| Revision as of 10:16, 26 February 2009 editOrangemarlin (talk | contribs)30,771 edits →Possible causes: New age criuft← Previous edit |
Revision as of 14:11, 9 March 2009 edit undoWLU (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,243 edits archivingNext edit → |
| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
*] |
|
*] |
|
*]}} |
|
*]}} |
|
|
|
|
==Note== |
|
|
Note: Parathyroid hormone stimulates the activation of vitD so that osteocytes become activates and Ca concentration is increased. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
--There are some inconsistencies in the micrograms=I.U. figures--- |
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall that 2.5. MGs equals 50,000 IUs. In the middle of the article, different figures do not equate, such as a 5X microgram increase equals a 10X IU increase. The exact figures should be verified and correced. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== For some, diet may not be enough for Vitamin D == |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Legacy recommendations call for people from age 50 to 69 to get 400 international units (IUs) of vitamin D per day and for those over age 70 to get 600 IUs. Many researchers, however, suggest that 1000 to 4000 IUs may be needed.''' ] 04:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Latitude factor== |
|
|
|
|
|
Following this sentence ''These wavelengths are present in sunlight at sea level when the sun is more than 45° above the horizon, or when the UV index is greater than 3.'' it might useful to add that the required solar elevation occurs daily within the tropics, daily during the spring and summer seasons at mid latitudes, and almost never within the arctic circles. The point to make apparent is that for many countries there is an annual cycle of boom and bust, which is a huge factor in the health issues associated with vit D. |
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: |
|
|
:''At the latitude of Seattle, Montreal, Venice, and Christchurch NZ the sun rises to this elevation during spring and summer, but not during fall and winter, resulting in annual vitamin D cycles.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I picked well-known, longitudinally distant cities at 45 degree latitude; there are few such cities in the southern hemisphere apart from Christchurch. See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
From http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home |
|
|
|
|
|
:For the rest of the population, vitamin D levels tend to be lower, and crash in winter. In testing office workers in Toronto in winter, Dr. Vieth found the average was only about 40 nanomoles/L, or about one-quarter to one-third of what humans would have in the wild. |
|
|
] 14:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==60% cancer reduction== |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a shocking number, and hard to believe on face value. Twice the effect as compared to smoking. I did a little arithmetic on that. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/CancerStatistics/FF/AgeStan/Inc/default.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
Cancer rates for women in BC run about 330/10,000 per year. 1200 women broken into two equal groups and followed for four years gives you 2400 women-years per group. At a rate of 330/10,000 with a 60% reduction in the non-control group gets you incidence rates of 7 and 2.8. How does one measure 2.8 cancers? Quite possibly, the actual numbers were 10 and 4. 14 total cancers in 4800 women-years is a rate of 291/100,000, which is quite realistic. If it breaks down 7 and 7, you have no result. Standard deviation sqrt(14) = 3.7. It looks to me like both sides of the study are within one standard deviation of a possible mean. I don't know off the cuff how to compute the null hypothesis properly, but it's certainly large enough to cast doubt. ] 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I thought about this some more. My calculation above assumed age-standardized rates. For a study of this size, it's extremely hard to achieve statistical significance with a mean rate this low. Almost certainly the population was biased toward older age groups to achieve a higher mean rate. Women over the age of 65 have a mean rate four times as high. http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/HPI/CancerStatistics/FF/Rates/incidence.htm If the mean rate for the age-skewed study group was 800/100,000, then 20 cancers are expected in the control group, and the 8 observed cancers in the experimental group (-60%) comes out 2.7 deviations below the mean. The study is much stronger if the experimental population was tilted toward advanced age. ] 17:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I would like to know if there has been less tanning recently than in years past when people seemed to believe tanned people were nicer looking and possibly more "healthful" looking. ] 03:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am confused. The shows that the results of this study were (first) added to the article by you. Are you disputing information that you - yourself - added?--] 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't think he is disputing it so much as he is wondering aloud how a reduction of that magnitude is possible. ] 14:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
How can a 60% reduction of cancer be possible? And what is the biologic mechanism that links vitamin D with cancer? A year ago I would have said there cannot be such a link because vitamin D affects calcium and bone cell metabolism which have no connection to most cancers. Or so I thought until I read an article in the November 11, 2006 issue of Science News by Janet Raloff, . The article says that vitamin D hormone 1,25-D is necessary for ]s to produce ] in the ] group to combat virus, fungus, and bacteria infections. The link with cancer is that macrophages also destroy damaged cells and cell fragments such as DNA. By the time a cell becomes malignant, its chromosomes and DNA are a chaotic mess. (See Scientific American, May 2007, pages 53-59.) Most chromosomes in cancer cells are mere fragments or completely missing, some are duplicated, and the DNA is rearranged and mutated. The genetic mechanisms that control growth and prevent unlimited growth, such ], ] shortening, and intercellular communication are gone or inactivated. Hence, the macrophages, which kill malignant cells and destroy cell fragments, are the last defense against cancer. Since vitamin D is necessary for ], vitamin D deficiency can allow malignant cells to multiply unchecked. ] 17:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Cathelidicin also seems to be directly anti-carcinogenic though I don't know whether this is due to an anti-pathogenic effect, which i8t has, or some other cause. Though I'd be careful with some of these studies on Vit-D "deficiency". People with low 25-D are likely to be so because of either existing infection or liver or kidney problems, or overconversion to 1,25D. Most studies fail to account for these possibilities. --] (]) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At the very least the astonishing correlation in this study suggests that further research is justified. ] 16:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
New data is available: http://www.google.com/search?q=Vitamin+D+protects+cells+from+stress+that+can+lead+to+cancer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 ] (]) 18:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Reference questioned== |
|
|
I am taking issue with the following statement: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote>One recent consensus concluded that for optimal prevention of osteoporotic fracture the blood calcidiol concentration should be higher than 30 ng/mL (US units), which is equal to 75 nmol/L (System International units).</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
The reference given is http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp, but I don't see this information anywhere on the page. If nobody objects, I will be removing the reference from this statement and adding a 'citation needed' tag.] 14:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have changed the citation.--] 00:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have a doc that states it pretty clearly: ] . Also, if you want you can watch worldwithoutcancer video on google videos, it's a pretty old movie that has had quite some controversy, but it also advocated (somesort of) D Vitamin. Cheers: |
|
|
] 02:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vitamin D; spelling of Mittelstaedt, Martin == |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that the article entitled "Vitamin D" includes a citation by one Martin Mittlestadt. See citation no. 39. The name is incorrect. The correct form of his name is Martin Mittelstaedt. Cf. |
|
|
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070428.wxvitamin28/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home |
|
|
] 17:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done--] 02:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
"A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, reported evidence of a link between Vitamin D deficiency and the onset of Multiple Sclerosis; the authors posit that this is due to the immune-response suppression properties of Vitamin D" the article cited doesn't mention this at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
== External Link Video Add == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add a video in which Dr. DeLuca from University of Wisconsin discusses the history of the discovery and applications of Vitamin D. The link is http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3751&fID=345 (this does not automatically open the video). Please let me know what you think. (] 19:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
:While the content of this video is great, (from what I saw... the history part was fascinating) the streaming quality was –well– bad. I tried the video in both WMP and Quicktime. In WMP the video paused to buffer seven or eight time in the first minute, and didn't get any better when I skipped around. The Quicktime version was better, no buffering issues, but when I tried to skip I lost the sound(?). Given that the video is 1 hour 18 minutes long both issues will probably hinder it's usefulness here. Granted it could be my settings or something (probably not my connection speed though, I am running at over 2,000 kbps). If it is possible to address these issues, I think that the video is certainly relevant and I ''would'' like to add a link. --] 18:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vitamin D in milk == |
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot find this information on the milk page: it is my understanding that Vitamin D is fat-soluble. Does this mean that skim milk cannot be fortified with it? ] 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:My skimmed milk claims it is fortified with D. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm pretty sure most skim milk has at least some fat ] (]) 12:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::I read that whole milk contains about 3% fat and skim milk contains about 0.5% fat, but I don't recall where I read it. ] (]) 17:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mortality benefit == |
|
|
|
|
|
In a meta-analysis of 18 studies, vitamin D (mean dose 528 IU) reduced the mortality risk by 7%. Exact mechanisms remain unclear, and more trials are needed. ] | ] 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the Time.com article that discusses this meta-analysis, there is this sentence: " 'Throughout human evolution when the vitamin D system was developing, the 'natural' level... was probably around 50 ng/mL or higher,' writes Dr. Edward Giovannucci. Only in human evolution? Don't other animals need vitamin D too? If so, how do they make it if their skin is covered with fur? ] 23:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Some of the light will still reach their skin even with fur; and in many cases not all of their skin is covered with fur. Besides, a fair number of animals (particularly furry ones) tend to be carnivorous, and they can extract it from their prey's liver.] 04:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies for not linking an article, but I read once that furred animals, like cats, lick D off their coats during cleaning after sun exposure. Essentially, they are often 'orally' taking vitamin D from their fur (or prey), as long as they go outside. This is why diabetes (related to D deficiency) is seen in cats that don't go out in the sun, and hunt. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Does vitamin D actually promote reabsorption of calcium in kidneys? == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article currently states, "Vitamin D regulates the calcium and phosphorus levels in the blood by promoting their absorption from food in the intestines, and by promoting re-absorption of calcium in the kidneys." |
|
|
|
|
|
It is my understanding that ] (PTH) promotes the re-absorption of calcium in the kidneys. Is it is actually vitamin D that does this, or a combination of vitamin D and PTH? If vitamin D is involved, what is the process? |
|
|
|
|
|
An answer to this question, with a reference to an online medical research or review article, would be appreciated? |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 16:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The reference given () states the vitamin D and it metabolites "Enhance Ca reabsorption by the tubules". "The conversion to 1,25(OH)2D is regulated by its own concentration, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and serum concentrations of Ca and phosphate."--] (]) 18:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Obesity, hibernation in other mammals. Cross reference to tanning/tanorexia/tanning addiction == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hibernation |
|
|
|
|
|
"hibernating bears wake up when given vitamin D" looking for confirmation or reliable source/citation for this. |
|
|
http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Sunshine%20Deficiency%20Diseases/index.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
hibernating bears also have elevated parathyroid hormone which protects against bone loss. |
|
|
http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/abstract/209/9/1630 |
|
|
|
|
|
Morbidly obese humans have decreased vitamin D and elevated PTH. (before and after gastric bypass, so surgery did not cause it). Vitamin D suggested as an additional factor. |
|
|
http://www.springerlink.com/content/c3387p46381j6113/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Anecdotal evidence for euphoric states/elevated/sleep disturbance mood during the summer months at high latitudes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Vitamin D depletion and correlation with activity/anxiety/nervousness as adaptive behavior - preparation for winter? (might explain some angry bears in the fall and spring!). Looking for citations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tanning and UV exposure: |
|
|
would be good to reference the 20,000 IU of vitamin produced by 20 minutes of natural UV exposure and whether tanning beds produce this same effect. The human body's vitamin D production is naturally limited to about 20,000 IU/day. After the precursor is used up, no more vitamin D is produced. www.vitamindcouncil.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)johnpaulmorrison@hotmail.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== are there safety studies/estimates for rotating a UVB light (around the body, locally-applying, in turns) ? == |
|
|
As not a specialist around this field, first, I thought "UV" good for vitaminD could include UVA (blacklight) -- as for tanning. I thought, rotating the body-portions exposed to light, would lessen the skin-age problems associated with (also) UVA. |
|
|
|
|
|
That UVB is necessary (as this wikipedia article is informing), that heightens the risk of that in-house-D-light plan of mine. Truly? Or, may we keep that in check, such that with UVB lights, could people fortify their bones with light at home? (If sun is good, how is a handheld UVB-light not? Why not talking about that?) |
|
|
|
|
|
The rotating of the exposure is again a tool to lessen the strain on the skin-spot, probably (unless the skin gets used to that in time). cf. How diabethic people rotate insuline-injections, not to inject at a single spot all the time. What guidelines for amounts of such locally-applying UVB -- in turns? That would fortify this vitD article, I think. |
|
|
--] (]) 09:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spectral sensitivity and synthesis of previtamin D3 == |
|
|
|
|
|
The text summarizing the action of UVB in respect to wavelength segment is far too ambiguous, carries a factual error, and is not representative of actual process involved. It has been understood from experimentation and the resultant literature since the 1980s that optimal synthesis of 7-DHC to preD3 occurs in a relatively narrow band, from 295-300nm, with maximum conversion at 297nm. This segment is often referred to as D-UV. |
|
|
|
|
|
As such, I am making necessary corrections to the text, and including corroborating references. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== "Per glass" == |
|
|
|
|
|
"fortified milk typically provides 100 IU per glass" Is that a big glass or a small glass? perhaps we can create the Big Glass and the Small Glass as a units of measurement specifically for the US, so that we can talk about 2.735642367 Big Glasses of something. ] (]) 16:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Checking the source I see that they meant a one pint glass. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Milk contains 100 U of vitamin D per 8 oz, (240 ml). It is of interest that soy milk contains D2 and cow mild D3, at 100 IU per 8 oz serving. With D2 having less activity, and D2 assaying similarly to D3 in the usual 25 OH-D assay there is much potential for blood assays to misidentify individuals on Soy milk as having adequate Vitamin D levels. I usually get a 25-OH D level by LC/MS/MS to fractionate the D2 and D3. ] (]) 03:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Role in coronary disease prevention?== |
|
|
There is evidence that vitamin helps hearts, and other evidence that it may raise cholesterol and harm hearts. |
|
|
|
|
|
The reason may be that there is a window of ideal vitamin D nourishment, and levels below the lower threshold cause coronary problems while levels above the higher threshold tend to raise cholesterol (and harm hearts). |
|
|
|
|
|
It may be that the cancer-preventing benefits of vitamin D may be maximized, while the possible heart-harming effects are minimized, if one takes three times the chosen dose every third day, with no vitamin D supplementation on the two days in-between. |
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the title to this section lacks nuance, and the section should be re-titled to reflect that the relationship between vitamin D intake and cardiac events may be a bit more complicated than a straight-line correlation between so that higher and higher supplement levels must always result in lower and lower rates of cardiac events. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
--- |
|
|
|
|
|
The rising of cholesterol levels could simply be because you're achieving repletion by supplements and not skin cholesterol conversion by UVB. |
|
|
Remember there is still debate about the cholesterol theory, and 'high' cholesterol might simply be an indicator of vitamin D deficiency. i.e. it's not high cholesterol clogging your arteries but lack of a natural anti-inflammatory to control inflammation. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 10:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:Or it could be the opposite. High cholesterol leads to more hormone D3 (the more accurate term for vitamin D, since it's not really a vitamin but is produced in-vivo). Inflammation triggers toll-like receptors which upregulate CYP27B1. CYP27B1 converts 25D (which is usually what is measured to determine deficiency) into the active form 1,25D creating an apparent deficiency, however 1,25D3 would be abundant in such a state. Higher 1,25D3 leads to increased activation of the hormone D receptor in individuals with functional hormone D receptors leading to increased blood levels of calcium. Activation of the hormone D receptor also stimulates demineralization of bone (Calcium from bones goes into the blood stream.) In the absence of sufficient Vitamin K (either from a lack in the diet or from a number of drugs, particularly blood thinners, which inhibit Vitamin K metabolism), this leads to calcification of soft tissue rather than bone mineralization, arteriosclerosis and heart disease in the long term. This seems accurate to me and I could source any step in the chain. The sequence as a whole, however, may constitute original research. There's good evidence, for instance that statins, which prevent cholesterol synthesis, actually ''help'' with osteoporosis. This is not what you'd expect if Vitamin D were the cure for osteoporosis. --] (]) 05:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Footnotes format in coronary disease prevention need fixing == |
|
|
Sorry -- added, but can't seem to format.] (]) 02:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)In over my head |
|
|
|
|
|
==Add section about benefits of vitamin D and fending off and/or fighting influenza== |
|
|
There was a study published which I think successfully explains why the flu is a winter illness, and why vitamin D supplementation in the winter months may help fend off the flu. I've included a link to the paper's abstract below (google scholar): |
|
|
|
|
|
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=529704 |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be great to get information from this paper into the wiki article on Vitamin D, and maybe also on the influenza page.... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==External links should start with the superb Vitamin D Fact Sheet from the U.S.National Institutes of Health == |
|
|
|
|
|
# Vitamin D Fact Sheet from the U.S.National Institutes of Health <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Too much D, like too little, a risk factor for breast cancer== |
|
|
|
|
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_he_me/vitamin_d_breast_cancer;_ylt=A0WTUdfM9TBIGHAB0Q4R.3QA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:page not found --] (]) 13:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Children can tolerate more Vitamin D, though optimum is debateable== |
|
|
|
|
|
"According to the researchers, due to rapid skeletal growth, children and adolescents are more likely to be vitamin D deficient, and are far less likely to reach vitamin D levels that doctors would consider toxic." ] (]) 22:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:"Warfarin-induced artery calcification is accelerated by growth and vitamin D."--] (]) 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Is D3 supplementation helpful?== |
|
|
|
|
|
I think there's some cause to question whether Vitamin D supplementation is helpful. |
|
|
|
|
|
There are some who say that low levels of 25 D are caused by infection which causes 25 D to be converted to 1, 25 D in unhealthy amounts due to disregulation of the vitamin D receptor. Testing for 25 D showed lower levels in unhealthy people, but I can't find any controlled study demonstrating that D3 supplementation alone increased bone density superior to either calcium supplementation + D3 or calcium alone. |
|
|
|
|
|
Likewise, it's anti-cancer effects only appear in short term trials and are comparable with other immunosuppressives such as prednisone in this regard. Benefits disappear with long term use. |
|
|
|
|
|
see |
|
|
http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/ |
|
|
and |
|
|
http://trevormarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
Also; |
|
|
|
|
|
''The ratio of total 25OHD3 and 1,25(OH)2D3 to plasma DBP, rather than total circulating vitamin D metabolites, may provide a more useful index of biological activity. Further studies are required to substantiate this hypothesis.'' http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339300?ordinalpos=33&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONCLUSIONS: Kidney-transplant recipients receiving modern immunosuppressive regimens with low doses of corticosteroids experience only minimal loss of BMD during the first posttransplant year. Cholecalciferol supplementation did not prevent posttransplant bone loss http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15714177?ordinalpos=45&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum |
|
|
--] (]) 13:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:In the article, it said, "In one study, hypercalciuria and bone loss occurred in four patients with documented vitamin D toxicity." Could 25,000 IU have actually caused some demineralization? ] (]) 03:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It should, yes. Especially in such high doses. --] (]) 18:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Re Reference #54== |
|
|
It mentions COMA -- Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (UK; disbanded in 2000). It had recommended, "...For individuals confined indoors, pregnant and lactating women, an intake of 0.01 mg/day..." I think this is a bit outdated. It's my understanding 2000 IU is more appropriate. ] (]) 22:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==An explaination for the ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
See http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360668971X/abstract |
|
|
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.med.nutrition/2007-09/msg00331.html Incidently, took daily 400iu pill last winter - no colds at all. ] (]) 15:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A new separate section on "function" == |
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest moving the part in the lede explaining the functions of vitamin D into a new, separate section, as are done with most other vitamin articles. Afterwards, we can start gradually incorporating infos about vitamin D's functions that were formerly scattered in the article or left unmentioned. If no one objects...... ] (]) 09:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Brain lesions and vitamin D == |
|
|
|
|
|
Considering all the talk of increasing vitamin D levels, this study entitled seems intriguing. It is cited by , which is cited by an editorial called , as well as a [Assessing benefits and risks of hormone therapy in 2008: |
|
|
New evidence, especially with regard to the heart review of hormone therapy in women]. ] | (] - ]) 02:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe they were taking too much calcium or estrogen or whatever. Maybe the problem was the calcium compound or the source of vit-D or whether it was D2 or D3. What is needed is a study that tested a first group who were taking more than 400 IU vit-D3 per day and no calcium supplements and a second group who were taking more than 1000 mg calcium per day and no vit-D (and not much sun). And matched for HRT and other things. ] (]) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, the abstract was vague about dosage. Wonder if the article has more detail. ] (]) 05:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Vitamin D only puts calcium into the blood. Without adequate vitamin K extra Vitamin D can lead to calcification of soft tissues. Menaquinone (K2) seems to be the best form of K to prevent this. Also, blood thinners (warfarin, aspirin) often interefere with K metabolism leading to increased calcification. --] (]) 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Can someone watch this page? Dont let the misleading part about mushrooms get reverted. == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that the findings were experimental. Prior to my edit, the wikipedia article sounds as if I go to the store today and buy them, that I'm buying the kind that were exposed to UVB ionizing radiation (specifically 295-297 nanometer). Mushrooms do not deserve to be on the list, but I'll let it slide since I dont want to offend the person who put in the work and cited it. Is a very interesting article . |
|
|
|
|
|
Also there seems to be misunderstanding about how the IU system works. IU measures '''effects''' of a serving, not the measurement of how many vitamins are in it. This is the reason why vitamin pills can't list serving size of 100% daily serving (measured in IU's) of a vitamin, unless it is absorbed and is equivalent to the biological benefits of eating a healthy diet which also yields those same 100% IU benefits for whatever vitamin in question. The explanation over at the IU page is very biased and makes it look like doctors/scientists are dumb since measurements are not easily understood, and actually more misunderstood. |
|
|
|
|
|
If someone puts back mushrooms into the list and lets readers make the assumption that mushrooms have a full serving of vitamin D, please leave a message on my talk page, or try to work it out with them, as they may not have read the discussion page. Thanks ] (]) 21:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:: Perhaps something like this should be included: ] (]) 05:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Request == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have some concerns regarding one anon user's edits to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/76.113.156.31 Could someone take a look at them to see if they're alright? Thanks. --] (]) 03:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
See: Vieth R, Bischoff-Ferrari H, Boucher BJ, et al. The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is effective. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;85:649 –50. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Depression? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the citation given for depression is inappropriate - I've given my reasons over at ], which uses the same citation. --] (]) 00:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Mushrooms == |
|
|
|
|
|
Mushrooms are not discussed in this article. Monterey Mushrooms, in California, is selling UV treated mushrooms which purport to have 869 percent the daily value of vitamin D. This is currently being studied by the FDA |
|
|
|
|
|
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 69, No. 1, 95-98, January 1999 reports on a study of the bioavailabily of Vitamin D in some Finish mushrooms, and found that they were a real source of Vitamin D. |
|
|
|
|
|
Various mushrooms are listed as a good source of vitamin D on other websites, and it seems like this is a real omission from your article. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You're wrong. See the subsection on biochemistry of D. You didn't read the whole article! ]]]] 04:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Reference to PDR == |
|
|
The reference to the PDR on the web went to the consumer PDR site. There was no support there for safety at a dosage of up to 10000 units per day.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
:The book does. I've removed the link, it was just for convenience anyway.--] (]) 06:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== VITAMIN D : The power of the sun, sometimes. == |
|
|
|
|
|
VITAMIN D : The power of the sun, sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an important lead that hopefully someone can follow up on... |
|
|
|
|
|
I had the opportunity to ask a Dr. Lower, whose office is located on Bay Street in Thunder Bay |
|
|
|
|
|
While sunlight is an important source of Vitamin D, we should understand that being in the Northern Hemisphere, (people above the 40th parellel) during the winter the Sun's usefulness is severely restricted by the angle of the earth which increases the filtering process of the essential light rays. The earths atmosphere renders most natural light exposure during the winter months useless (the same effect as sunlight rays being filtered through glass). |
|
|
|
|
|
The conclusion he suggested that most all people living in the Northern Hemisphere take a Vitamin D3 supplement, or the old fashioned treatment, Cod Liver Oil |
|
|
|
|
|
--] ] 20:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just in case someone removes this important information,(as already has been done...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible causes == |
|
== Possible causes == |
One of those simple preventative cures ? A cure most people know very little about !
