Vitamin D

I started taking Vitamin D supps at the beginning of the year due to the extreme lack of sunlight in this state this time of year, and the fact that I drink very little milk. I read that it can stave off the winter blues which seems to drag me down by February each year since I moved here.

It is staving the winter blues and then some. My mood has been more upbeat this winter than ever before. I take one 400 IU pill every other day, and two of them on the days in between. Have not noticed any issues or side effects from it. So far so good.

10% of genetic code regulated by vit D according to Mercola Mercola Market - Shop Products Recommended by Dr. Joseph Mercola

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Then there’s always the three-step recovery program:

  1. Take your Melanotan II
  2. Get your sun (nothing extreme, nothing burning)
  3. Take D3 on your non-tanning days

Works for me.[/quote]

I might add step 1a) take a boat load of l-tyrosine, a melanin precursor, before going outside. I never tanned until I learned to take tyrosine. If you have trouble tanning outside, you might need tyrosine.

Hint: look at PowerDrive.

I finally researched Melanotan-II. I didn’t realize it’s an MSH analog. Cool. I’ve got to look into that, but it also looks expensive.

Not terribly.

I think I pay $40 per 10 mg. So the initial loading does cost a bit, as it may take a total of 30 mg to start getting the really good results. I would suggest taking a minimum of 30 days for that first 30 mg.

The problems some experience are, I expect, from taking doses over 1 mg at a time. Half a mg at a time is probably a better upper limit. If in a rush and wanting to keep to 1/2 mg at a time, 2x/day injection seems good (it is what I did anyway.)

If one wishes to be still more conservative, 0.25 mg per injection is not unreasonably low at all.

Anyway, past the loading phase, 10 mg lasts me six weeks. So that would work out to less than $7 a week.

Anyway, the reason I mentioned it was, aside from being reminded by the reference to melanocyte stimulating hormone, of which this is an analogue, is the concern of sun damaging the skin. The resulting good tan from the Melanotan II and moderate sun exposure gives good natural protection.

(Note, whatever hype there may be about this being sunless tanning, it is not, or at least not to any degree much worth mentioning if anything at all.)

Oh, and on your note on tyrosine: I didn’t try it both ways, but indeed I was using PowerDrive.

I got some time so I dug my old articles and found the abstract I was looking for. Here it goes:

Article from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.

Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level.

Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.

Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences states that 95 microg vitamin D/d is the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL).
OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the efficacy and safety of prolonged vitamin D3 intakes of 25 and 100 microg (1000 and 4000 IU)/d. Efficacy was based on the lowest serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration achieved by subjects taking vitamin D3; potential toxicity was monitored by measuring serum calcium concentrations and by calculating urinary calcium-creatinine ratios.
DESIGN: Healthy men and women (n = 61) aged 41 +/- 9 y (mean +/- SD) were randomly assigned to receive either 25 or 100 microg vitamin D3/d for 2-5 mo, starting between January and February. Serum 25(OH)D was measured by radioimmunoassay.
RESULTS: Baseline serum 25(OH)D was 40.7 +/- 15.4 nmol/L (mean +/- SD). From 3 mo on, serum 25(OH)D plateaued at 68.7 +/- 16.9 nmol/L in the 25-microg/d group and at 96.4 +/- 14.6 nmol/L in the 100-microg/d group. Summertime serum 25(OH)D concentrations in 25 comparable subjects not taking vitamin D3 were 46.7 +/- 17.8 nmol/L. The minimum and maximum plateau serum 25(OH)D concentrations in subjects taking 25 and 100 microg vitamin D3/d were 40 and 100 nmol/L and 69 and 125 nmol/L, respectively. Serum calcium and urinary calcium excretion did not change significantly at either dosage during the study.
CONCLUSIONS: The 100-microg/d dosage of vitamin D3 effectively increased 25(OH)D to high-normal concentrations in practically all adults and serum 25(OH)D remained within the physiologic range; therefore, we consider 100 microg vitamin D3/d to be a safe intake.

I wanted to end that pointless discussion about perceived meaning of word ‘symptoms’ with my last post, but this is too much. Although I love to discuss issues with intelligent people, this is absurd!

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
A difference between your example of opportunistic infections associated with AIDS is that HIV is recognized as a disease. [/quote]

This is ridiculous! I haven’t written anywhere otherwise, so I don’t know how could you possibly come to such conclusion. HIV is indeed causing AIDS. But one of AIDS manifestations is opportunistic infections. And as I said in medical university these are the first signs of this disease, that give it away.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Will the great majority of physicians reading the article consider typical Vitamin D levels to in fact be a disease?[/quote]

The physicians reading the article low levels of vitamin D will see as vitamin D insufficiency/deficiency (depending on how low your 25-hydroxivitamin D is).

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
If not, then your statement “symptoms are actually signs of a disease” would not be reason for them to disagree with calling influenza a symptom, not an illness in its own right. [/quote]

Firstly, I’m not claiming that influenza is not an illness. What I am saying is that influenza hits only when there is certain conditions (in this way low vitamin D, and from this you can extrapolate that people has low level of vitamin D if he can not fight influenza virus).

You don’t see influenza hitting people in summer or in autumn. Influenza hits in late winter/early spring when vitamin D levels hits rock bottom. If you would compare autumn and spring they are both very similar in terms of weather condition (low temperature, windy, wet, common rains), but somehow you don’t see people getting influenza in autumn.

I hope you won’t you suggest that influenza virus is having winter sleep during that time and hits people in late winter when it is well rested? This is a joke by the way.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
There’s just no reason, when wishing to persuade a given audience, to throw out stuff they flat will not agree with, on account of wording you just had no need to use.

What do you think?[/quote]

In your case you are right. But people are different and some require different means than others. Some like to see whole picture, even when parts are missing, while others like to overanalise particular parts and disregard the whole picture.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Lastly, I exceedingly doubt any claim that influenza requires being low in Vitamin D. That good Vitamin D levels are largely protective, I don’t doubt, but that the flu requires levels of Vitamin D in the range typical of unsupplemented or poorly supplemented Americans in winter would seem a highly suspicious claim.

First, if it were true, this remarkable fact could have, with modest work, highly impressive evidence given to back it up. If I were a skeptic reading this article, I’d consider it the burden of the author to provide this evidence. It isn’t provided. (I don’t think it exists.)[/quote]

It is your right to demand answers, but when no-one has done such studies you have to live with the data we have now and it’s pretty convincing. First thing you have to understand is that vitamin D regulates more than 2000 genes! That’s huge! Secondly, it was started to research beyond the mere effect to bone tissue less than a decade ago, just give scientists some time. Thirdly, there have been clearly demonstrated that vitamin D causes production of antimicrobial peptides when immune cells are faced with bacteria. I think such fact alone could prove you that vitamin D is indeed an important regulator in immune system. You should also check out vitamin D status and it’s relationship with cancers and autoimmune diseases and you will see there too that higher vitamin D levels correlates with lower cancer and autoimmune disease incidence levels.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Second, I personally know of a case of a person having taken Vitamin D3 at 4000 IU/day for several months and getting the flu. Additionally, I am pretty sure that, for example in Asia in subtropical latitudes, the flu exists among individuals getting hours of sun from working outdoors, and thus in individuals not deficient in Vitamin D.[/quote]

I hope you agree that people are different and anyone can react different to the same substance. You also can not be 100% sure the person was getting what he thought he was getting (there is a case where a a person took 1000IU/day of vitamin D and got hypercalceamic, when his case was investigated everyone were shocked to know that the capsule which claimed to have 1000IU of vitamin D actually had around 100.000-150.000IU! hence hypercalcaemia).

As for Asian or African people, due to their skin pigmentation, they have to get significantly more sun to synthetise the same vitamin D amount as Caucasian people. I think you understand that immunity isn’t driven just by vitamin D levels (this would be too simple). Immune system requires a lot of different substances to work properly. If you would look at the diet these subtropical Asian people are getting you would see they are severely lacking in other nutrients/substances, hence the ineffective immune system.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
I wonder if this writer would be so bold as to allow himself to be exposed to one of the virulent human-infecting forms of bird flu, what with his ridicule of the idea that the influenza virus causes flu? Somehow I suspect he would not.[/quote]

I hope you were just kidding with this one. For starters, we have more advanced methods to research such things (ever heard of cell cultures or mouses?). It ain’t medieval times when scientists risked their lives to study such things. Secondly, H5N1 viruses are mutated bird viruses, which people haven’t encountered before, unlike our usual yearly flu viruses, who although mutate, are pretty easily recognized by our immune system. [u]And last but not least, you must understand that the vitamin D itself isn’t the cure, it is gonna work only when you are insufficient in vitamin D in the first place![/u] The whole target population are people who have insufficient levels of vitamin D. And if you get too much of it you will suffer side effects.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Anyway, it was just another example of how it seems to me this was written, in many regards, in a counterproductive way for persuading the medical profession. Which is a shame because the medical profession needs to be persuaded on this, and one would think that this is an organization that ought to be focused on being effectively persuasive to that target audience, rather than on using hyperbole that is much more likely to turn that audience off than to persuade them.[/quote]

As I said earlier, different people require different methods. For some this type of writing will ring some bells, for others - not.

Johny23

P.S. My response was the result of my misinterpreted thoughts, so if I sounded like it was against the author I want to assure you it wasn’t and I’m always open to constructive discussion.

You are simply wrong.

For example, as I told you I personally know of a case of an individual taking 4000 IU D3 per day, and having done so for several months, and getting the flu.

If you want to believe that the language in question that I say is poorly designed to be persuasive to physicians is in fact very persuasive, and/or that my reasons why I do not consider this the case are not valid, believe it all you want.

Lastly, no I was not kidding on the bird flu point. The author, as part of his IMO-counterprodutive rhetoric, had a statement presenting it as ridiculous that anyone believes that the influenza virus causes flu.

My statement was a way of showing that I expect the writer does not really believe that influenza is impossible with good Vitamin D levels. And so when really put to the test, auch as this would do, his hyperbole would be exposed. I thought the point was clear enough.

It looks as though you also understand that regardless of claims that influenza supposedly requires low Vitamin D levels and supposedly can’t occur without that, in fact a person with good Vitamin D levels can get influenza and therefore would be very foolish to expose himself to a highly virulent flu.

It’s a distinction between where the rubber hits the road, and hyperbolic speech.

As for your thought that the meaning of words, or examination of such, is pointless: ironically, that philosophy would renders your own post pointless. But of course, rather like the author not really believing his words, but rather employing a lot of hype, I doubt you really believe it’s unimportant how words are understood. You no doubt employ its importance in every single thing you respond to.

[quote]Johny23 wrote:
This is ridiculous! I haven’t written anywhere otherwise, so I don’t know how could you possibly come to such conclusion. HIV is indeed causing AIDS. But one of AIDS manifestations is opportunistic infections. And as I said in medical university these are the first signs of this disease, that give it away.
[/quote]

Just to throw a wrench into the discussion (and mix some metaphors) I read an interesting theory a few months ago. This theory hypothesizes that AIDS is a multifactorial disease, and the presence of HIV is not, in and of itself, sufficient to cause AIDS. The theory is that other factors must also be present for AIDs to develop. One of the factors the theory suggested was the use of methamphetamine, since the the use of meth is apparently one of the top behaviors (just below anal sex and intravenous drug use) correlated with AIDS. (Please start another thread if you want to argue this.)

This illustrates how we tend to view cause-effect relationships in medicine and physiology as 1:1 relationships, when they might in fact be 1:Many.

So perhaps vitamin D’s benefits are optimized when multiple factors are aligned, not just vitamin D.

Oh, and on that: Johny needs to read what I actually wrote on that as well, as opposed to what he misinterpreted out of it / read into it.

I just wanted to throw in my 2 cents here… I’ve been taking 4000 IU for about a month, along with Flameout. I had just been on Flameout, and I was losing weight steadily. Since I’ve been taking the D3, I seem to lose 2lbs a week whether I make it to the gym or not. I work and I’m taking 2 classes, so my schedule can be pretty wacky. What can I tell you? Anyway, I’m down 13 lbs. total, and I’ve been lifting hard. Still gaining good strength and loving it!

I had planned to just try to drop 15, but, given how easy it’s been, I plan to take advantage of the momentum and see if I can get down another 5 lbs. Holy smokes! I am super impressed!

[quote]TC wrote:
I also think it’s possible to do a multivitamin the “right way.” We’ll do it sooner or later.

[/quote]

Any idea when? I’m guessing 2-3 years?

Life Extension Magazine April 2009

The Link Between Autism and Low Levels of Vitamin D
By Julius Goepp, MD

An epidemic of autism appears to be underway in the United States. According to several respected leaders in child and adult nutrition from across the United States, the current meteoric rise in autism and autism spectrum disorders (ASD) may well be a direct consequence of significant vitamin D deficiencies in pregnant women and their infants.1-6 And evidence points to vitamin D deficiency as the cause of other debilitating brain conditions as well.5,7-10 This insidious deficiency is readily remedied?yet tragically often missed.

For years, Life Extension has been exploring the potentially devastating consequences of vitamin D deficiency, ranging from cardiovascular disease to cancer. Now in this report, Life Extension magazine examines the link between low levels of plasma vitamin D and autism. At the forefront of this research is Dr. John J. Cannell, executive director of the Vitamin D Council and a forensic psychiatrist at Atascadero State Hospital in California. The stunning findings suggest that rampant vitamin D deficiency is causally related to brain dysfunction, and may be readily preventable by adequate supplementation.2-4,11

Autism?What?s Known, What?s Guessed, and What?s Still to be Learned
Autism, or the Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD), involves poor social and verbal functioning accompanied by repetitive or ?stereotyped? behaviors.12 Symptoms begin sometime in early childhood. Just what the deficits are, when they first become evident, and what causes them are still unknown, though both genetic and environmental factors seem to play major roles.12-14 Similarly, it seems apparent that there are many different developmental conditions that meet at least some of the definitions of autism or ASD.12

In fact, scientists agree that we actually know very little about this puzzling, multi-faceted, and tragic condition, which ranges in severity from very subtle alterations in social behavior to full-blown developmental delays that may result in placement in long-term care facilities.15-17

What is undeniable is that there has been a marked increase in the number of children being diagnosed with autism over the past two decades, not just in the US but in most industrialized nations.18-21 Some experts argue that this rise is due to increased detection by parents and physicians, as well as changing criteria and diagnostic categories.22-25 By now, however, most agree that the increase is real, and probably represents an interaction of basic genetic tendencies with something new and different in our current turn-of-the-century world.3,19-21 One report showed the incidence of autism rose 30-fold in just seven years.25 This 2006 British study estimated that one in every 86 children met criteria for autism or ASD20?a shocking figure that alone justifies use of the term ?epidemic.?3

What is causing this apparent dramatic rise in autism cases? The answer or answers have been elusive, generating heated controversy among (and between) physician groups, other scientists, and many parent groups. Considerable attention has been given to mercury and other environmental toxins that cause oxidative stress,26,27 and scientists are conducting further studies to determine if mercury in the environment and mercury preservatives in vaccines are casually linked to autism. Genetic factors are also important, as demonstrated by high rates of occurrence in other family members, particularly in twin studies.28,29 Today?s consensus identifies both genetic and environmental factors as being relevant to the causes of autism.14,30

The ?Vitamin D Deficiency Theory? of Autism
What possible factors involving both genetics and environment could account for the dramatic change in autism rates in just 20 years? Our genes surely aren?t changing that fast, and while our environment is clearly being altered, no serious scientist suggests that anything radical enough to cause an epidemic of brain dysfunction has taken place in the past two decades. That?s correct, argues Dr. John Cannell, but in fact our behavior with regard to our environment has indeed undergone significant changes?changes that, because of their effects on the vitamin D neurosteroid system, can and do account for many of the observed facts about the autism epidemic.

Dr. Cannell, a widely-published expert on vitamin D?s many-faceted effects,4,31-33 believes that these facts line up in a compelling fashion to implicate vitamin D deficiency and support the ?vitamin D deficiency theory? of autism.3 Let?s follow Dr. Cannell?s line of thinking as he lines up the extraordinary evidence that we may be able to stop the autism epidemic in its tracks with simple vitamin D supplementation.

Cannell starts with the incredible increase in our understanding of vitamin D?s fundamental contri-butions to human health. Though most people (sadly including many physicians) still associate it only with bone mineralization, we now understand that the active form of vitamin D, called calcitriol, plays an equally important role as a neurosteroid hormone, directly responsible for many elements in brain development and behavior34 (other examples of neurosteroids include the sex hormones estrogen and testosterone, which have effects on the full spectrum of human behaviors). Vitamin D obtained from supplements or sunshine must undergo two biochemical processes before it becomes active. First, it is metabolized by the liver to 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the main circulating form of vitamin D and the only vitamin D metabolite that should be measured to assess vitamin D status.

Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D then undergoes a final biochemical step to form calcitriol, a potent neurosteroid that controls brain cell growth, and acts on receptor molecules found in brain cells from the first days of embryo formation.35 Because of these potent effects, researchers in 2001 labeled vitamin D the ?neglected neurosteroid? and concluded that vitamin D deficiency ?should be examined in more detail as a candidate risk factor? for neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.36 More recently, researchers have suggested that vitamin D, acting as a neurosteroid, offers ?neuroprotection, antiepileptic effects, immunomodulation, [impact on] several brain neurotransmitter systems and hormones, as well as regulation of behaviors,?37 stressing the importance of prenatal, neonatal, and postnatal vitamin D supplementation for normal brain functioning.38

But what has happened in the past 20 years that could affect the neurosteroid function of vitamin D and relate it to the explosion of autism cases? Plenty, argues Cannell: put very simply, we have become excessively ?sun-phobic? in our efforts to reduce the very real risk of skin cancers.3,39 Couple this with our decreasing natural exposure to sunlight as we?ve moved from agricultural to manufacturing to service-based activities, and you have the ?perfect storm? for vitamin D deficiency.1,11 Vitamin D levels in industrialized countries are known to be much lower than those of fully sun-exposed individuals.40 Thus, our behavior has had the paradoxical and unintended consequence of limiting our blood levels of the only known precursor of a vital neurohormone that, in turn, can influence the very organ of behavior itself, the brain.3

What is the evidence to support the vitamin D deficiency theory of autism? A recent review by Dr. Cannell provides a substantial and cogent evidence base,3 starting with the characteristics of the vitamin D neurosteroid system itself. Calcitriol acts as a ?molecular switch? in brain tissue, turning on powerful genes that influence brain development. There are about 1,000 genes already known to be targets of calcitriol activity, and that number is growing fast.37,41

But unlike any other vitamin system, the bulk of human vitamin D stores come not from oral intake but from skin production under the influence of sunlight.42,43 As Dr. Cannell notes in his review, ?Large populations of pregnant women putting small amounts [of vitamin D] in their mouths?in the form of prenatal vitamins?instead of generating large amounts in their skins, is novel to human brain development;?44 since we no longer get ample sun exposure, we need to pay closer attention to how much vitamin D we do get through our mouths.

The case for significant oral supplementation is made even clearer when one considers that skin production of vitamin D is vastly more efficient than oral intake.2 In fact, just 10-40 minutes of summer sunbathing by a fair-skinned adult, notes Cannell, produces about 20,000 units of vitamin D which is presented to the systemic circulation over the next 24 hours45?to get the same amount orally a pregnant woman would have to drink 200 glasses of milk (at 100 IU per glass) or take 50 standard prenatal multivitamins (400 IU per tablet) to realize the same gains!3

But, as Cannell goes on to point out, we?ve been assiduously avoiding sun exposure for the past 20 years, dutifully following AMA guidelines.39 It is precisely during that same 20-year period that we?ve seen the rapid rise in autism rates,14 though as Dr. Cannell acknowledges, ?Thousands of other environmental changes occurred during this same time and such associations, on their own, mean little.?3

But there are plenty of additional persuasive arguments supporting the theory. The calcitriol neurohormone system is different from all the body?s other steroid hormone systems. While other steroids are produced directly from the body?s natural store of cholesterol ?precursor? compounds, the amount of calcitriol produced is completely dependent on having enough precursor 25-hydroxyvitamin D present in the first place. And brain levels of activated vitamin D, as Cannell observes, ?directly depend on the amount of vitamin D the mother makes in her skin or puts in her mouth.?3

Cannell?s dramatic conclusion is that ?Human behavior, be it the step into the sun, the step to the supplements, the step into the shade, or the step to the sunscreen, determine brain calcitriol levels.?3 In the case of the human fetus, as we?re about to see, brain calcitriol levels are directly linked to very early cognitive development, with tremendous implications for the developing baby?s brain.

What You Need to Know: Autism and Vitamin D
An epidemic of autism is sweeping the US and other industrialized nations.
Causes and cures for autism have long eluded researchers, with often conflicting data making progress difficult.
At the same time a less well-publicized but undeniable epidemic of vitamin D deficiency has been underway as a result of diminished sun exposure.
The inspired leadership of several forward-thinking experts has finally tied the two epidemics together and may allow for the first real progress in preventing and treating autism since the epidemic began.
Since most Americans don?t get nearly enough sunlight to meet their daily vitamin D needs, and since too much sun exposure can be dangerous, experts now recommend oral supplementation of vitamin D far in excess of standard government recommendations.
Pregnant and nursing mothers as well as young infants need special attention to vitamin D status, since vitamin D works as a neurohormone to stimulate proper brain development and potentially reduce risk for autism.

Calcitriol?Nutrient and Neurohormone of Brain Development
A wealth of animal data has emerged demonstrating just how essential calcitriol is in early fetal brain development. Offspring of vitamin D-deficient rats, for example, have abnormal cell growth, structure, and functions in their brains,46-48 excessive and undirected movements,49-52 and subtle alterations in learning and memory.8 Even when the deficiencies occur only late in gestation, they are capable of causing disruptions in adult brain functioning,48 demonstrating the exquisite dependence of brain development on this vital neurohormone.

A group of French researchers has in fact found 36 crucial brain proteins that are disrupted when vitamin D is deficient during fetal development,7,53 and others have shown increased brain size and enlargement of the fluid-filled ventricles of the brain9?both abnormalities that are common in autism.54,55

Toxins and Oxidants?Another Important Role for Calcitriol in Autism?
What about the apparent importance of toxins and inflammation in autism? Does the vitamin D deficiency theory of autism offer an explanation? Resoundingly yes?for example, it is already known that autistic people have abnormalities in immune functions similar to those that are affected by vitamin D?including increased inflammatory cytokine levels.12,56,57 And we know that much of the ongoing inflammation in autistic brains is the result of oxidative stress12?just where vitamin D?s powerful anti-inflammatory properties are most useful (and most critical if missing).

Calcitriol has nootropic properties?that is, it protects brain tissue by reducing inflammatory cytokine levels which, when elevated, are strongly associated with cognitive impairment.3,58 Calcitriol also protects brain tissue by stimulating production of neuro-trophins, chemicals that combat toxicity from a number of sources including toxic levels of intracellular brain calcium.59 Calcitriol also increases brain levels of glutathione,60,61 a powerful natural antioxidant that is the body?s most important tool for detoxifying and excreting heavy metals and that is rapidly consumed during oxidant stress from toxins and other sources.

Cannell argues convincingly that it is especially this calcitriol-induced increase in glutathione levels that can explain the link between autism and heavy metal toxicity.3,62 Heavy metals deplete intracellular glutathione,63 however, animals supplemented with calcitriol show a reduction in iron- and zinc-induced brain injury.64,65

A study by Dr. Jill James sheds further light on the connection between heavy metals, glutathione, and autism. Children with a variant of autism called regressive autism demonstrated a severe imbalance in the ratio of active to inactive glutathione, compared with healthy children. Regressive autism occurs when previously healthy children lose acquired language or behavioral skills and go on to develop autism. Children with regressive autism displayed chronically elevated levels of oxidative stress, which would make them more vulnerable to damaging neurotoxic agents such as heavy metals.66

Vitamin D Interactions?An Answer to the Gender Issue in Autism?
The fact that vitamin D metabolism differs markedly under the effects of the sex hormones may go a long way towards explaining yet another puzzling fact about autism, namely its strong predilection for boys over girls.3 For example, researchers in Sweden and in Utah have now shown that estrogen has effects on developing brain tissue that serve to make it more responsive to the neurohormonal growth-stimulating effects of calcitriol?results which suggest that estrogen can enhance any beneficial effects of vitamin D on the brain.67,68 It has been found that estrogen increases the activity of an important vitamin-D-related calcium binding protein in neurons69,70 that plays several important roles during central nervous system development.

Though complex, these studies do support the notion that the developing brain of a female fetus, with its predominance of estrogen relative to testosterone, could make more efficient use of available vitamin D than would the brain of a male fetus. In a situation where there was plenty of vitamin D present, such differences would go unnoticed?but introduce the all-too-prevalent maternal vitamin D deficiency state, and the stage is set for possible impairment in boys more commonly than in girls, which is of course precisely the situation we see with autism?s gender discrimination.

Vitamin D Intake and Cognitive Performance
If even some of the damage done by vitamin D deficiency during fetal development is reversible, we?d expect to find that vitamin D supplementation would help reduce autistic symptoms at least to some extent. There aren?t yet many good studies on this subject, but what we know is encouraging. A multivitamin supplementation study of 20 autistic children in 2004 showed improvements in sleep and gastrointestinal problems that are common in autism (that study only provided 150 units of vitamin D per day, which as we?ll see is probably well below the minimum requirement).71 Similar multivitamin studies have shown improvements in cognitive function even in apparently normal schoolchildren, according to one review of 14 separate studies.72

What?s remarkable (and heartbreaking) is that while these studies show very little effect on most of the children evaluated, about 20% of the children had substantial gains in performance.72 This 20% might represent a vitamin D-deficient subgroup of children?a tremendous number if these figures hold nationwide.3

We would also expect that consumption of vitamin D-rich foods by pregnant women would improve cognitive performance in their infants, and indeed Cannell provides evidence that high maternal consumption of fish, rich in vitamin D, is associated with better cognitive outcomes in infants.73,74 Another recent study demonstrated that infants born to mothers with very low seafood intake had higher risks for having low verbal IQs, less well-socialized behaviors, and poorer fine motor and communication skills.75 As Cannell persuasively argues, these deficiencies are ?eerily similar to [those found in] autism.?3

A Word About Dosing
To reach the 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood levels that Life Extension recommends for optimal health of 50-60 ng/mL, most typical Americans will need to use dietary supplements, given the real risks ofprolonged exposure to sunlight or UV tanning lights. But neither officially-recommended daily intakes of vitamin D (400 IU/day) nor consumption of vitaminD-fortified foods can effectively prevent vitamin D deficiency.4,85,86 As leading researcher Dr. John Cannell points out, ?Adequate oral supplementation will require doses that might make a practitioner initially uncomfortable, as physiological doses of vitamin D, in the absence of sun exposure, probably range between 400 IU/day for premature infants to 10,000 IU/day for the morbidly obese.?4 Cannell goes on to cite another expert, Dr. Robert P. Heaney of Nebraska?s Creighton University, who estimates that 3,000 IU/day is required to assure that 97% of Americans obtain levels greater than 35 ng/mL.87 The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends that pregnant women should take 2,000 IU vitamin D daily to reduce the risk of autism and other adverse health conditions in their children.88 In a recent comprehensive review, Dr. Cannell recommends that ?parents supplement breast-fed infants with at least 800 IU of vitamin D daily, while formula-fed infants need 400 IU per day. Toddlers and young children who do not get regular sun exposure should take 1,000-2,000 IU daily year round, depending on body weight, keeping in mind that current Food and Nutrition Board recommendations state doses up to 2,000 IU per day are safe for children over the age of one.?4 Dr. Cannell and other experts believe that autistic children may require even higher blood levels of vitamin D than other individuals, and should take enough vitamin D to maintain serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of approximately 70 ng/mL.

Exposure to UV Light?Another Clue?
We know that certain brain diseases such as multiple sclerosis are much more common in high latitudes where sunlight is scarce, and many scientists suspect that those conditions are directly related to chronic or seasonal vitamin D deficiencies.1,2,76 A strong positive association between latitude and the prevalence of autism has been reported for groups of children before 1985, which is what we?d expect if autism were related to vitamin D deficiency.3,4 Additional support comes from recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which found the highest prevalence of autism in New Jersey (the second most northern state in the survey), and the lowest in Alabama.18

One might expect that babies born in late winter would have higher rates of autism if vitamin D deficiency were involved, since their mothers would have spent most of their pregnancies in fairly low-sunlight settings. While one report suggests that late winter birth dates are associated with higher rates of autism,77 the literature isn?t consistent on this topic. Cannell argues that in fact this would be expected if the critical time for the deficiency to cause damage was not only during gestation, but also in early childhood, and indeed animal studies suggest just that.46,50 Lower rates of autism have been found in rural compared with urban areas, further supporting the idea that low sunlight exposure may be a contributor.78 And a fascinating study recently demonstrated that autism rates are substantially higher in geographic areas where precipitation is highest79 (the implication is that people in such areas spend less time outdoors, thereby reducing their vitamin D-producing sun exposure).

Finally, air pollution is now known to reduce UV light exposure sufficiently to lower vitamin D levels to the point at which experts are recommending supplementation,80 and one recent study demonstrated an association between air pollution and autism27 (of course this particular association could as easily be due to toxins in the air?demonstrating how much we still have to learn about this mysterious condition).

UV-Blocking Skin Pigment?Further Support for the Vitamin D Deficiency Theory
If fetal vitamin D deficiency is at the root of autism, we should expect to find higher rates of autism among children born to dark-skinned mothers, because melanin, the major skin pigment, is an extremely efficient blocker of UV light.42 As Dr. Cannell points out in his review, studies of this nature are difficult to perform and interpret, though there is limited evidence of higher incidence of autism in American black children.81 Two European studies published in 1995 also showed higher rates of autism among children of dark-skinned immigrants (up to 200-fold higher in one study).82,83 Since some studies suggest that darker-skinned individuals are more likely to be deficient in vitamin D than those with lighter skin tones,84 this provides another compelling reason for those with darker skin tones to diligently monitor their vitamin D status.

Summary

Click Here for Figure 1
There seems to be little doubt that a significant proportion of the epidemic of autism is real, and not just a fluke of over-reporting and over-diagnosis by anxious parents and physicians. As many Life Extension reports have documented, there?s equal certainty that we also face an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency as we steadily move away from old ways that exposed us to more vitamin-D producing sunlight. The theory that the two epidemics are inextricably linked is supported on myriad independent grounds, and as Dr. Cannell himself points out, is readily susceptible to rigorous testing.3 While we are awaiting those results, however, it seems prudent to maximize vitamin D status in pregnant women, infants, and young children and infants, aiming for levels found in humans living in a sun-rich environment, between 50-60 ng/mL (blood testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin is recommended as the only way to make the diagnosis and to assure treatment is adequate and safe).4 One recent study noted, ?Supplemental doses of vitamin D and sensible sun exposure could prevent deficiency in most of the general population.?2 Under the leadership of brilliant scientists like Dr. John Cannell, we may be privileged to witness at least the beginning of the end of the scourge of autism among our children.


Fortunately, a decaying or broken tooth has the ability to heal itself. Pulp contains cells called odontoblasts, which form new dentin if the diet is good. Here’s what Dr. Edward Mellanby had to say about his wife’s research on the subject. This is taken from Nutrition and Disease:

Since the days of John Hunter it has been known that when the enamel and dentine are injured by attrition or caries, teeth do not remain passive but respond to the injury by producing a reaction of the odontoblasts in the dental pulp in an area generally corresponding to the damaged tissue and resulting in a laying down of what is known as secondary dentine. In 1922 M. Mellanby proceeded to investigate this phenomenon under varying nutritional conditions and found that she could control the secondary dentine laid down in the teeth of animals as a reaction to attrition both in quality and quantity, independently of the original structure of the tooth. Thus, when a diet of high calci­fying qualities, ie., one rich in vitamin D, calcium and phosphorus was given to the dogs during the period of attrition, the new secondary dentine laid down was abundant and well formed whether the original structure of the teeth was good or bad. On the other hand, a diet rich in cereals and poor in vitamin D resulted in the production of secondary dentine either small in amount or poorly calcified, and this happened even if the primary dentine was well formed.

Thus, in dogs, the factors that affect tooth healing are the same factors that affect tooth development:

  1. The mineral content of the diet, particularly calcium and phosphorus
  2. The fat-soluble vitamin content of the diet, chiefly vitamin D
  3. The availability of minerals for absorption, determined largely by the diet’s phytic acid content (prevents mineral absorption)

What about humans? Drs. Mellanby set out to see if they could use their dietary principles to cure tooth decay that was already established. They divided 62 children with cavities into three different diet groups for 6 months. Group 1 ate their normal diet plus oatmeal (rich in phytic acid). Group 2 ate their normal diet plus vitamin D. Group 3 ate a grain-free diet and took vitamin D.

etc. etc.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oh, and on that: Johny needs to read what I actually wrote on that as well, as opposed to what he misinterpreted out of it / read into it.[/quote]

Ok I get it. You didn’t like that it was said that vitamin D could cure flu, fine, I got that. But don’t discourage people from potential benefits of using vitamin D.

I know that I didn’t get flu, am performing and feeling better when I started using vitamin D, so I’ll continue to do so and I am advising to do the same for everybody else, especially when low vitamin D levels are associated not only with higher chance to get a flu but also nastier stuff: autoimmune diseases, cancer and some psychological defects. And people are indeed deficient in this vitamin. I was in a research group at my university that looked at vitamin D levels in young (21-25 y/o), healthy males and what we found was that only 10,7% had sufficient levels! This is truly disturbing news.

Vit D improves athletic performance

Hadn’t seen this thread in a while.

Again, it would be so preferable if responses were to what I actually write.

Not only have I never discouraged people from taking Vitamin D, I have been advocating it since long before it started becoming popular to do so.

Let’s boil it down: It is very simple. Unless you truly get quite a lot of sun, Vitamin D supplementation in the rough neighborhood of 5000 IU per day is very worth doing. If a product comes in that exact dose, fine. If it comes in 2000 IU doses and you are at least average size, then 6000. If you are a smaller person, for example a woman, you might try 4000 but it is not as if 6000 is likely to harm you.

If a person wants to test their levels that can be done to. But don’t let the fact that one hasn’t gotten around to the testing hold back on the supplementation. It’s fine to supplement at these levels without the testing.

The flip side is that as with most things, arguments can be taken to extremes that are not true. Do not assume that all persons become immune to the flu when having enough Vitamin D. Again as with most things, there will be those who try making overclaims such as that.

Lastly, unfortunately as with all things, when there are overclaims and these are pointed out, you will have individuals that argue that by your refuting the overclaims, you are attacking the whole thing and discouraging people. (Sigh.)

If Biotest does a multi, two things will happen:

A) The multi will most likely be taken in two parts - one vitamin cap and one mineral cap, OR the water soluble vitamins/minerals in one cap, the fat soluble in another cap. This is likely but not 100%. Part of it will depend on the added cost of packaging for a bottle that is partitioned to separate two different capsules.

B) As with all other supps, the recommended dose will exceed the serving size on the label (e.g. GPC) :slight_smile:

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
If Biotest does a multi, two things will happen:

A) The multi will most likely be taken in two parts - one vitamin cap and one mineral cap, OR the water soluble vitamins/minerals in one cap, the fat soluble in another cap. This is likely but not 100%. Part of it will depend on the added cost of packaging for a bottle that is partitioned to separate two different capsules.

B) As with all other supps, the recommended dose will exceed the serving size on the label (e.g. GPC) :)[/quote]

Mr Inside Information, when is it coming out?

EDIT: CNP do one similar to what you describe but have a morning tab, a morning (soft gel?)cap, evening tab, evening (soft gel?)cap in various quantities(I forget the quantities). I’ve never tried it myself.

I decided to buy some D today.
All I could find was 240 x 1000 IU for $7CAD (in tablet form).

I’m going to start at 4000 or 5000 IU a day and maybe increase to 6000 in a couple of weeks.

I didn’t realise it was in tab form when I bought it (should have read more carefully!) - is there likely to be a significant difference in quality?