Confusion at the Vitamin Counter-Folic Acid-Others
After becoming thoroughly confuse by Dr. Norton's comment about not taking a multivitamin--what should arrive in my mailbox?
I just recieved my copy of Nutrition Action from the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
You know--the people that called Fettucini Alfredo---A Heart Attack on a Plate.----
Well Guess what their new issue is about---You guessed it----Cover story is Confused about Vitamins-Too Little or Too Much- focusing on Folic , Selenium, and Vitamin D
From what I've gleaned it says if you take a multi with 400 mcg of folic acid---don't eat any cereal,
energy bar or other food that contains 400mcg in the serving you eat.
Joel Mason, director of vitamins and Carcinogenisis Laboratory at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center of Aging at Tufts University in Boston says--Colorectal Cancers rose soon after companies started adding folic acid to foods but that still has yet to be proved.
Seems that they have compelling data that getting adequatefolic acid protects against certain cancers but an abundant quantity may accelerate carcinogenisis.
Here is the deal--The Ovarian Cancer Screening trial found a 19% higher risk of BC in postmenopausal women
who were taking at least 400mcg from supplements.
But, in Sweden another study showed a lower risk of BC in women who took the most Folic Acid 380 to 400mcg a day.
But here is the big difference why this is misleading.
Flour is not fortified in Sweden where they are getting much less folic acid.
So getting more is still much less than we get from our diets!
The thought is that "maybe folic acid only enhances the groth of tumors when you exceed the threshold."
This has left experts unsure of the wisdom of adding folic acid to flour, "especially when some advocates of reducing birth defects want it raised" when colorectal, prostate and breast cancer increase as we age.
We could be harboring precancerous lesions and folic acid may fuel their growth.
And since we are getting all this additional involuntary folic acid we may be benefiting some and harming others.
Also, the article talked about the follow-up of a three year trial that had given a placebo or 1000mcg of folic acid to 1000 people who already had a precancerous polyp (adenoma) removed from their colon or rectum.
"we saw an increased risk of advanced adenomas in people who got folic acid," says co-author John Baron,
a professor of medicine at Dartmouth School of medicine. And more Folic Acid Takers (10%)than placebo (4%) had at least 3 new adenomas and more folic acid takers (11%) than placebo (6%) were diagnosed with cancer outside the colon or rectum.
Comments
-
Well...interesting to say the least.
When I was diagnosed I had Folate and B12 tested and both were above normal. How funny is that.
I actually was tested to see if I had to little due to tingling in arms and legs which must have been related to something else.
I stopped taking a multi on a regular basis.
God Bless
-
More from the same issue of Nutrition Action about Vitamin D
As much controversy and worry as there is over folic acid--There is no such worry over Vitamin D.
All the vitamin D studies are coming back with good news---So says Reinhold Veith, a professor of
nutritional Sciences and of laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology at the university of Toronto.
He is one of a number of experts that worry we are getting too little and that the RDA should be raised. "Veith helped develop a liquid vitamin D called Ddrops."
Okay, now here is where it starts getting interesting---For the average older person Dawson Hughs a past president of the National Osteoporosis Foundation suggests 800 to 1000 IU a day
because it is the average amount needed to get 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood level up to 75 nanomoles per liter.
The article says that is the level that lowers the risk of breaking a hip or othe bone (but not the spine which is not affected by vitamin D)
But here is what I find fastinating. That is also the ballpark minimum for improving muscle performance and preventing falls!
Now that is news to me.
Even better " Vitamin D may also be affecting balance because we know it has effects in the brain," suggests Dawson Hughs. "There are vitamin D receptors just about everywhere you look in the brain."
Given the new concerns over the dosages of folic acid and selenium the question is: should you worry about taking too much vitamin D and toxicity.
Vieth answers "If you're talking about vitamin D toxicity you're talking about gross excess".
"Veith recently gave megadoses ranging from 4,000 to 40,000 IU a day of vitamin D to 12 patients with MS. After 28 weeks their blood levels rose to an average of 386 nmol/L, but extensive blood tests found no problems.
He said studies show lower overall cancer rates and death rates in people with higher vitamin D levels in their blood.
"Vieth has urged the National Academy of Science's to raise the upper level --the highest safe dose to take regularly--for vitamin D. "The UL should be 10,000 IU, rather than the current 2000 IU," he contends"
-
Well, that's all very interesting.... I've been wondering about folic acid supplementation and bc every since I heard about it possibly promoting the growth of cancerous cells because I took 1200 mcg starting a month before I conceived my son and for the first 16 or 20 wks of pregnancy, then dropped to 800 mcg daily. He was a little over a yr old when I found my lump. I know that the cancer was growing for years, and the estrogen of pregnancy probably also kicked it into high gear, but I wonder if the folic acid helped it along, too.
The above study didn't mention it, but I believe that it was only supplemented folic that caused the problems and not folic found naturally in food.
I'm beginning to wonder if scientists know anything about anything. A week doesn't seem to go by without "new" info coming to light that changes what scientists used to believe about something. And, as a person who took vitamins/supplements consistently for many, many years as well as ate a healthy diet, I'm starting to think that scientists have a lot to learn. I'm now leaning toward wanting "proof" and lots of it before I ingest something. So far, the Vit D research is looking promising, so I'm crossing my fingers and taking 2000 - 4000 IU a day for now.
Thanks for the info, Susie!
Calico - great quote and ain't it the truth?!!
Cynthia
-
Susie, thanks for sharing this interesting information. I just now subscribed to the newsletter. I also plan to double my Vit D intake. I am currently taking one 1000 I.U. And I guess I best deal with my multi intake since it has 400 mcg folic acid and my cereal says it has 100% of the folic acid RDA.
Debbie
-
I noticed the article Saluki posted talks about Vitamin D in nanomoles per liter (nmol/L). Researchers give their data in this form, but in practice, your blood test results will be converted to nanograms/ml (ng/ml).
75 nanomoles per liter = 30 ng/ml
A recent publication concluded that blood levels of 55 ng/ml were needed to significantly reduce the rates of breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancers. This number is an average, so some of the year the level would be higher & sometimes lower. Up to 100 ng/ml is still considered a 'normal' reading.
The article below is another good summary of the benefits of Vitamin D and was written by Donald Miller, MD ( U of Washington). Vitamin D can regulate blood pressure, susceptibility to Multiple Sclerosis & some cancers and may also be a factor in whether you get infected by the flu virus.
[Note: The article contains links, at the very end, to sites where you can purchase high-concentration Vit D supplements. This is ultimately a discrete marketing piece. For those who want the technical data in a peer-reviewed format, I can post other links or you can search PubMed for articles by Hector deLuca or Michael Holick. ]
-
What, if any, possibility do any of you think could be a problem with using higher doses of Vitamin D with calcium? I don't know what are "excessive" amounts of vitamin D that can cause hypercalcemia. I've been taking 2000 IUs of D for almost two months. I try to take 1200 mg of calcium plus mag.
Shirley
-
Shirley, I looked up your question just today. Short answer I read was that levels below 10,000 I.U. were tolerable. However, the various sources, including Linus Pauling Institute, said to be on the conservative side, they say max 2000 I.U.
What are the health risks of too much vitamin D?
Vitamin D toxicity can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss [59]. It can also raise blood levels of calcium [6], causing mental status changes such as confusion. High blood levels of calcium also can cause heart rhythm abnormalities. Calcinosis, the deposition of calcium and phosphate in the body's soft tissues such as the kidney, can also be caused by vitamin D toxicity [4].
Sun exposure is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity [60]. Diet is also unlikely to cause vitamin D toxicity, unless large amounts of cod liver oil are consumed. Vitamin D toxicity is much more likely to occur from high intakes of vitamin D in supplements. The Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine has set the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D at 25 μg (1,000 IU) for infants up to 12 months of age and 50 μg (2,000 IU) for children, adults, pregnant, and lactating women [4]. Long term intakes above the UL increase the risk of adverse health effects. Upper intake levels for vitamin D are listed in micrograms and International Units for infants, children, and adults in Table 3 [4].From the Linus Pauling Institute:
Research published since 1997 suggests that the UL for adults is likely overly conservative and that vitamin D toxicity is very unlikely in healthy people at intake levels lower than 10,000 IU/day (36, 79, 80).
Hope this helps.
Debbie
-
Shirley- That why I was so excited by this. Not that I'm going to take 10,000 IU anytime soon.
Frankly, about a year ago I had a high reading of calcium in my blood. That was before I even took a vitamin D supplement. I was quite worried and so was my pain management doctor and wanted the test repeated. At the time I was taking about 1200 mg of calcium a day and the only D I got was that contained in the calcium.
Well being panicked and seeing as well that Dr Andrew Weil had lowered his recommendation
on calcium based on some studies (I'm sure BBS or Rosemary can help out here) by a nationally
known expert on the subject.
So figuring that I do get allot through diet I cut my intake down to 600 mg. My calcium readings went back to normal and have been normal ever since even though I upped my D3 to 2400 and actually am getting 2800 because of the D in my calcium supplement.
My liver enzymes should be as good as my calcium. LOL
There is someone who seems to have had a sensitivity reaction to Vitamin D if I remember right. She said it made her pain increase.----
From the studies they are saying Vitamin D helps pain----but heck I can't tell you how often I've had the opposite response to a medication than the expected one-- so nothing surprises me
-
Susie, I don't get a lot of calcium from diet EVERYDAY. I posted a topic on here about foods with calcium. I'm going to put that on my fridge so when I do eat foods with calcium I can take my supplements accordingly.
Yes, Deb, that did help. I haven't lost weight so I don't suppose I'm getting too much Vitamin D..LOL However, I do fit the "confused" symptom!!!
LOLShirley
-
For the person who experienced increased pain on taking Vitamin D, one thing to ask is whether she/he had osteomalacia. This condition is treated with Vitamin D and bone pain can increase initially. It is often misdiagnosed as fibromyalgia or polymyalgia:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/516238_2Osteoporosis does not cause bone pain. However, poorly mineralized bone, that is, osteomalacia, can cause isolated or generalized aching in the bones as well as muscle pain and muscle weakness.[6-10] Recently, Plotnikoff and Quigley[7] reported that 163 patients 10 to 65 years of age who presented to Minnesota Hospital with nonspecific muscle aches and bone pain more than 90% had severe vitamin D deficiency.[8] Similarly, Glerup et al[11,12] reported that 88% of Arab women living in Denmark with muscle weakness and bone pain were severely vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D deficiency also causes muscle weakness and therefore increases risk of the elderly to fall and thereby fracture.
Typically patients with nonspecific muscle aches and pain and bone discomfort are given the diagnosis of fibromyalgia, myositis, or chronic fatigue syndrome. Malabanan et al[10] reported in a black woman with severe bone discomfort and muscle aches that correction of her vitamin D deficiency not only increased her bone mineral density by almost 25% within 2 years but also gave her complete relief of her muscle aches and bone discomfort.
-
Well Everyones got something to say about Vitamin D this month--This today from the associated press
----------------
Vitamin D may not reduce cancer deaths
By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
A large new study found no sign that vitamin D lowers the overall risk of dying from cancer, injecting a note of caution to the latest vitamin craze. The exception: People with more vitamin D in their blood did have a significantly lower risk of death from colorectal cancer, supporting earlier findings.
Getting enough of the so-called sunshine vitamin — the skin makes it from ultraviolet rays — is vital for strong bones. But vitamin D has made headlines in recent years because of research saying it may be a powerful cancer fighter, sparking a push for people to get more than currently recommended amounts, either through diet or sun exposure.
The first-of-a-kind government study released Tuesday shows the issue is far from settled.
National Cancer Institute researchers analyzed vitamin D levels measured in almost 17,000 people as part of a national study that tracked their health. About a decade after enrolling, 536 of those people had died of cancer. Whether people had low or high vitamin D levels played no role in their risk of dying from cancer in general, they reported Tuesday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
Then the researchers examined different types of cancer. There were just 66 deaths from colorectal cancer. Still, people with high levels of vitamin D appeared 72 percent less likely to die of colorectal cancer than people with the lowest vitamin D levels.
"While vitamin D may well have multiple benefits beyond bone, health professionals and the public should not, in a rush to judgment, assume that vitamin D is a magic bullet and consume high amounts," Johanna Dwyer, a dietary supplement specialist at the National Institutes of Health, cautioned in an accompanying editorial.
Indeed, there are numerous risk factors for colorectal cancer, including obesity and low physical activity, and it's unclear if low vitamin D levels play an independent role or are just a marker for those other risks, she said.
Scientists have been interested in vitamin D's effects for decades, since noticing that cancer rates between similar groups of people were lower in sunny southern latitudes than in northern ones. A handful of studies since then have found people given vitamin D supplements have less risk of developing certain cancers, but much of the evidence is circumstantial.
Experts are cautious because other vitamins and nutrient supplements once widely thought to prevent cancer didn't pan out when put to rigorous testing.
The NCI's study is the first to compare blood levels of vitamin D to cancer mortality, and "it's the best research we have on this topic," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society.
But a big weakness: It measured vitamin D at just one point in participants' lives, when levels can vary widely with dietary changes and especially the seasons.
Overall, most research "seems to be pointing in the direction that there is a role of vitamin D," Lichtenfeld said. Tuesday's study "puts a note of caution in there that says with all the explosion of information and advocacy on behalf of vitamin D, we need to be cautious. ... We really need some further studies that are well done to answer the question."--------------------------------------
From Medpage today
BETHESDA, Md., Oct. 30 -- Vitamin D levels do not appear to protect against cancer, with the possible exception of colorectal disease, according to data from a nationwide study.
The analysis failed to show an association between baseline vitamin D status and overall cancer risk in men, women, or in various racial, ethnic or age groups, Michal Freedman, Ph.D., of the National Cancer Institute, and colleagues, reported in the Nov. 7 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
However, individuals with baseline serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of 80 nmol/L or higher did have a 72% (95% confidence interval = 32% to 89%) lower risk of colorectal cancer compared with people who had lower serum levels of vitamin D (lower than 50 nmol/L; P=0.02 for the trend).
The investigators left the door open, though, for continued investigation of associations between the vitamin and cancer risk.
"Additional studies with large numbers of samples of measured 25(OH)D serum levels, preferably at multiple time points, are needed to confirm the total cancer mortality findings of this paper and to obtain more accurate risk estimates for mortality from specific cancers," they concluded.
A variety of preclinical and epidemiologic evidence has suggested that increased intake or endogenous production of vitamin D is associated with reduced cancer risk. In vitro studies have shown that vitamin D reduces cell proliferation, and stimulates apoptosis and cell differentiation, the authors noted.
Ecologic and observational studies have demonstrated an inverse association between residential exposure to ultraviolet radiation (the principal source of naturally occurring vitamin D) and cancer mortality. However, the association between vitamin D and cancer risk and mortality had not been evaluated prospectively.
So Dr. Freedman and colleagues reviewed data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They focused on 16,818 adult participants who completed the NHANES physical examination from 1988 through 1994 with measurement of serum 25(OH)D. Follow-up from data collection continued until Dec. 31, 2000.
Baseline data showed that men, whites, and better-educated individuals had significantly higher serum levels of 25(OH)D.
Increasing body mass index was associated with decreasing levels of 25(OH)D, but increasing physical activity was associated with higher levels.
Dietary vitamin D and calcium and serum retinol were higher in participants who had higher 25(OH)D levels.
The investigators identified 536 cancer deaths in 146,578 person-years. Analysis of season/latitude subpopulations revealed no association between cancer mortality and winter/lower latitude or summer/higher latitude groups. Extensive subgroup analysis failed to reveal any significant associations between 25(OH)D levels and overall cancer mortality.
Analysis of the relationship between serum 25(OH)D and site-specific cancer mortality revealed no association with lung cancer, non-colorectal digestive cancers, breast cancer, prostate cancer, lymphoma or leukemia, or the category of "other" cancers.
In an editorial that accompanied the article, Johanna T. Dwyer, D.Sc., and Cindy D. Davis, Ph.D., of the National Institutes of Health, emphasized the complicated nature of the relationship between nutritional factors and cancer.
"These findings must be put into the context of total diet and lifestyle," they wrote. "While vitamin D may well have multiple benefits beyond [strengthening] bone, health professionals and the public should not in a rush to judgment assume that vitamin D is a magic bullet and consume high amounts of vitamin D," they continued. "More definitive data on both benefits and potential adverse effects of high doses are urgently needed."
The editorialists noted some limitations with the use of the NHANES III cohort. "NHANES III was a cross-sectional study that identified associations but not causation," they said.
They also pointed out that residual confounding is a particular problem because peculiarities in NHANES sampling may have affected both measures of vitamin D exposure and outcomes. For instance, season and latitude, both related to 25(OH)D levels, were linked in the dataset.
Furthermore, they noted, the fact that 25(OH)D levels were measured only at one point in time means they would not represent long-term levels. "Nor would they reflect the nadir of 25(OH)D reached during the year. There also might be fewer lower 25(OH)D levels in the summer/higher latitude sample than would be the case if all subjects had been examined in the winter. This is a cause of concern because in Norway the maximal level of 25(OH)D is reached between the months of July and September and it is 20% - 120% higher than the corresponding winter value, suggesting that season of diagnosis is a predictor of colon cancer survival." -
"
What are the health risks of too much vitamin D?
Vitamin D toxicity can cause nausea, vomiting, poor appetite, constipation, weakness, and weight loss [59]. It can also raise blood levels of calcium [6], causing mental status changes such as confusion. High blood levels of calcium also can cause heart rhythm abnormalities. Calcinosis, the deposition of calcium and phosphate in the body's soft tissues such as the kidney, can also be caused by vitamin D toxicity"
These are the very reasons why we should be taking magnesium with calcium and D, to offset those problems listed above.
Taking a lot of D was a concern for me also with not knowing how much calcium to take with it. I didn't want to find out the hard way. So far I can say that I don't suffer from any of the above listed side effects with the amount I do take. It's all individual, so getting that dexa scan done yearly is the only way I know of to see if the amounts we're taking is working for us. It's a problem cause we have to wait a year to find out the results, but it's all we have.
Then into the mix, we have to add exercise which will make a big difference to those results. We might get by with taking less calcium if we exercise more frequently, but again it's so individulized it's hard to know till we wait a year for our dexa results.
-
Now Gals ---Add Bisphosphonates into the mix. Does anyone know how that interacts with Vitamin D?
I do know that bisphosphonates can be used to treat Calcinosis.
So many questions and so few answers.
-
I don't know how D acts with bisphosphonates but Kris had found research on calcium and bisphosphonates. After reading it, I decided not to take calcium on the same day I took my weekly pill. Kris can find anything.
So what do we think about the news on D not being beneficial for warding off bc? I know that we haven't heard the last word on this subject. There were too many reports on it being beneficial, and I'd want to read what those Dr.s think about this latest news.
-
Given the bone and muscle benefits, I'm keeping it in my diet. Besides, it doesn't sounds like D is detrimental and promotes cancer. I certainly wasn't seeing it as a magic bullet but part of my arsenal in minimizing my chances of getting cancer again. I'm trying to make other changes to compliment my supplement and food intake. For example, sadly, alcohol can be a contributor for estrogen fed cancers. I've backed off my nightly glasses of wine. :-(
Debbie
-
I just wonder how to interpret the NCI report today that did not support the VIT D, though not sure if measured D3 blood levels. They found correlation only for colon cancer? Yet just this week Dr. Norton made a strong rec to take 2000 units per day. He is a respected researcher. CNN is reporting ways to reduce cancer risk today and they all point to more fruits, veg and low fat neither of which were reflected in the Women's Heath Study, esp for ER+ women. Beth
-
Being on an AI, I thing (or hope) D is beneficial.
These "studies" sooooo confuse me.
Shirley
-
I'm with you Debbie--even if its not a magic bullet there are enough benefits to make this an important vitamin. There does not seem to be a downside to this one.
There are studies that show people with higher blood levels of vitamin D had a 64% lower risk of diabetes
Periodontal Disease- There are studies that show those whose vitamin D levels averaged
100 nmo/L were 20% less likely to bleed than the gums whose levels averaged 32 nmol/L.
The evidence suggests vitamin D decreases inflammation. Those who had readings from 71 to
112 nmol/L had a 60% lower risk of tooth loss
A few small studies link low vitamin D intake with poor scores on thinking and memory tests.
There was a sudy that showed that people who had osteoarthritis in the knees were three times as likely to get worse if they had low vitamin D levels. A recent study didn't find a link
but there is a large trial going on at Tufts with 2000 iu a day of vitamin D with 144 people
either on that dose or a placebo.
There is reasearch going on in a number of autoimmune diseases--So far MS is most highly linked to vitamin D
Mulitple Sclerosis-"When researchers compared blood vitamin D levels of 257 Army and Navy recruits were later diagnosed with MS to the bloodwork of 514 recruits that remained free of the disease, the risk was 62% lower in thosewith the highest vitamin D levels (they averaged
99 nmol/L.
So it seems that Vitamin D affects many systems.
Also, do we know what dosage of Vitamin D was used in this study on cancer mortality?
Vieth is using 4000 to 40,000 IU a day for his MS studies.
Could it be that the dose wasn't high enough?
For now I'm going to continue with my 2400 IU and not worry if my calcium contains any additional D. And of course as always I'll continue my magnesium supplements.
I hope you gals can get more info on this.
Where is Edge (Constantine) when we need him?
-
"Where is Edge (Constantine) when we need him?"
BOOOOOOHOOOOOOHOOOOOO!
-
I just got back from reading all about actonel. They do say to take it with D if your status is low. They also say not to take calcium on the day you take your pill, but it's ok to take calcium for the other 6 days. They don't word it that way though. And don't take other meds at the same time.
From what I'm reading, the trials only lasted 3 years. So after 3 years, what happens? We are the guinea pigs, we'll let them know. Well not me exactly cause I've decided it's a good time to give it a rest for awhile.
-
I haven't read the original paper by Freedman, et al--just the abstract. The point to note is that all the subjects were tested just once at the beginning of the study. They were not tested as time passed and the researchers cannot speak to the change, if any, in the Vitamin D levels of the subjects over time. All they have is one data point. This study was clearly not designed to answer questions about Vitamin D levels and cancer survival.
-
I hope they will have some answers soon.
Glad your here BBS, to shed some light on this. Some of these press releases are so misleading.
Rosemary--I think the same holds true for magnesium. You should not take magnesium within hours of a bisphosphonate since it can interfere with its absorption.
I just don't take magnesium or calcium on the same day as my Boniva just to be safe.
I've had a forced vacation from Boniva due to my complicated oral surgery--but I'm too scared
to stay off so I've just gone back on.
By the way both Fosamax and Actonel are due to go generic in the next few months.
-
Am I wrong or what? I thought vitamin D was actually a more important bone builder than calcium and mag. As far as the cancer fighting aspect of it...it may just be an added bonus.
I agree, BBS, that we need you around to help. Oh, and we also need you around cuz we just like you.
Shirley
-
One Dr. thinks it's more important to get more D in so we'll absorb the calcium better and probably need less calcium. But that is subjective because we just don't know till we test the theory on ourselves.
I never took calcium, mg and D without taking actonel with them. So I don't know which are working. Or does it take all 4 to get the job done right? One thing I do know because I had 2 dexa scans but 2 years apart, is that my score didn't improve with doing all 4. I'm due for another one. Another reason why I didn't see an improvement could be that I didn't go to the same place to get the scan done. Each machine calculates it differently. I've added green tea so I'll be putting that theory to the test.
Do you believe they spend how much money on research and they don't know what the difference was for the women who splashed milk in their tea or for those who didn't? It makes me wonder about the waste in research dollars going on out there.
They think that we Americans don't splash a little milk in our tea, so they guessed that it was just the tea helping the bones. Whatever.
-
Rosemary:
Did I understand your post to mean you're "taking a break" from Actonel? I've been following all these post re calcium, magnesium and the bisphosphonates and totally agree how confusing it all is. I take Fosamax and have for about five or six years now (before breast cancer) and now I'm worried about the se of it. I almost want to "take a break" from it (Fosamax) on my own but everytime I have a scan, they just continue me on it. Maybe I should talk to my doc about it.
Anyway, is there some concern now about getting too much calcium? I do take magnesium with mine, but I also have milk everyday too - should I add this all up and maybe cut down on the calcium?
Pat - who's confused
-
Holy Vitamins Bat Girls! I was just scrolling through the threads and clicked on this "Dew Drop Inn"....what a great conversation going on here ....
Saluki- the vitamins aren't confused, only the researchers. It seems to me (and what the hell do I know) that some Western medicine took there eye off the prize and became too anal retentive to pharmaceuticals and surgical interventions. Like lemmings, they ran full steam in the direction of "quick fix"...."magic pill concept". Nutrition (thus vitamins) took a firm back seat. As this went hand in hand to the ecology (talk about taking the eye off the prize), it seems inevitable to arrive at this junction....at least they are looking at this simply complex machine again from the vantage point of "you are what you eat". Even if there is a lot of confusing press out there, the good news is at least it's news and they are starting to look harder at our "chemistry plant".
BBS-- "one point" analyzed?! Freeze frame, maybe .... but one point? Wow...shocking....but not surprising. They aren't looking hard enough because that's not where the money is. Sorry to be cynical. Maybe they need to develop a halter monitor for our blood system as they did for the heart. It's only a continuous feed of the big picture that tells a better story.
Rosemary--I agree with you and the holistic view. I think that I was a classic example of deficient D and mag. as evidenced by the relief I found when I took the mag supplement...do you agree? I also think that there are many environmental and biologic variables that need to be acknowledged which is what seems to result in confusing research ....more than confusing it's expensive....again...where to spend the dollars question. Isn't there existing research to build on instead of starting from scratch? or is that stepping too hard on egos?! If they want to assign a "one size fits all" solution, it's just not going to happen....RDA is recommended for a "healthy" body....but when the body isn't healthy...their research results will be skewed, no?
After my very positive experience with magnesium and the mini education I received from you all....I'm following your continued saga closely. I've been concerned to take too much calcium/D3 supplements because, as my DH continues to remind me, we eat a healthy diet and take sun almost every day. The mag is still helping and I'm still moving around much better so that translates to more excersice. As the endo doc said (but Rosemary said better) we need to help move these elements of calcium and vit D through the body with excersice.
I'm rambling now ....
Saluki--BBS--Rosemary for Presidents, I say!
Best wishes to you all. -
Hi Pat,
Yes, I've decided to take a break from it. I've been on it for 3 years, and I've recently discovered that I have blurred vision. Not that I jumped into a Dr's office over it. I took a chance to see if it's one of my meds and sure enough, up comes research that Actonel or the others could cause blurred vision. It's very rare. The FDA wants Dr.s to report it. So I'm waiting this out for awhile to see if it improves while I'm off the Actonel.
They think we should be taking breaks from it, but they don't really know. One thing I do know, I use to have hip pain even while I was taking actonel, but it only got better after I upped my D intake.
Are you passing or getting better scores on actonel?
-
Rosemary:
Sorry if I confused you about the Actonel - I take Fosamax and have for about 6 years now with no break. My results do not seem to improve b/c everytime I have a bone density test (about every 2 years) they tell me to continue to take it. I just looked at the report from last time I had it which was 08/06 but I sure don't know how to read the results. It's funny about the blurry vision b/c I seem to have that too - now not sure if it could be a side effect. I think I need to talk to my Gyn about taking a break from Fosamax for awhile. I had a sore in the back of my mouth and thought it might be that jaw necroisis (sp?) thing but he assured me it wasn't. Wow, we really have to keep all the balls in the air at once don't we - I really never wanted to be a juggler though!
Thanks for your answer and your continued wisdom!! You and the gals who do so much research are to be commended!!
Hugs,
Pat
-
Marilyn,
I took my own advice this morning and went out for a half hour walk. Me and the cars. I was choking through most of it. I'll have to find a better route.
I don't recall if I told you the reason of how I found mg? Stop me if you heard this before. I read a story from a Dr. who did autopsies on cadavers that died of all different types of heart disease. There was 6 of them, and what all 6 had in common? No magnesium in their muscles, very little to zero. That's all I needed to start the program of taking mg. Then I noticed changes to the better here and there in different things, no more panic attacks was one, and I've been on it ever since. I can't even conger up a panic attack anymore. I hate to say it, but I think mg is better than wine. Sorry.
-
Hi Rosemary,
Rosemary--Nope. Never heard the story before. But it was one worth hearing.
I think mg is better than wine too. But V'07 (Vincenzo's red wine vintage Oct '07) runs a close second. This was a good year for wine. Mg. still can't beat red wine and dark chocolate together .... ergo mg. Some things still need to enter the front door. But thank god for the supplement! I havent' felt this good in two years! Your little message might have had life saving affects.
You know what I love about this country? I was able to walk into a drug store, tell the pharmacist that a friend (and you know who) recommended magnesium, and she smiles and says "oh yes, powder or liquid?"
So very sorry that you need to walk in the smog. Definately, find a new route...it's worth the extra miles.
Ciao bella!
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team