No: 12 in a series of articles - Vitamin D3 continued...
The response I got from last week's article on Vitamin D and John Jacob Cannel M.D. was encouraging to say the least so I thought I might continue with that line of thinking for this article. I do not know at this time how much of the Vitamin D story will actually make it to my documentary on "Alternative Treatments for Prostate Cancer" but the more I am learning about its effects on preventing and possibly treating prostate (and breast) cancer, the more intrigued I become.
The common or garden thinking by laymen is that Vitamin D is simply a vitamin and heaven knows we have been lead to believe from the "establishment" that vitamin therapy (or nutritional supplements) will not positively effect the outcome of cancer treatment. Linus Pauling and Vitamin C not withstanding.
But acknowledging that both prostate and breast cancer 'hormone driven' cancers, perhaps the therapeutic use of this 'hormone' will gain some traction as a viable therapy.
In a bold move the Canadian Cancer Society recently announced it is recommending a specific amount of Vitamin D supplementation for Canadians to consider taking. Its press release quotes "This first-time recommendation is based on the growing body of evidence about the link between Vitamin D and reducing risk for colorectal, breast and prostate cancers." The supplementation they recommend is only 1000iu, but that is a start. Experts remain split on how much to take but why is the American Cancer Society silent on this issue?
It is ironic that our government's RDA for Vitamin D is a lowly 400iu, about 10% of the body's daily need, when it is estimated that 30 minutes in the mid-day sun at lower latitudes with the subject in a bathing suit will generate around 10,000iu. Robert P. Heaney MD's recent research indicates that healthy humans utilize about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day (from all sources). Blacks would need 5 times more sun exposure to produce the same amount as Caucasians. However, there is the well ingrained concern (fear) over skin cancer from exposure to solar UV rays. This, coupled with the often muffled consumer advocate's cry of the carcinogenic contents of various sunscreen products makes vitamin D pills the most practical option for many.
Vitamin D is safe when used in physiological doses (those used by Nature). Physiological doses are 3,000-5,000 IU per day, from all sources (sun, diet and supplements).
Some Americans, including health professionals, mistakenly avoid "high-dose" vitamin D because of unfounded concerns over toxicity. Toxicity levels for Vitamin D would be difficult to reach. Reinhold Vieth PhD, Associate Professor Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto is quoted as saying he thought it would take 60,000iu per day for a year, and even then he thought there would be no evidence of toxic poisoning.
What does all this mean? According to John Cannell M.D. and the Vitamin D Council, Vitamin D, and the many ways in which it affects a person's health, can no longer be overlooked by the health care industry nor by individuals striving to achieve and maintain a greater state of health. If you don't get vitamin D the way Mother Nature intended, from sunshine, you need to take supplemental vitamin D3 cholecalciferol.