vitamin D religion called into question

Anyone can post and discuss breaking news that interest them (please respect posting guidelines and be sure to reference properly).
Forum rules
Please be sure to check our forum's Rules & Guidelines

Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby Braininvat on January 28th, 2018, 1:55 pm 

Helpful posts, really calling attention to problems with attention benefit effects and the need for control groups. And the importance of longitudinal studies where we can watch large sample groups age. Yes, vitamin D drop may correlate with depression only insofar as both are causally effected by the aging process. A vitamin may be no more responsible for age-related depression than the onset of increased male nose hair and moles.
User avatar
Braininvat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6470
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby doogles on January 28th, 2018, 7:39 pm 

Braininvat » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:55 am wrote:Helpful posts, really calling attention to problems with attention benefit effects and the need for control groups. And the importance of longitudinal studies where we can watch large sample groups age. Yes, vitamin D drop may correlate with depression only insofar as both are causally effected by the aging process. A vitamin may be no more responsible for age-related depression than the onset of increased male nose hair and moles.


I like that kind of thinking Braininvat.

I've had a couple of more thoughts about vitamin D. I would like to make a comment about the so-called widespread biological problems associated with its deficiency. The following is ‘off the top of my head’, so it may be a bit flawed.

Up till the time I saw this thread, I was happy enough just to categorise vitamin D in my mind as just a calcium transporter, with various types of vitamin D doing the transport job in different parts of the body. And then I couldn’t help but be startled by the wide-ranging list of conditions being attributed to its deficiency.

As a positive contribution, I would like to throw another idea into the ring.

If there is a low vitamin D status in an animal, then that animal has poor calcium transport. So why is calcium important to every tissue in the body? Calcium ions are not just an essential part of the skeleton structure but they are the essential primary messenger for signaling in the nervous system, and the secondary messenger for signaling within every cell of the body as far as I know.

So, if there is a deficit of supply of calcium ions, almost every tissue in the body will be affected and obviously this could show up as a multitude of minor conditions eg chronic DEPRESSION of nervous system function, chronic osteoporosis, chronic digestive problems – the immediate problems could be due NOT to a lack of vitamin D per se, but to a chronic calcium ion deficit caused by poor transport. Of course, that’s just speculation.

It’s a shame that such a mass of research has been done in a shoddy manner.

I’ve had personal experience with ACUTE calcium loss in dogs and cows, having treated thousands of cases personally. The dominant early clinical signs affect the nervous system. Cows stagger like a drunk, fall over and some become unconscious; the autonomic nervous system signs show up as constipation or atony of the stomachs. If cases had been affected less than a few hours, an intravenous injection of calcium compounds could put an unconscious animal on its feet within minutes. It was spectacular. But if cases had been in a hypocalcaemic state for more than a few hours, most bodily functions failed irreversibly. I did my PhD on the effects of prolonged hypocalcaemia in cows.

Apart from that, I notice that parathyroid dysfunction was mentioned in this thread. It has been studied quite extensively with respect to the aetiology of hypocalcaemia in cows. There is much evidence showing that if cows are fed a slightly low calcium diet prior to calving, then the parathyroid becomes labile and is better equipped to mobilise calcium from body deposits if the serum concentration drops. And the reverse situation is regarded as being a co-factor in the clinical manifestation of milk fever when a cow suddenly experiences a sudden drop in serum calcium when too much calcium flows from the blood stream into the udder during lactation. It worked, but because of the poorer quality of feed pre-calving, cattle did not yield as much milk during the milking year.

Regarding parathyroid hormone, the above seems to me to be its only function – to reactively mobilise calcium when serum concentrations fall – a lowish calcium status will keep the parathyroid gland active.

While on the same subject, could I make a parting mention of vitamin D and its toxicity. During the 1970s, vitamin D3 was trialled extensively as a preventative for milk fever. A single injection of 10 million units intramuscularly elevated the serum calcium for a week or two. Its effect overrode that of the parathyroid gland. If a dose could be injected within 10 days of parturition (based on service dates and average pregnancy durations) then prevention of milk fever occurred. In the early days a second injection was given if calving did not occur in ten days. Some cows survived okay, but too many died – the salient necropsy findings were extensive calcification of arteries and heart valves, with the latter considered to be the common immediate cause of death. Obviously high doses can be toxic.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on January 28th, 2018, 7:50 pm 

I think it was in Michael Holick's (mention above) book that mentioned zoo animals and treating animals with Vitamin D supplements. He made a claim that older horses getting arched backs was a result of inadequate vitamin D.

I'd like to learn more about these vitamin D receptors they are talking about being in every part of the body. (ex http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/11/2328 )What exactly are they doing? Gene expression? Either Holick's book or another one I recall them determining a level of Activated D blood serum level in order for the activated Vitamin D to reach all parts of the body before it was "burnt" up feeding parts of the body. As a metaphor how our bodies focus on vital processes first. Like if it's cold outside, the blood supply and physiology is built to protect more vital organs.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3593
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby doogles on January 28th, 2018, 7:59 pm 

Zetrique, apropos of your last post, although it's off topic, I was curious about the role of cholesterol in skin conditions.

I could only find one 2017 reference on CHOLESTEROL & SKIN CANCER - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 2217327494
Results
"During follow-up (2000-2010), we documented 10,201 BCC, 1,393 SCC, and 333 melanoma cases. History of high cholesterol was not associated with risk of BCC (pooled multivariable-adjusted Hazard ratio (HR)=1.04 [1.00, 1.09], SCC (HR=0.95 [0.85, 1.06]), or melanoma (HR=0.87 [0.64, 1.19]). Statin use was not associated with risk of BCC (HR=1.04 [0.99, 1.09]), SCC (HR=1.08 [0.94, 1.24]), or melanoma (HR=1.04 [0.78, 1.38]). There was a trend towards higher BCC risk with longer duration of statin use in men (P-trend=0.003), but not in women (P-trend=0.86)."

It looks as if there is NO correlation between high blood cholesterol and basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or melanomas. Likewise no correlation between the dose of statins and the same 3 tumours.

I must admit I was intrigued that the authors considered that there was a 'trend' towards a significant association between the length of time male subjects had been using statins and squamous cell carcinomas when the 'P' value was 0.003. Anything over 0.01 is generally regarded as being 'highly significant' and not just a trend. I find that quaint. I didn't look at the full text to see who funded the research, but I suspect that if it was a pharmacuetical company they would prefer to see 'trend' rather than 'highly significant' risk of SCC with prolonged use of statins. It would not help the marketing.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on January 28th, 2018, 8:07 pm 

Doogles, Cholesterol is another area of incredibly bad science research.

Doctors are just now finally recognizing that their guidelines are based on flawed research and they should be doing NMR particle size tests over standard HDL LDL and Total.

Then in addition to that, you have to recognize where are you getting your fats and cholesterol from? That may have a difference. Someone with a diet high in olive oil, might be different from someone eating lots of fish, or someone eating lots of sunflower oil or fried foods. Those fats get incorporated into the skin and that's where I was thinking one of the problems with cancer might be. Since UVB exposure converts cholesterol into D3, there might be some relation going on there is where my thinking was.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3593
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on January 28th, 2018, 8:24 pm 

Then you have sugar...
Which affects cholesterol which affects the natural D3 cycle.
That complicates matters a lot.
Here is just one general article.
https://blogs.webmd.com/heart-disease/2017/07/how-sugar-really-affects-your-cholesterol.html
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3593
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby doogles on January 28th, 2018, 8:37 pm 

zetreque » Mon Jan 29, 2018 9:50 am wrote:I think it was in Michael Holick's (mention above) book that mentioned zoo animals and treating animals with Vitamin D supplements. He made a claim that older horses getting arched backs was a result of inadequate vitamin D.

I'd like to learn more about these vitamin D receptors they are talking about being in every part of the body. What exactly are they doing? Gene expression? Either Holick's book or another one I recall them determining a level of Activated D blood serum level in order for the activated Vitamin D to reach all parts of the body before it was "burnt" up feeding parts of the body. As a metaphor how our bodies focus on vital processes first. Like if it's cold outside, the blood supply and physiology is built to protect more vital organs.


This posting of yours must have crossed my last one Zetrique. Actually, I've just mentioned a possible role of widespread effects of vitamin D in second last post.

I'm not at all familiar with Michael Holick, but if he was basing his ideas on current literature re vitamin D, he may be on shaky ground. Horses were a minor part of my veterinary experience, but I never put any significance on those differences in conformity of the back. There was a conformation called 'roach back', which was a genuine 'arch' in that it curved upwards. Horses seem to be born that way and it was just regarded as the shape they were born with.

As some horses age, they sag in the back (the opposite of an arch). I've never thought of them as being deficient in any way. Sagging occurs in virtually all aging animals.

Obviously I don't know what Holick has said, but although the area in which I practiced was in a temperate/coldish area, I've only ever treated a handful of animals with vitamin D. One was a cat with all of the classical signs of 'rickets' and lethargy. It responded to a vitamin injection and dietary supplementation.
My advice to ALL young pet owners was to supplement their animals for the first 6 months at least with
commercially available drops that contained vitamins ABCD and E - just 2 or 3 drops a day on feed. they seemed to need supplements during the inflection stage of growth.

I'm not 'with' the 'active' D and the 'burning up' of vitamin D. I'll have a small hunt through the literature if I get a chance Zetrique.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby zetreque on January 28th, 2018, 8:57 pm 

Here is an extremely simplified graphic from http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/11/2328 Both of them start out as cholesterol. With so much involved in cholesterol, sugar, and Vitamin D relationships, it's amazing they can figure anything out with all the confounding factors in peoples' diets in studies.

Image

and one from wikipedia that s interactive https://www.wikipathways.org/index.php/Pathway:WP1531

Image
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3593
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: vitamin D religion called into question

Postby doogles on January 29th, 2018, 6:24 am 

Wow Zetrique, I've spent most of the afternoon going through vitamin D literature only to find that I'm about 30 years out of date in one way. The strange part is that I have no real interest in the subject but I'm finding myself quite intrigued at the degree of bad science I'm finding.

I had a bit of a look at this reference you supplied - http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/18/11/2328 , and out of interest, checked on the first 4 refs cited. Although this was a review, I discovered that the refs 1,2,3,and 4 all cited other citations, which made it difficult to check on the original work. The claims being made all seem to be second-hand at least, and I get the impression that they could all be perpetuating myths.

Nevertheless the graphoc presentations in the above paper seem okay to me. I wasn't aware that cholesterol was the source of the the vitamin Ds. It is the basic ingredient by the way of all of the steroid hormones along with vitamin C. As far as I know the vitamin D3 is synthesisedin the kidney in response to parathyroid stimulation.

Reference 1, by the way is to a review by M hollick. It seems fairly good up to the point where vitamin D deficiency is claimed to cause everything under the sun. And as a reference, it's not the original work - just a citation of other work.

I looked up the work of M Hollick in Google Scholar by the way using 'vitamin D' as an associated key term. I skimmed through about 7 or 8 refereneces. Two were original studies and both seemed sound enough scientifically. One demonstrated that obese people have low serum basal vitamin D concentrations and that they do not generate as much new serum VD from exposure to UV light or an oral dose of 50000 IU VD. The other explored a series of doses of VD supplementation, on very old people in a home, of 0, 200, 400, 600 & 800 IU VD daily for some weeks. Only the 800 IU daily was significantly associated with a reduction in the number of falls in the experimental period. This latter experiment also gives an idea of an effective dose.

Apart from that, the other papers were just reviews or general dissertations on the metabolism of or the effects of deficiences of VD or recommendations for guidelines in diagnosis and possible therapy for that huge questionable list of conditions caused by deficiency of VD. They just seem to keep repeating the same old things.

The existence of receptors is new to me, as is the paucity of work on the role of VD in calcium transport. The best I've seen is a reference to its role in absorption from the gut and interractions of blood calcium and VD concentrations interracting with parathyroid hormone.

I'm just overwhelmed by the mass of literature, the large amount of sloppiness in the work and the degree to which workers in the field repeatedly cite doubtful results.
User avatar
doogles
Member
 
Posts: 986
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Previous

Return to News Discussion Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests