vitamin D religion called into question

[TheVat]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/heal ... ments.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.

[Heavy_Water]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.

Science, when practiced by the Empircal Method, in the manner in which ii is supposed to be prcaticed, has not tenets at all which can be categorized as meeting the requirements of being a "religion."

Do unscrupulous and just lazy and self-serving men of science sometimes fail to follow the rules of the true scientific method? Sure. Do some scientists have personal agendas? Sure.

Just like any Institution, Science has its share of Corrupt Practices.

But, again, this in no way relegates it to being in any way synonymous with religion.

To find an article where it does, as you might have done, is in itself Cherry Picking.

Doubt me?

Name any Industry or Institution, one you may think is bereft of Corruption, and I will find you an instance of corrupt practice. Or even religious-type dynamics.

[TheVat]

Do unscrupulous and just lazy and self-serving men of science sometimes fail to follow the rules of the true scientific method? Sure. Do some scientists have personal agendas? Sure.

That was really what I was saying. You apparently heard something else. If you think I was attacking sound science and scrupulous methodology, you clearly have read few of my past postings. Not a problem, but the point was really that some scientists, and perhaps some overexcited science journalists, had gotten too dogmatic about the wonders of vitamin D.

I was really tossing a bone to NoShips who, if you've read any of his threads, has been pointing out areas of science where seemingly solid theories have revealed shaky foundations.

If you read carefully, you might have gleaned that I was making a point about the virtue of science, which is that the article bears witness to a faulty orthodox view being shot down by good skepticial inquiry and fresher evidence.

Hope this corrects any misunderstanding concerning the thread or the OP intent.

[zetreque]

I've read two books entirely about vitamin D that cited numerous studies and done my own research. That NYT article leaves much to be desired. Reading it has a similar feel to climate change skeptics.

[zetreque]

Interesting

Questionable. Looks like the journalist cherry picks studies that cherry pick studies.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Gina_Kolata

While describing her coverage of pure science as "terrific" and her reporting of mathematics similarly "with one exception", he found fault with her environmental reporting. In an interview Dowie described her reporting on broad environmental topics as being characterised by "a hard, pro-technology, pro-corporate line on products or issues that are very controversial: silicone breast implants, irradiated food, experimental AIDS drugs, and breast cancer. In fact, Gina took a strong position that breast cancer has no environmental etiology at all, and took every opportunity to make that point even as her sister, Judy, was struggling with breast cancer. Gina reviewed "Rachel’s Daughters," a film made on breast cancer, and strongly criticized the film’s inquiry of environmental causes." [12]

Dowie described that on investigating the sample of Kolata's stories and contacting her named sources he found that "there were many she had, in fact, interviewed at great length and had not included in the stories. I’m not saying she’s a dishonest person, but I am saying she has practiced dishonest journalism and wasted a great talent in those stories."

While the NYT's science editors had been provided with a statement by a senior environmental health researcher supporting the authors hypothesis and recommendation. "If she saw them, Kolata ignored them all. Instead she repeatedly misstated the authors’ conclusions in terms that echoed the twenty-two-page press advisory circulated by the Chemical Manufacturers Association." [16] Dowie notes that many scientists complained about Kolata's coverage but none were printed.

[TheVat]

I've read two books entirely about vitamin D that cited numerous studies and done my own research. That NYT article leaves much to be desired. Reading it has a similar feel to climate change skeptics.

Well, I looked at some of her cites, like this...

http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx

...and they seemed like useful digests of the current research. If she has overlooked things, and your other quoted material certainly raises that possibility, then I think it would be good to have some rival opinions from reputable sources. As long as there is healthy debate on the data and what it says or doesn't say, then this thread should serve some useful purpose. It's clear there is a point where vit. D intake can be excessive, so I would welcome any research that might pinpoint where the consumer needs to be cautious.

[zetreque]

It's been a while since I was investigating this but the only case of over-consumption I remember was one in which a doctor or was sued for mislabeling the dosage or something. It seemed incredibly hard to overdose on vitamin D. It sounded like someone would have to be taking 100,000 IU a day.

That NYT article isn't worth more than toilet paper to me. The only real way to get into anything is to really dig in the research for yourself which takes a lot of time.

[SciameriKen]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/health/vitamin-d-deficiency-supplements.html

NoShips has addressed the resemblance of some scientific theories to a religion. This may be a fair example of what he is referring to. Sounds like some very weak evidence was cherry-picked and then some correlations were elevated to the status of factual conclusions.

There has long been a battle between the institute of medicine and the vitamin D research community between drawing the line of true sufficiency at 20 ng/ml or 30 ng/ml, respectively. The IOM is basing their recommendation primarily on the necessary amount needed to maintain skeletal health and they find evidence for extra-skeletal benefits to be lacking. Large clinical studies have also not been supportive for the benefits of vitamin D - but the problem is there seems to be a lot of human genetic variability that will mislead investigators into thinking a person who is sufficient or insufficient when they are actually the opposite. The literature is very confusing when it comes to vitamin D.

For this reason we went for an animal model in our research since this would allow better control of lifestyle and genetic confounders - our research seems to indicate its the long term impacts we should be concerned with - insufficient for a month - no big deal - insufficient for a decade or two and you might have problems. Our research was looking at 10 ng/ml versus 30-40 ng/ml - so it really doesn't hit whether 20 ng/ml is sufficient or not.

Anyways, I think this article is going way overboard in their damning of vitamin D test and the craze that surrounds it -- but it does make a point - people have to be rational about this (don't slam more than 10K IU daily). Still - the test doesn't cost that much and could have huge cost and health saving benefits if you find a person who is deficient. I agree with Zet though - this article is way to negative

[zetreque]

I have now confirmed through self experimentation that Vitamin D supplementation is linked to back pain.

I started supplementing this winter since I wasn't getting outside to get sunshine like I had been doing over the past few years. My back pain came back after 3 weeks. I had severe lower back pain in the past that developed years ago (side by side with a poor lifestyle and diet) before I even knew what vitamin D was. Then my pain went away when I started supplementing 4-5 years ago. For a variety of reasons I stopped supplementing and started sunbathing for 5-15 minutes most days, even in the winter (I set an alarm clock for it). I do such a short period of time due to the elevation and latitude I live at. I lowered my dosage and ultimately stopped supplements this week and my pain went away. I have done this experiment at least once in the past.

My own observations convince me that both too much vitamin D and too little vitamin D cause back pain in myself.

I may repeat this experiment yet again to confirm even more. It would be great to do it in a more controlled way and publish the results like SciameriKen

A quick google search reveals many opinions and studies between back pain and Vitamin D.
https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/study-f ... back-pain/

[zetreque]

I also have a strong suspicion in the type of Vitamin D taken. I was out of town for two weeks taking a certain brand capsule of vitamin D. I slowly increased my dosage over that time. Once I returned home and the back pain started to hit me hard I had switched back to a different brand that comes in drops.

I also think there is a difference between supplements and natural means which is why several years ago my research and self-experimentation led me to trying to obtain my Vitamin D through sun exposure rather than dietary supplements.

[Hendrick Laursen]

I also have a strong suspicion in the type of Vitamin D taken. I was out of town for two weeks taking a certain brand capsule of vitamin D. I slowly increased my dosage over that time. Once I returned home and the back pain started to hit me hard I had switched back to a different brand that comes in drops.

I also think there is a difference between supplements and natural means which is why several years ago my research and self-experimentation led me to trying to obtain my Vitamin D through sun exposure rather than dietary supplements.

Really interesting experiences. Perhaps the key lies in the formulation as you have pointed out yourself, by which I mean, the special ingredients and extras used to make a drug look like a drug.

Some people indeed report idiosyncratic reactions to drugs, which might be attributable to different genetic makeups and predispositions, and environmental triggers, among many other (proposed) pathophysiologies.

[SciameriKen]

Always tough to tell with a single individual - but your story is none the less very interesting! With incidence of falls and with overall mortality there is a U-shaped curve relationship with vitamin D (the more not the merrier).

I think the issues you raised are all possibilities. First- the quality of the supplement should be considered. Some supplements are just fish oil or may not contain any vitamin D at all -- here is a decent website/video about that: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why ... y-facebook -- aside from all that there is a possibility that you have an allergy to a particular brand of vitamin D.

On the next level is whether you are over supplementing or not - how much vitamin D are you taking daily? Have you taken a vitamin D test at any point to verify your level?

Additionally, are you taking any other supplements? Vitamin K may help judging from Doogles post -- What about vitamin A?

Finally, there is the possibility that the back pain is somehow related to winter activities - you've done the cessation test twice now though, so there does seem to be something going on with that! Keep up on your lab book on this :D And also - glad to hear the back pain went away!

[zetreque]

I had my levels tested about 5 years ago and could look it up but recall being about a 25 and increased to 30 something when I supplemented back then. Since I have not seen nor can afford to go to the doctor over the past 5 years I have not had my levels checked. It would be wonderful to have a cheap home test for vitamin D.

Also back then, I had very bad lower back pain at night and in the mornings. I was going to switch beds even though I already had a very nice one, but once I got healthier it completely vanished so it was not the bed (don't tell mattress manufacturers).

Started out at 5 to 10,000 IU of a liquid form that contains nothing other than MCT and lemmon essential oil, then I went out of town for a couple weeks switching to the other brand which was capsules containing coconut oil, glycerin, bovine gelatin. I went back down to 5,000 with that then increased to 10,000 for over a week. Once I got home I switched back. The lower back pain started about 3 days before coming home then got worse once I got home.

Both brands say D3 as cholecalciferol.

Of note: When taking the capsules I would basically chew one and and swallow the other (each was 5,000). So 5,000 was immediately absorbed.

I feel like I can rule out most confounding factors since the beds I slept on had no difference in back pain with and without supplementation in the past and pain level was continuous between out of town and at home. Not to mention I have done this experiment noticing this at least once in the past some time ago with no changes in routine.

I will probably start the supplementation again to see if back pain returns though I would still like to do a much more controlled experiment with this.

[SciameriKen]

I had my levels tested about 5 years ago and could look it up but recall being about a 25 and increased to 30 something when I supplemented back then. Since I have not seen nor can afford to go to the doctor over the past 5 years I have not had my levels checked. It would be wonderful to have a cheap home test for vitamin D.

Also back then, I had very bad lower back pain at night and in the mornings. I was going to switch beds even though I already had a very nice one, but once I got healthier it completely vanished so it was not the bed (don't tell mattress manufacturers).

Started out at 5 to 10,000 IU of a liquid form that contains nothing other than MCT and lemmon essential oil, then I went out of town for a couple weeks switching to the other brand which was capsules containing coconut oil, glycerin, bovine gelatin. I went back down to 5,000 with that then increased to 10,000 for over a week. Once I got home I switched back. The lower back pain started about 3 days before coming home then got worse once I got home.

Both brands say D3 as cholecalciferol.

Of note: When taking the capsules I would basically chew one and and swallow the other (each was 5,000). So 5,000 was immediately absorbed.

I feel like I can rule out most confounding factors since the beds I slept on had no difference in back pain with and without supplementation in the past and pain level was continuous between out of town and at home. Not to mention I have done this experiment noticing this at least once in the past some time ago with no changes in routine.

I will probably start the supplementation again to see if back pain returns though I would still like to do a much more controlled experiment with this.

You are on the high side of supplementation - 10K daily, especially in drops which may not be as consistent would be pushing you to high levels (~80-100 ng/ml) -- I would suggest just doing about 2000 daily

[zetreque]

You are on the high side of supplementation - 10K daily, especially in drops which may not be as consistent would be pushing you to high levels (~80-100 ng/ml) -- I would suggest just doing about 2000 daily

Michael Holick in the video you posted above appears to disagree with that.

[SciameriKen]

You are on the high side of supplementation - 10K daily, especially in drops which may not be as consistent would be pushing you to high levels (~80-100 ng/ml) -- I would suggest just doing about 2000 daily

Michael Holick in the video you posted above appears to disagree with that.

Are you going to trust Mike hollick - or me and your achy back? :)

[zetreque]

hahaha, Actually I "trust no one." In or outside of X-files. I trust my back though.

I would love to geek out with my own tester though. hmmmm... Amazon appears to be selling a DIY vitamin D test but has no decent description info. A couple years ago it seemed like Vitamin D was getting so popular it was only a matter of time before you could purchase your own test unit.

EDIT: out it's just a self draw kit.

[doogles]

This is an interesting article because the lady did not have back pain, in addition to other clinical signs, till she had received a toxic dose of vitamin D - http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... #t=article due to a serious error in the formulation of the supplement.

[zetreque]

You are on the high side of supplementation - 10K daily, especially in drops which may not be as consistent would be pushing you to high levels (~80-100 ng/ml) -- I would suggest just doing about 2000 daily

Michael Holick in the video you posted above appears to disagree with that.

Are you going to trust Mike hollick - or me and your achy back? :)

My friend has been taking 10k a day for 3 months. She just had hers tested and it came back at 75

[doogles]

One of the problems with vitamin D studies to my mind is the general inconsistency of the findings and outcomes of controlled experiments.

The following 2007 review is quite extensive and exemplifies this fact. If your mind works anything like mine, you will begin to suspect that vitamin D is not a sole controller of calcium metabolism and that there may be one or more confounding factors that should be always considered and measured in studies on vitamin D. To my knowledge, vitamin D (apart from a suggestion of being involved in immunological responses, a subject that I have not yet personally researched) is only involved in calcium transport in the body. The main controller and regulator of calcium deposition in tissues, and I have a sizable list of references on this, dating from the last 3 decades, is vitamin K.

Nobody, to my knowledge, has yet studied the interactive effects of vitamin D and K and calcium in the diet, let alone the confounding effects of phosphorus and magnesium on calcium metabolism in any animal anywhere. It’s a gross omission in research to my mind.

I see the problem in the light of current knowledge as simple. If you study vitamin D on its own, you are only studying the transport of calcium throughout an animal (humans included). If insufficient calcium is available to be transported, the results are going to be distorted. If you study vitamin K alone without adequate calcium to be transported or insufficient vitamin D to transport it, the results are going to also be distorted. I perceive that blood inorganic phosphate and serum magnesium concentrations also need to be taken into account.

The following extensive study is an example of the inconsistencies in the findings when vitamin D research is conducted without taking into account the effects of other factors known to interact with calcium. In fairness, the conclusion did state that there are still problems with standardisation of analytical techniques for circulating D vitamins.

If you look at the following website, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4781354/ - you will find an article titled Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D in relation to bone health by Cranney et al (16 co-authors) - in [/i]EvidenceReport/Technology Assessment[/i] 2007 Aug; (158): 1–235. I've highlighted the 'ifs' and 'buts'.

Results: "167 studies met our eligibility criteria (112 RCTs [Randomised Controlled Trials], 19 prospective cohorts, 30 case-controls and six before-after studies). The largest body of evidence on vitamin D status and bone health was in older adults with a lack of studies in premenopausal women and infants, children and adolescents. The quality of RCTs was highest in the vitamin D efficacy trials for prevention of falls and/or fractures in older adults. There was fair evidence of an association between low circulating 25(OH)D concentrations and established rickets. However, the specific 25(OH)D concentrations associated with rickets is uncertain, given the lack of studies in populations with dietary calcium intakes similar to North American diets and the different methods used to determine 25(OH)D concentrations. There was inconsistent evidence of an association of circulating 25(OH)D with bone mineral content in infants, and fair evidence that serum 25(OH)D is inversely associated with serum PTH. In adolescents, there was fair evidence for an association between 25(OH)D levels and changes in BMD. There were very few studies in pregnant and lactating women, and insufficient evidence for an association between serum 25(OH)D and changes in BMD during lactation, and fair evidence of an inverse correlation with PTH. In older adults, there was fair evidence that serum 25(OH)D is inversely associated with falls, fair evidence for a positive association with BMD, and inconsistent evidence for an association with fractures. The imprecision of 25(OH)D assays may have contributed to the variable thresholds of 25(OH)D below which the risk of fractures, falls or bone loss was increased. There was good evidence that intakes from vitamin D-fortified foods (11 RCTs) consistently increased serum 25(OH)D in both young and older adults. Eight randomized trials of ultraviolet (UV)-B radiation (artificial and solar exposure) were small and heterogeneous with respect to determination of the exact UV-B dose and 25(OH)D assay but there was a positive effect on serum 25(OH)D concentrations. It was not possible to determine how 25(OH)D levels varied by ethnicity, sunscreen use or latitude. Seventy-four trials examined the effect of vitamin D(3) or D(2) on 25(OH)D concentrations. Most trials used vitamin D(3), and the majority enrolled older adults. In three trials, there was a greater response of serum 25(OH)D concentrations to vitamin D(3) compared to vitamin D(2), which may have been due to more rapid clearance of vitamin D(2) in addition to other mechanisms. Meta-analysis of 16 trials of vitamin D(3) was consistent with a dose-response effect on serum 25(OH)D when comparing daily doses of <400 IU to doses >/= 400 IU. An exploratory analysis of the heterogeneity demonstrated a significant positive association comparable to an increase of 1 - 2 nmol/L in serum 25(OH)D for every 100 additional units of vitamin D although heterogeneity remained after adjusting for dose. Vitamin D(3) in combination with calcium results in small increases in BMD compared to placebo in older adults although quantitative synthesis was limited due to variable treatment durations and BMD sites. The evidence for fracture reduction with vitamin D supplementation was inconsistent across 15 trials. The combined results of trials using vitamin D(3) (700 - 800 IU daily) with calcium (500 - 1,200 mg) was consistent with a benefit on fractures although in a subgroup analysis by setting, benefit was primarily in elderly institutionalized women (fair evidence from two trials). There was inconsistent evidence across 14 RCTs of a benefit on fall risk. However, a subgroup analysis showed a benefit of vitamin D in postmenopausal women, and in trials that used vitamin D(3) plus calcium. In addition, there was a reduction in fall risk with vitamin D when six trials that adequately ascertained falls were combined. Limitations of the fall and fracture trials included poor compliance with vitamin D supplementation, incomplete assessment of vitamin D status and large losses to follow-up. We did not find any systematic reviews that addressed the question on the level of sunlight exposure that is sufficient to maintain serum 25(OH)D concentrations but minimizes risk of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer. There is little evidence from existing trials that vitamin D above current reference intakes is harmful. In most trials, reports of hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria were not associated with clinically relevant events. The Women's Health Initiative study did report a small increase in kidney stones in postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years whose daily vitamin D(3) intake was 400 IU (the reference intake for 50 to 70 years, and below the reference intake for > 70 years) combined with 1000 mg calcium. The increase in renal stones corresponded to 5.7 events per 10,000 person-years of exposure. The women in this trial had higher calcium intakes than is seen in most post-menopausal women."

This article does suggest that it is somewhat unreliable to associate isolated vitamin D research, in the current climate of knowledge, with any specific human conditions.

[SciameriKen]

Greetings Doogles - this is excellent speculation and I agree with you that there is very little in the literature about Vitamin D - Vitamin K interactions. What you have written could very well be true and if the funding gods smile upon me this is certainly an idea i'd like to pick up!

My feeling though on the inconsistencies of the findings regarding vitamin D has to do with the diversity of humans. There are many lifestyle and genetic factors that influence the relationship between vitamin D intake (either by sun or by diet) and serum 25-OH vitamin D - and further the relationship between serum vitamin D and physiologic effects. An example is that many African Americans carry a gene that causes vitamin D binding protein (a serum carrier protein) to have less affinity for 25-OH vitamin D. Since unbound 25-OH vitamin D is believed to be what is used the net effect is an individual with this gene may be "sufficient" with a 25-OH vitamin D level of just 15 ng/ml as opposed to 20-30 ng/ml that is believed for the common population. When this works its way to study level this means people categorized as deficient were not, and in many cases with other modulating factors, individuals categorized as sufficient may not have been.

I also would agree with you that vitamin D is not the sole controller of calcium metabolism and the role of parathyroid hormone (PTH) is getting more recognition lately. And of course I am with you in the camp of Vitamin K. In our mouse studies, vitamin K is part of the vitamin pack added to the chow so not a factor in our studies.

[SciameriKen]

My friend has been taking 10k a day for 3 months. She just had hers tested and it came back at 75

I guess I was off by 5 ng/ml :). Note your friend did this in winter months - in Summer - they might be 100ish

[TheVat]

I found this paper on NCBI, a good overview of vitamin D and its health aspects that range beyond calcium metabolism. It talks about the variations in populations as to absorption and metabolism - Africans may need 3 to 5 times the vitamin D intake of northern Europeans, for example.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/

I personally have shifted towards a diet that focuses on anti-inflammatory nutraceuticals and foods, and have experienced a positive effect from a mix of vitamin D (1000 units per diem), curcumin (a polyphenol with anti-inflammatory effect - it's in turmeric), and krill oil (the DHA/EHA forms of Omega-3 PUFAs are far more useful to humans than the PUFAs found in vegetable oils). I added each of these at different times, and while maintaining consistency in other aspects of diet and activity. What I noticed with vitamin D, which I have not noticed with other supplements, was a diminishment of winter depression and lethargy. Purely anecdotal, but it makes sense to me, given the range of effects that are associated with D deficiency. Before I took supplemental D, I had tried eating a lot of sardines, a food rich in D, and gotten a similar, but lesser, effect. I quickly grow tired of sardines, so the tablet is what I prefer, though I know that absorption from a tablet is less efficient.

One overall good food/supplement combination I've found is grass-fed butter and D tablets. Grass-fed butter is high in DHA Omega 3 and K2, both of which are scarce in most processed American food (the average American diet is estimated to have an Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio of 25:1, which is highly inflammatory an imbalance). The good fats help the D, as does the K2.

[SciameriKen]

I found this paper on NCBI, a good overview of vitamin D and its health aspects that range beyond calcium metabolism. It talks about the variations in populations as to absorption and metabolism - Africans may need 3 to 5 times the vitamin D intake of northern Europeans, for example.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/

I personally have shifted towards a diet that focuses on anti-inflammatory nutraceuticals and foods, and have experienced a positive effect from a mix of vitamin D (1000 units per diem), curcumin (a polyphenol with anti-inflammatory effect - it's in turmeric), and krill oil (the DHA/EHA forms of Omega-3 PUFAs are far more useful to humans than the PUFAs found in vegetable oils). I added each of these at different times, and while maintaining consistency in other aspects of diet and activity. What I noticed with vitamin D, which I have not noticed with other supplements, was a diminishment of winter depression and lethargy. Purely anecdotal, but it makes sense to me, given the range of effects that are associated with D deficiency. Before I took supplemental D, I had tried eating a lot of sardines, a food rich in D, and gotten a similar, but lesser, effect. I quickly grow tired of sardines, so the tablet is what I prefer, though I know that absorption from a tablet is less efficient.

One overall good food/supplement combination I've found is grass-fed butter and D tablets. Grass-fed butter is high in DHA Omega 3 and K2, both of which are scarce in most processed American food (the average American diet is estimated to have an Omega 6 to Omega 3 ratio of 25:1, which is highly inflammatory an imbalance). The good fats help the D, as does the K2.

Lol I have never heard of someone supplementing with sardines - but if it works :D

There is surprisingly little in the literature about Omega 6 to 3 ratios and I think this would be an important area of research. Supplementing with cod liver oil has seen mixed response in the literature - this could be because the Omega 3 fats you are getting come with a healthy dose of vitamin A. Its tough to find Omega 3 supplements without vitamin A though.

[TheVat]

That's the beauty of krill. All the Omega 3, none of the A. And there's research that suggests the DHA/EPA in krill oil is more bioavailable since it's in the form of phospholipids rather than triglycerides (as they are in fish oils). There's some evidence that our digestive systems extract more from the phospholipid structure.

Yeah, cod liver oil has been a traditional supp for a long time. It has another drawback, relative to krill, in that the oil base tends to go rancid much faster and generally degrade. I've noticed there's a Norwegian cod liver oil that is lemon-flavored (to somewhat improve the normally vile taste) and cold-pressed for the best preservation of the various triglycerides and such. But you still have a potential long time in transit and on the shelf before consumption.

Yeah, the love affair with sardines can be short-lived. Heh.

[SciameriKen]

That's the beauty of krill. All the Omega 3, none of the A. And there's research that suggests the DHA/EPA in krill oil is more bioavailable since it's in the form of phospholipids rather than triglycerides (as they are in fish oils). There's some evidence that our digestive systems extract more from the phospholipid structure.

Yeah, cod liver oil has been a traditional supp for a long time. It has another drawback, relative to krill, in that the oil base tends to go rancid much faster and generally degrade. I've noticed there's a Norwegian cod liver oil that is lemon-flavored (to somewhat improve the normally vile taste) and cold-pressed for the best preservation of the various triglycerides and such. But you still have a potential long time in transit and on the shelf before consumption.

Yeah, the love affair with sardines can be short-lived. Heh.

Thanks Biv! Didn't know that about Krill oil! I'll have to grab some!

[doogles]

Braininvat, I took the opportunity to have a close look at the article on vitamin D that you cited on the following website - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3356951/ My motivation for doing so was to check on all of the other benefits of vitamin D apart from being a transporter of calcium throughout the body.

I'm a bit embarrassed because I don't like to be negative but I saw what I thought to be many flaws in the paper. In a way, I would like to be proven wrong in what I found.

Also, in a way, this reference supports my comments in an earlier post about the ‘iffy’ and ‘butty’ nature of the vitamin D research.

The Introduction refers to the role of poor exposure to sunlight - “This pandemic of hypovitaminosis D can mainly be attributed to lifestyle and environmental factors that reduce exposure to sunlight, which is required for ultraviolet-B (UVB)-induced vitamin D production in the skin. Black people absorb more UVB in the melanin of their skin than do white people and, therefore, require more sun exposure to produce the same amount of vitamin D.[4]”

This was not so important, but if there is a pandemic, I would have thought that the authors would suggest more possibilities. I could be wrong, but I imagine that the cholesterol toxicity myth of the last 6 or 7 decades, may be playing a role. Is there a possibility that we’ve all been eating less fats and therefore taking in less fat-soluble vitamins? Could a low blood vitamin D concentration indicate low vitamins A, E and K, as well as essential fatty acids by association?

This is the first statement that took my eye – “Vitamin D influences the bones, intestines, immune and cardiovascular systems, pancreas, muscles, brain, and the control of cell cycles.[63]” I took the opportunity to check on the full text of reference 63. I have no idea how the above conclusion was drawn from that study and it’s difficult to understand how the editor’s referees did not question THIS entire paper before publication. Reference 63 has been grossly misquoted. The authors found low blood vitamin D concentrations in more than 50% of seriously ill in-patients in a hospital and recorded the following conditions associated with those low concentrations.

I have no idea how anyone could interpret this list to be able to say “Vitamin D influences the bones, intestines, immune and cardiovascular systems, pancreas, muscles, brain, and the control of cell cycles.[63]"
There were many other possible factors that they did not check.

A list of the Clinical benefits of vitamin D was provided. It included the following

Cancer
Heart disease
Hypertension
Obesity
Type 2 diabetes
Depression
Cognitive impairment
Parkinson's disease
Fractures and falls
Autoimmune diseases
Influenza
Bacterial vaginosis
Pelvic floor disorders
Age-related macular regeneration

I didn't see 'Ingrown Toenails' listed, but I can see why the term 'Vitamin D Religion' has been coined.

The list looks impressive and virtually too good to be true. In view of the misinterpretation of reference 63, I decided to check on the supportive evidence for the items in this impressive list.

I began with the first - Cancer

The claim here is that "Vitamin D decreases cell proliferation and increases cell differentiation, stops the growth of new blood vessels, and has significant anti-inflammatory effects.[71,72]"

The conclusion of ref 71 states "The findings of this large prospective study do not support the hypothesis that vitamin D is associated with decreased risk of prostate cancer; indeed, higher circulating 25(OH)D concentrations may be associated with increased risk of aggressive disease." How does this support the above statement - "Vitamin D decreases cell proliferation and increases cell differentiation, stops the growth of new blood vessels, and has significant anti-inflammatory effects?[71,72]"

Similarly, the conclusion of ref 72 states "No associations were found between overall vitamin D or calcium intake and breast cancer risk. Vitamin D from supplements was independently associated with reduced breast cancer risk. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of higher doses of vitamin D and calcium supplements." The statement that Vitamin D from supplements was independently associated with reduced breast cancer risk prompted me to check on the 'supplements'.

This was the official Result wording on this - "No significant ORs (Odds Ratio) were observed between milk, margarine, dairy, or fish intake and breast cancer risk (Table 2). However, OR point estimates increased with milk intake (P for trend = 0.04). Single-product vitamin D supplements or cod liver oil were used by only 13% of cases and 14% of controls, and, although no categories of frequency or duration of use were significantly associated with breast cancer risk, a significant inverse dose-response relation was observed between frequency of supplement use and breast cancer risk (P for trend = 0.04)."

I’m not sure of the ‘single-product vitamin D supplement’, but the cod liver oil also possesses a high vitamin A content. And milk contains much more than vitamin D.

I didn't check any further, but I am embarrassed at finding so much bad science in this paper.

[TheVat]

Doug, it is indeed flawed, and I posted it more for the way it pointed towards fresh areas needing research rather than as a piece of solid meta analysis. Not all the citations are shaky, but some are and make you wonder how fast the authors skimmed through them. And I've seen better research on clinical value of vit D as regards depression where nutritional effects are better controlled and isolated. I really appreciated you taking some time to go over that paper. As both you and Science Ken have pointed out, cod liver oil supplements invite methodological critique, in terms of sourcing other nutrients that may affect health outcomes. Vit A, tocopherols, medium-chain triglycerides, vit K2, heme, etc.

[doogles]

Thank you Braininvat for those reassuring comments. I do feel genuinely uncomfortable being negative about anything.

I've just been having a subconscious think about the research associated with the biomedical roles of vitamin D.

I'm beginning to think that because it is so closely associated with other fat-soluble vitamins and fats per se, triglycerides etc in foods in general, that studies involving estimates of vitamin D based on diets could almost be ignored as flawed.

And for the same reason, so could studies based on blood analyses of vitamin D alone. By association the concentrations of serum vitamin D could reflect the concentrations any of the other vitamin D co-nutrients in foodstuffs.

In fact, I think that the ONLY studies that could be regarded as reliable would be those in which the condition being studied is measurable (eg depression scores such as Hamilton-, Montgomery-Asberg-, or Raskin- Rating Scales), in which control and experimental groups are standardised as far as possible for demographics and lifestyle, and in which the experimental group receive a laboratory grade (at least) of vitamin D at a dose considered to be effective and safe over a period of time before re-assessment.

You’ll have to forgive me again Braininvat, because I took the time to have a quick look at the 2017 literature on Vitamin D and Depression in Google Scholar. It reinforced my impression that the research on vitamin D as a causative or therapeutic agent for human diseases is in a thorough mess.

One article stood out because it echoed my sentiments; http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 12708/full . It was an invited Editorial by a JJ Grath, who is based at our local University of Queensland Brain Centre, in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. The Editorial was titled Vitamin D and mental health – the scrutiny of science delivers a sober message – “Randomized controlled trials provide the most robust evidence when it comes to whittling back hypotheses, and we can expect that several large trials currently underway will help us reject many vitamin D-related hypotheses [5]. This is how science is supposed to work. Researchers should never fall in love with their hypotheses – most are wrong and need revision. With respect to the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency is a causal risk factor for depression, the current evidence does not support this hypothesis.”

I did see a couple of trials involving supplements and thought they might reveal something positive:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... ccess=true . 900 schoolgirls were assessed for depression and given a 50000 IU bolus of vitamin D weekly for 9 weeks. No controls were used. The apparent benefits could have been a placebo effect in the form of an attention benefit therapy.
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jdr/2017/8232863/abs/
46 women with type 2 diabetes and significant depressive symptomatology were also given 50000 IU of vitamin D weekly for 6 months. No controls were used. The apparent benefits could have been a placebo effect in the form of an attention benefit therapy.

The latter 2 papers may interest Sciameriken and Zetrique because they do indicate a possible standard therapeutic dose.

Once again, apologies for the negativity. I’m far happier producing supporting evidence.

As an afterthought, if anyone is interested in the comment by JJ McGrath above re “With respect to the hypothesis that vitamin D deficiency is a causal risk factor for depression, the current evidence does not support this hypothesis”, the experiment he regarded as pivotal was a longitudinal study on 3241 participants in the Rotterdam study. There was a significant association between baseline serum 25 hydroxy vitamin D and depression, but over the period of the study, the correlations between serum concentrations and depression disappeared. The authors concluded that the two conditions just co-occur. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28120398 .

[zetreque]

I agree that Vitamin D research by itself isn't very solid because of it's interaction with other minerals and vitamins. This is one huge problem with all vitamin and mineral research. There are so many antagonistic and synergistic vitamin and mineral combinations.

I think the antagonistic and synergistic relationships are going to be the future of vitamin mineral research and we ultimately need to find what ratios of them all to be eating. This is because our soils are constantly being depleted in minerals so even the healthiest diet in the world is no longer adequate and theorized for one reason for the increase in global disease.
UK Study Shows Decline in Fruit and Vegetable Mineral Content
http://www.rejuvenation-science.com/res ... -depletion
http://www.drjohnbergman.com/are-you-ge ... -minerals/
Minerals-Genetic-Code-Charles-Walters
https://www.amazon.com/Minerals-Genetic ... 0911311858

When I did a lot of reading years ago on Vitamin D, I read a lot about cholesterol. One thing that I remember struck me as something that should be researched is the lack of cholesterol or "good" fats in our skin for people who get skin cancer.

I started out a few years ago taking a lot of Omega 3 supplements. I did the cod liver oil, krill oil supplements like nordic naturals. I also started eating sardines. I ultimately stopped supplementing with Omega 3 once a bunch of studied seemed to all come out at the same time about individual supplements not being the cure-all they were thought to be and actually causing a person's chemistry to get out of wack (due to synergistic and antagonistic relationships I mentioned above). I think the big one that came out for Omega 3 was something to do with prostate cancer increase with omega 3 supplementation.
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/105/15/1132/926341

My diet is high in fish anyway so I just continued eating sardines to this day. (Back when I started out and was far more ignorant I posted on this website asking about eating whole sardines) Yes the no salt added regular ones can get old, but I mix it up with different brands and olive oils. I also add things like my own mustard to them. I stay clear of the cheap brands now as I noticed a lot of them were unsustainably caught. Many had pregnant fish full of eggs that often smelled and tasted bad. I also try to eat anything with B vitamins first thing in the morning since that's when the intestines are the most repaired and the beginning of your small intestine that is most susceptible to damage when eating other foods is the part that most absorbs B vitamins. I am just repeating that information that I heard and if someone wants to fact check that please do because I haven't gotten around to it yet.