into an excessive dose since they're not eliminated as readily. The fat soluble vitamins are K, A, D, and E.

Elizabeth,

You're right, the risk is minimal. To prove my point, have you personally known anyone or patient with a known, provable vitamin excess? Sure it's possible, but last I read it's only literally a handful in the whole population size of the United States.

The analogy is similar to what I state on the tech forum when I always bash Microsoft and praise Linux. You have Microsoft (analogous to drugs) with myriads of viruses (analogous to overdosing) being compared with a Mac or Linux (vitamins) getting viruses (overdosing). No comparison. Sure these computers can get a virus, but it's so far and few between that it's not worth the concern, although some like to make it sound that way.

Likewise, even the fat solubles you have to way overdo it. I don't think they make pills that big.

But I think as a better reference, since we are talking about vitamin D in this thread, that begs the question to anyone here who cares to answer how much do you think is overdoing it? What do you think the maximum should be that a person should take daily?
 
Elizabeth,

You're right, the risk is minimal. To prove my point, have you personally known anyone or patient with a known, provable vitamin excess? Sure it's possible, but last I read it's only literally a handful in the whole population size of the United States.

The analogy is similar to what I state on the tech forum when I always bash Microsoft and praise Linux. You have Microsoft (analogous to drugs) with myriads of viruses (analogous to overdosing) being compared with a Mac or Linux (vitamins) getting viruses (overdosing). No comparison. Sure these computers can get a virus, but it's so far and few between that it's not worth the concern, although some like to make it sound that way.

Likewise, even the fat solubles you have to way overdo it. I don't think they make pills that big.

But I think as a better reference, since we are talking about vitamin D in this thread, that begs the question to anyone here who cares to answer how much do you think is overdoing it? What do you think the maximum should be that a person should take daily?

Yeah, it's exceptionally rare for someone to actually overdose on vitamins. In the case of vitamin D, it'd take somewhere in the range of 50,000 IU, or 1250 micrograms, of vitamin D to cause toxicity over a period of time. The average vitamin D intake for a person is about 600 IU, or 15 micrograms. As you can tell by the numbers, you'd have to take a LOT of it. Very rare indeed, but it does happen. I'd file it away as something to not have to worry to much about, but useful for someone who is studying to be a physician (ahem).
 
Yeah, it's exceptionally rare for someone to actually overdose on vitamins. In the case of vitamin D, it'd take somewhere in the range of 50,000 IU, or 1250 micrograms, of vitamin D to cause toxicity over a period of time. The average vitamin D intake for a person is about 600 IU, or 15 micrograms. As you can tell by the numbers, you'd have to take a LOT of it. Very rare indeed, but it does happen. I'd file it away as something to not have to worry to much about, but useful for someone who is studying to be a physician (ahem).

OK, I can dig that. And who takes that much (50,000IU)? I take about 6000+ units a day except when I go out into the sun which I guess gives me somewhere in the range of 10,000-20,000 units in a short time--- the body stops producing it in such quantities after awhile. On sunny days I can save some vitamin money.

Now, compare to the article and read the maximum dosage they say an elderly person should have. No comparison, and while probably helpful still may not be enough for some people. Then it galls me when they sometimes do other such "studies" using meager amounts of vitamins and then claim they don't help (if you notice not all vitamin studies are equal --- sometimes they don't see a difference).

But in the case of vitamin D, I'm wondering if most people aren't so deficient that even small amounts help and the results, as in this study, are undeniable. But although small amounts are better, it's still not optimal, and I get a little miffed at those disclaimers they always put with vitamin studies.
 
Back
Top