Does vitamin D fight cancer?

Hindsfeet

Vitamin D helps prevent cancer cells from growing and spreading, a study says
• Rates of breast and colon cancers tended to fall as average vitamin D levels rose
• The U.S. government recommends 5 to 10 micrograms of vitamin D daily
Bottom Line: There's a growing body of evidence that vitamin D is good for fighting cancersee     http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/dailydose/12/02/vitamin.d.cancer/index.html

Hindsfeet

It is interesting that my recent blood workup showed that I almost had no vitamin D in my body, which the doc said is common for peope in the Northwest. I'm now taking vitamin D tablets..and I hope this helps in the prevention of another recurrence.

crazy4carrots

Five to ten MICROgrams is practically nothing!!  The Canadian Cancer Society is now recommending a minimum 1,000 MILLIgrams/day.

jules3

Remember everyone, Vit. D is actually a hormone and the body produces it ~~with a very minimal amount of sun exposure~ we get all we need...Now, ofcourse people like us may need a bit more but even small overdoses can be toxic~and that can only occur with supplements.  So be careful.

crazy4carrots

Actually Jules, a University of Toronto teaching hospital (St. Michael's) which has a very large MS patient base, recently conducted a study to discover if there was a level above which Vit. D became toxic.  The patients were gradually upped to 40,000 milligrams/day, and there were no short-term or long-term safety issues.  I think I read somewhere that 15 minutes of sunshine produces more than 50,000 mgs.

MS patients were in the study because it seems most who get MS are from countries such as Canada, Russia and the Scandianavian countries where sun exposure is very limited in winter months.

Husband11

Thanks for posting that.  I've heard so many positive things about vitamin D in the last while.  Apparently testing for Vit D levels is skyrocketing.  My own GP recommends 2000iu per day and tells me that personally, he takes more than that.  My wife is getting tested.

 A friend told me recently that he knew someone who was suffering from MS and went to the Mayo Clinic.  They told her she was misdiagnosed and put her on Vitamin D.  Within days she began to recover, and now its clear that it was never MS.  Amazing.  Here where I live, on the Canadian Prairies, its a hot bed of MS.  Long winters, not much sun.  I wonder how many are misdiagnosed?

lexislove

I'm in Canada as well, and when my onc came back from the Chicago Seminar in June...he told me A LOTcame out about Vitamin D.

He told me to take the 1000 iu a day, especially from April - October. During the summer months sitting out in the sun, without sunscreen, for 20 minutes produces up to 20,000 iu so I've heard!!!!

Last summer I made a habit of exposing my arms and legs daily when I could. Vitamin D is a cheap little thing too, but I feel so much benefit.

FYI ..woman over 65 should take I think 2000 iu day..I think..lol

GramE

I might think that many "older" women are taking calcium with Vitamin D for bone health.   MY doctor says to take them together, because D helps the calcium break down and do a better job. As far as fighting cancer,  I don't know.   However, I asked for my Vitamin D level to be checked with my last blood draw.   Another factor that a "simple" blood test can monitor.   

GramE

I forgot to add to my Favorite topics, so I can check back and find more info later.

AccidentalTourist

Does anyone know how does 1000iu translate to mgs?

orange1

I think lindasa meant to say iu, not mg.

I also take Vit D and was thinking of going to a tanning salon.

everyminute

If I am not mistaken it is vit d3 that is the best absorbed.  I take 4000 a day in fall and winter and had my levels tested recently - they were 53 which is in the normal range (but not high even with all that vit d!!!)

Anonymous

There is also evidence that Vit. D does little if anything to prevent cancer:

"The new findings come from more than 36,200 U.S. women enrolled in the Women's Health initiative, a long-term health study.

The women were split into two groups. One group was assigned to take 1000 milligrams of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D supplements per day. The other group got placebo pills.

All of the women were also free to take vitamin D supplements for personal use, no matter what group they were in.

The women were followed for seven years, on average. During that time, similar numbers of women in each group developed breast cancer; the supplements didn't seem to make a difference in that..."

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20081111/vitamin-d-may-not-prevent-breast-cancer 

crazy4carrots

Orange -- oops! Yes I did mean to say IUs.  So confusing, isn't it?  I googled IU and didn't really come up with much of an answer for Accidental Tourist. 

LJ13:  All we have to do is read these threads and individuals' stories and realize there is probably NOTHING that will prevent bc.  I get so tired of headlines touting the latest wee piece of research -- all that's really happening is that the media latches on to anything that might "sell" newspaper ads or media space.   Harumph

Anonymous

I had read that study as well (that the vita D did not make a difference).  However, I personally wonder if they were not taking enough, and also if they knew what their individual vitamin D levels were before and after.

I live in the Pacific Northwest and we have very high BC and MS up here.  I have heard that across the world women in the northern areas (sweden, norway, etc) have higher rates of BC.  

I had my levels checked once I was diagnosed.  Mine was 24 which is low.  I  started taking 1000 mg of vitamin D last summer.  We are a very active outdoorsy family, but live in Seattle.  Can't get enough sun for sure!  I come from a very female dominanted family (two sisters, tons of aunts and girl cousins etc).  I have none of the risk factors.  I am the only one that has had BC or any cancer and am 44.  I am also the only one in the overcast Northwest.   

Really makes me wonder!  I will be loading up on the Vitamin D until my personal levels show in the mid range of average.  Things that make me go hmmmm.

Susan

Anonymous

But getting Vit. D from sun exposure is quite different from taking a pill. Remember, the method of delivery (sun vs pill) may be a critical factor. Don't extrapolate the data. Stay within the confines of the study ... that Vit. D supplement pills showed little benefit.

Anonymous

Good point.  What do you think of tanning bed rays for viatmin D?  I also don't really wear sun screen as I don't burn. 

 Truly, it is overcast here A LOT.  Hey, maybe my health insurance will pay for a trip to Mexico...wishful thinking!

Anonymous

Another thought - what if I did load up and my blood work showed an increase in my vitamin D to, say 50 (from 24).

Wouldn't that show that the vita D pills did work?  

I really try not to obsess over the "why" part of my diagnosis, but  that thought does creep up once in a while.

Susan

AccidentalTourist

Re: would vitamin D supplementation make any difference

Jane Plant in 'Your life in your hands' book states that while the issue with why some people get cancer and others not is complex and no one has definitive answers her view is that it is a bit like one of those gambling machines where you have to get three of the same symbols to get a prize.  There are all these things at play and only if several of them overlap cancer will get the upper hand.  The main ones she lists are genetics, nutrition and environmental pollution. I have no idea if she is right but in my quest to impose some control over this uncontrollable issue I have introduced changes in the way I eat, reduce pollutants (as much as that is possible considering that I live in London) etc.  Interestingly she is not in support of supplements indiscriminately. She says it is still best to get them from food but lists several which she advised to be taken such as selenium and kelp.  I have lent this book to someone and, disappointingly, cannot remember what she says about vitamin D but certainly there are a lot of women on this site who recommend it having read various papers on it.  As long as it is not harmful (and I am not clear on what is the upper safe limit) I am happy to take it.  Best Nena

motheroffoursons

Aprilgirl1,

If you are having rads, I do not think you are supposed to go to tanning beds.  It can cause a radiation reactions.  I would stay away from them.

PSK07

Use of tanning beds is a definite risk factor for skin cancer.  My dermatologist says no way, no how. My onc says the same thing.  Why put yourself at risk for further cancers? 

There are light boxes available - some at very reasonable cost - that help with SAD.  I don't know if they help with vitamin D deficiency, though. 

Vitamin D is also fat-soluble, so taking high doses for significant lengths of time can cause it to build up.  If you're going to take very high doses, at least do it under a doctor's supervision & get the blood tests to see if you are in the 'normal' range.  More isn't necessarily better...even if it is 'natural'. 

This past winter I've had to go on the 50K IU of D3 twice, and am currently on a maintenance dose of 1000 IU/day. I will have my levels checked again in the next couple of weeks.  My sun exposure is pretty much limited to the time I walk to/from the gym each day, so I've forgone sunscreen in my moisturizer until the sun makes a more consistent presence & I'm out in it more than 20 minutes/day.

Husband11

LJ13, the study only sheds light on the question of the impact of 400iu of vitamin D supplementation.  Considering that exposure to sunlight not outside the realm of ordinary results in significantly higher levels of vitamin D production it makes me wonder if 400 iu is only a drop in the bucket when it comes to actually increasing levels to a healthy range.  The experience that many have had on here of using supplements to boost their vitamin d levels, seems to indicate that supplementation in the level of thousands of iu is necessary for a significant period of time, to produce any meaningful change.  So in my mind that is a serious limitations of that study.  It used amounts of vitamin D supplementation that are (close to?) the RDA recommendations (based on existing knowledge of disease avoidance such as rickets), and those amounts may not be sufficient to be meaningful to breast cancer or MS.  Many knowledgeable Doctors are beginning to advocate a revision, to increase the recommended supplemenation of vitamin D for those individuals who do not get much sun exposure.

Perhaps they should compare two groups, with one of the groups being individuals who used levels of supplementation sufficient to bring their blood levels of vitamin D to a certain level and those who didn't.

 I wouldn't be so quick to either rule out the benefit of Vit D supplementation, or advocate it.  There's a lot more research needed to draw any conclusions, considering existing work showing some corelation between breast cancer survival and vitamin D levels.

Husband11

That study with the 400 iu of vitamin D and 1000mg of calcium per day is kind of odd.  Why did they allow women in either group to take as much supplemental vitamin D as they wished?  How can you then you had a control group?  Or that you even know the dosage compared to the control?

 I quote from the article linked to:

The women were split into two groups. One group was assigned to take 1000 milligrams of calcium and 400 international units of vitamin D supplements per day. The other group got placebo pills.

All of the women were also free to take vitamin D supplements for personal use, no matter what group they were in.

The women were followed for seven years, on average. During that time, similar numbers of women in each group developed breast cancer; the supplements didn't seem to make a difference in that.

The details: 528 women assigned to take calcium and vitamin D supplements developed invasive breast cancer, compared to 546 in the placebo group. That difference could have been due to chance.

Still, some questions remain.
Lingering Questions

Here are some of the questions that remain about vitamin D and breast cancer, according to the researchers and editorialists:

* Was the vitamin D dose too low to make a difference?
* Would it matter if vitamin D supplementation started before menopause?
* Did personal use of vitamin D supplements in the placebo group affect the results?
* What, if any, impact did the calcium supplements have?

I'm not that impressed by the study, certainly not enough to say vitamin D supplementation has little benefit.

Kailahi

My alternative MD said to get my vitamin D blood level up to 80.   I've upped my D and need to get tested fairly soon.    He considers it a true cancer drug.    When you get older, your body does not do a very good job of converting sunshine to D.   I live in Hawaii and I am 70.  

OLBinNJ

     Ladies, the bottom line is get a blood test for your vitamin D levels.  I have taken 500 mgs of calcium along with 400ius of D3 4 times a day for years.  I also spend a lot of time in the sun when it's warm.  My blood level was 15.  For some reason, my body did not absorb the D, so don't count on sun exposure or supplements to do it for you.  Get tested.  I have been on 50,000ius a week for a few months in order to get my levels up.

marejo

I just had my Vitamin D level checked and I brought it from last year's "32" to a new level of "62"  I was happy with that.  I also am an outdoor person and am in the sunshine LOTS AND LOTS ... HOWEVER....I live in Wisconsin so outdoor sun isn't something we get a lot of on regular basis. 

I take 4000 i.u. of Vit. D3 daily but once the weather gets warm will decrease that to 2000 i.u. because I am outside so much.  Come Fall I will go back to 4000 i.u.

Just my 2 cents worth...

Mary Jo

Judiiiii

Just a thought.  When "that" Vit D study came out, I emailed 4 or 5 Vit D experts.  They all agreed, given my BC diagnosis, that I should not take more than 2,000 IU of D3 per day and that my goal for blood level should be 50.  Hope I am recalling correctly.

My concern from that study was the group of women who took a higher level of D3 and were found to be *more* likely to get BC.  Too much is not good.

Take care all....  Judi

ChrissieD

Did they test the women's D levels or just base the study on how much D3 they gave them?  I was tested when diagnosed and my level was 24.  My naturopath had me taking 1000iu's / day for 2 months.  We retested and my levels only came up to 32.  I am now taking 4000iu's / day and was retested on Monday.  The sun really has no impact for me...I was diagnosed just after a summer of fun at the beach and pool.

There is so much evidence that D3 deficiencies could be the cause of many illnesses not just BC.  I am going to keep with the supplements.  We are trying to get me above 60.

 Take Care.

fairy49

just my 2 cents, but I just came back from an appointment with a naturopathic MD, she is also a microbiologist.  One of the first things out of her mouth, "have you had your Vit D levels checked?", she specializes in treating BC patients and her opinion is that Vit D levels are very important.  I am having all the blood work done and it will be interesting to get the results.  I am eager to let you guys know what she recommends and doesn't recommend, not that I want to suggest anything, but I think sharing information is good!

Lorraine