Vitamin D: Sunshine or Supplement? Register for Online Conference

[eileen]

There is a $35 fee. 2009 Current Issues in Nutrition -- Welcome/home

38th Annual Current Issues in Nutrition
Vitamin D: Sunshine or Supplement?
The Current Issues in Nutrition conference is organized by Iowa State University Extension and the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. As a leading research institution, Iowa State University understands the need professionals have for educational update opportunities focused on timely issues.
Step 1: Register online to receive the link to the two presentations.
Step 2: View the online presentations March 15 - April 15, 2009.
Step 3: Participate in one Interactive Q/A Session on:
April 15: 12:00-1:00pm CSTApril 21: 9:00-10:00am CST
April 15: 3:00-4:00pm CST April 21: 1:00-2:00pm CST

[eileen]

Tax deadline probably wasn't the best the day to schedule it. lol

[Don]

I am registered!

[eileen]

Great Don, I got the information from the Associate Director of Christiana Hospital Care Center because she heard it might be of interest to me.

[Don]

Eileen:

I viewed the online presentations yesterday and they are both excellent (lots of "new" information you can use). I sent in several questions that I hope are answered on April 15/21.

[engfant]

Funny I thought when it was found that your body produces said "vitamin" then it was no longer classified as such.

[eileen]

bump... I'm working at the restaurant today but I'm going to TRY to sit on this. (wishful thinking lol)

[Don]

The morning Q & A was "just OK" and nothing special. My question regarding whether or not there had been any studies comparing the biological "potency" of supplemental vs UVR-induced vitamin D was "glossed over" by both speakers. Later they discussed the "problems" involved with getting study approval with UVR vs supplements. The Iowa State guy said something like "we think that D3 is D3 no matter the source.

The "bottom line" is that NO ONE is looking at UVR-induced vitamin D because it is so much easier to do the study with supplements.

I'll let you know how the pm Q & A comes out later. It starts in 35 minutes.

[solarmeter®]

Tax deadline probably wasn't the best the day to schedule it. lol

Who waits until the last day to finish their taxes?

Better to attend a Tea Party!

The "bottom line" is that NO ONE is looking at UVR-induced vitamin D because it is so much easier to do the study with supplements.

Not if you have a Model 6.4 D3 meter hehe™.

™Mr Belvy-dear

[Don]

The afternoon session dealt mainly with supplements and not much with sunlight (UVR), primarily because neither of the presenters (Heaney & Rowling) are looking at/working with UVR.

However, I did learn something new today. A participant asked about whether or not it was better to take calcium (Ca) & vitamin D (D3) supplements together or separately. Dr. Heaney explained that it is the "active" form of vitamin D (1,25-OH-D) that regulates calcium metabolism and not 25-OH-D. However, he pointed out that an adequate (which he is now defining as 80-130 nmol/L) level of 25-OH-D is required in order for there to be enough for the kidney/cells to "convert" 1,25 to 25. Thus, taking a combination supplement is more convenient but the vitamin D level (IU) isn't high enough to do any good. They are recommending taking at least 1,000 IU per day and said that 2,000 - 3,000 IU each day would be preferable.

Toxicity, according to Heaney/Rowling isn't a problem with doses under 30,000 IU.

It was clear that researchers are "shying away" from looking at UVR-induced vitamin D because of the "hassle" involved when it is added to the protocol. Can you guess what medical specialty would cause the problem?

Dr. Heaney gave a great explanation of why it makes sense to have an optimal level, as mentioned above, from 80-130 nmol - and he said that perhaps 150 nmol?L would be better because that is what outdoor workers, lifeguards and primates in the wild maintain (which made me happy since that is the level I have been recommending for the past 5 years - even when the recommendation by the "experts" was 70-90 nmol/L). Anyway, he compared the fact that all cells in the body need an adequate supply of 25-OH-D to "function normally" to maintaining a car. He pointed out that you don't have to change the oil in your car, or keep it lubricated, or make sure the coolant level was OK, but if you don't sooner or later you willl "pay a price" for letting it go. Some of you old farts like me may remember the oil filter commercial that had the "tag line" by the mechanic of pay me now (for the filter) or pay me later (for the expensive repair).

In addition, Dr. Heaney pointed out that cells can't "access" their "DNA library" when the vitamin D (25-OH-D) level is low. This ties in with my "theory" that melanoma can only occur when vitamin D is low. Speaking of melanoma, Dr. Heaney stated that there was no hard scientific evidence to support the premise the UVR caused melanoma and that it was probable that a lack of vitamin D was at the heart of the cause. [Note: This information will be included in a new article I am writing about why UVR doesn't cause melanoma.]

There will be two more Q & A sessions next week and I'll report what takes place then.

Any questions or are you all too busy counting your money like Steve?

[eileen]

Thank you Don! I missed the Tea Party and the conference online, I had to work but always count the money at the end of the day LOL. I did get to register for the online conference the 21st. I also look forward to your article on why UVR doesn't cause melanoma.

[Kathe]

That is great info Don! I would say that out of every 10 customers I talk to at least 7 of them now about the importance of vitamin D and tanning and how people should tan for the health benefits more than the cosmetic. People ARE starting to get it. Especially after the 6 months of winter we just experienced here in Michigan.

Can't wait for your new article!! Thanks for keeping us up to date on this info. It's really important.

[Don]

The "experts" don't always agree. As you can see from the information below, Dr. Vieth appears to put an "upper limit" of 10,000 IU.

Please note his comments (highlighted in boldface) on UVR-induced vitamin D.

Added later: The reason his comment that "a prolonged intake of
10,000IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if
this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D." can be made is because the body "shuts off" the production of UVR-induced vitamin D when it "senses" that there is enough. This proves that, once again, Mother Nature knows best.

Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Apr 11. [Epub ahead of print]

Vitamin D and Cancer Mini-Symposium: The Risk of Additional Vitamin D.

Vieth R.

From the Departments of Nutritional Sciences, and Laboratory Medicine and
Pathobiology, University of Toronto, and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mount
Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada.

Any benefit of vitamin D needs to be balanced against the risk of toxicity, which
is characterized by hypercalcemia. Daily brief, suberythemal exposure of a
substantial area of the skin to ultraviolet light, climate allowing, provides
adults with a safe, physiologic amount of vitamin D, equivalent to an oral intake
of about 10,000IU vitamin D(3) per day, with the plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D
(25(OH)D) concentration potentially reaching 220 nmol/L (88 ng/mL). The
incremental consumption of 40IU/d of vitamin D(3) raises plasma 25(OH)D by about
1 nmol/L (0.4 ng/mL). High doses of vitamin D may cause hypercalcemia once the
25(OH)D concentration is well above the top of the physiologic range. The
physiological buffer for vitamin D safety is the capacity of plasma vitamin
D-binding protein to bind the total of circulating 25(OH)D, vitamin D, and
1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)2D]. Hypercalcemia occurs when the free
concentration is inappropriately high because vitamin D and its other metabolites
have displaced 1,25(OH)2D from vitamin D-binding protein. Evidence from clinical
trials shows, with a wide margin of confidence, that a prolonged intake of
10,000IU/d of vitamin D(3) poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if
this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.

[sedmiller]

Don,

Thanks so much for this information. You are a wonderful gift to the lay person (like me) and the tanning industry!

[Kathe]

Ditto ^^^^^^

[frankie]

Don has always worked very hard for the good of this industry. Don it would be nice to have you in Atlanta next January. Some on here seem to think nothing we do is going to make a difference or think we just need to sit back and let it happen. I am talking about GA HB 853. What do you think??

Sorry didn`t mean to steal the thread. Back on topic.