CSN Login
Members Online: 3

You are here

Diet and supplements

Posts: 13
Joined: Sep 2010

Hi, my name is Mike and I recently was diagnosed with prostate cancer.You can read some of my story at the bottom of the Firmagon thread on this site. I am looking for a good book on diets and supplements to make my body as unfriendly to this cancer as possible.I am basically looking for a good common sense approach to this.No crazy grapefruit diets!!LOL. I already started cutting out dairy(its hard to give up that fat free half and half with my 1 cup of morning coffee).Also trying to cut down on sweets.Eating lots of salads,High fiber cereal or oatmeal with fresh fruit. I made a huge pot of homemade Minestrone soup with fresh garden veggies and beans. I have been eating lots of chicken and fish(that I caught!) Instead of red meats. I dont think that I can go totally vegatarian and dont plan to. I already lost 10 lbs but that is not my goal.I have been reading up on supplements, but on the internet its hard to separate fact from a sales pitch!! Some of my research showed things that look promising ex. Fish oil,tumeric,green tea extract,fractionated pectin and a couple more. I am going to see my Dr. before I start doing the supplement thing. Any advice would be appreciated,many of you guys have been down this road before me and Im would love to shorten my learning curve.Thanks again

Posts: 20
Joined: Oct 2009

From Dr. "Snuffy" Myers Book: "Beating Prostate Cancer: Hormonal Therapy & Diet"

Vitamin D3 - 5000 IU - 1 tablet daily
Fish Oil - 1000 mg - 4 tablets daily
Curcumin Complex - 875 mg - 1 tablet daily (recent revision)
Resveratrol -100 mg - 1 tablet daily (recent revision)
Soy Isoflavones - 200 mg - 1 tablet daily
Lycopene - 20mg - 1 tablet with each meal

In addition, I take:

Centrum Silver Multivitamin - 1 tablet daily
Calcium - 1200 mg - 1 tablet daily
Aspirin - 325 mg - 1 tablet daily (heart maintenance)

Dr. Myers, btw, is a strong proponent of the Mediterranean Diet. More info at: mrisusa.com/mediterranean_diet.asp#fish


hopeful and opt...
Posts: 2335
Joined: Apr 2009

IN August, 2010 US-Hot Sheet, Mark A. Moyad MD MPH recommends that one not take more than 1000 iu of vitamin d3 unless blood levels are way down......."several studies have suggested that high blood levels of vitamin d may increase the aggressiveness of prostate cancer"

Also Dr. Moyad recommends not taking a men's multi vitamin, but instead a women's....I don't remember but there are extra's in the men's vitamins that are negative.

Dr. Moyad is a prostate cancer nutritionist out of University of Michigan medical center, department of urology....he is highly respected in this field.

Posts: 20
Joined: Oct 2009

< IN August, 2010 US-Hot Sheet, Mark A. Moyad MD MPH recommends that one not take more than 1000 iu of vitamin d3 unless blood levels are way down >

My last lipid panel Vitamin D, 25-Hydroxy reading in September was 30.5 which is below the normal range of 32 - 100. I'm taking extra Vitamin D, under Doctor's orders, to raise the level to at least 50. Next blood panel is scheduled for 11/2010 and if it's OK, I'll cut back to 1000 iu or so and monitor periodically from that point on.

Statistically, most people are deficient in (very critical) Vitamin D and, even though I live in the South and play golf 4x weekly, mine still needs elevating. The 25-Hydroxy test is optional, adds $$ to the lab work-up, but was definitely worth it for my own peace of mind.

I'll check into the multi-vitamin question; have read this before but without any validation source.

Be well, Mitch

Posts: 20
Joined: Oct 2009

FYI, Dr. "Snuffy" Myers addresses Vitamin D, the good and (very little) bad, in his recently released video on this subject at: http://askdrmyers.wordpress.com/

I will continue to take 5000 IU daily until my next blood panel workup results are known in November. At that point if my 25-Hydroxy D review levels come up to at least 50 ng/ml, I'll reduce intake.

Be well, Mitch

hopeful and opt...
Posts: 2335
Joined: Apr 2009

Looking at the US TOO hot sheet of august 2010, Dr. MYers also writes about vitamin D...he says to take enough vitamin d to reverse any deficiency . He also believes that men with vitamin d deficiency are more likely to develop prostate cancer , he also believes that adding vitamin d is safe and overdosing easy to avoid.....he also mentioned other health benefits of vitamin d.

On the other hand , as I understand dr. Moyad view of vitamin d is more negative, "Bottom Line: There is now a new randomized trial to demonstrate that when you take large and ridiculous doses of vitamin D suppliments thaty can potentially increase your risk of fall and bone fractures>"

he also says , "Several studies have suggested that high blood levels of vitamin D may increase the aggrssiveness of prostate cancer"

H says, "I continue to urge you not to take more than appr. 1,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day unless your blood test tells you that your numbe is very low ( below 20 ng/mL). And if your blood tst is 50 or 60 or even 70ng/mL it is really time to cut back until we get more research. Better be safe than really, rally sorry!"

There's a a little more that each wrote, but I think that I covered it.

My personal opinion and bias: I tend to think a lot about Dr. Moyad, who specializes in prostate cancer nutrition and is a strong advocate for us prostate cancer fighters.....I go go along with every thing that he says about nutrition.

Posts: 227
Joined: Apr 2010

I do not have the credentials to counter a statement made by a well respected prostate cancer nutritionist, but I am very, very skeptical of his emphatic statement that "several studies have suggested that high levels of vitamin D may increase the AGGRESSIVENESS OF PROSTATE CANCER" (my caps for emphasis). Everything I have read, every person involved with either Vitamin D or Prostate Cancer research seems to disagree with this statement, matter of fact feels the opposite. I have never heard anyone go so far as to say it will cure prostate cancer, but this "thinking a lot about Dr. Moyad" in the face of conclusions without scientific substantiation is scary at best. We must adhere to the scientific principle.If you wish to recommend his conclusions, I for one would like more than "I go along with everything he says about nutrition". This is a major jump. If it is science, it will bear the test of testing. Where are the proofs to make the fears generated by such statements real??? Or are they but blind allegiance to either a brilliant nutritionist or slick guru???

hopeful and opt...
Posts: 2335
Joined: Apr 2009

You have made a very good statement.........First as far a blind allegiance...your right ad I am wrong to have a bias , one has to look at each issue very carefully including this one.......as far as other statements about nutrition that Dr. M. made, I looked at each one very closely and I agreed with him, the reason that I wrongfully developed a bias....and do agree with you that we need to look carefully at any statement that he or anyone else offers ( and I should not, and there should not be a bias).

As far as vitamin D, Moyad does state that there is a new randomized trail to demonstate that large doses of if vitamin d supplements can potentially increase the risk of falls and bone fractures. He also states that several studies have suggested that high blood levels of vitamin D may increase the aggressiveness of prostate cancer (there is a reference on the bottom of the article.SandersKM, Stuart AL, Williamson EJ,etal. Jama 303: 1815-22, 2010...I don't know what part of the article this referenced)....but there are no specific studies referenced in the article to document the statement about high blood levels of vitamin D increasing the aggressiveness of prostate cancer.(not to say that it does or does not exist)

As far as the majority having a different opinion does not make right....in fact on some other issues he was in the minority, and he turned out to be right....ie (somehow I remember the selium and vitamin e controvercy (but I could be wrong) where he disagreed with recommending the vitamins.

Anyway I agree with you that we need to keep an open mind......thanks for bringing this to my attention.

Posts: 227
Joined: Apr 2010

Hopeful and opt, first re-read your second paragraph, last sentence----"there are no referenced studies in the article to document....."...So what exactly are you saying??? You like this guy so I, others should believe him???? That is not science, that is not the scientific method...Then, re-read your third paragraph "As far as the majority having a different opinion does not make it right"------you are absolutely right on this, but your inability to give background or proofs, other than allegiance to Dr. Moyad, is really not "scientifically" helpful to others in search of solutions on this forum. You sound as if you may be using this forum to express frustration with "perceived insiders" of some such. If you wish to make positive or negative statements about Vitamin D and Prostate Cancer, try to give rational, studies, proofs, background---in other words a reason to believe or disbelieve.

hopeful and opt...
Posts: 2335
Joined: Apr 2009

The articles that I referenced were in the August 2010 US TOO Prostate Cancer Education & Support HOT SHEET dated August 2010............you can contact US TOO at www.USTOO.ORG

I look forward to your comments directed at the article , and any other research that you are prepared to do.....

Posts: 227
Joined: Apr 2010

Hopeful, I re-read the USTOO website and the article by Dr. Moyab and do not see where he states emphatically that Vitamin D is dangerous. I read the wording very carefully, and it conveys an opinion, not a substantiated condemnation such as "Do not Use excessive doses of Vitamin D for they will feed (increase risk, cause) prostate cancer. There are words like "suggests" etc. that don't mean much to me when making or breaking life choices. The verbage to me was all too casual as far as giving meaningful direction. I do not know this doctor, you may. Having acquaintance may give you a trust that I do not generate from what I read.

hopeful and opt...
Posts: 2335
Joined: Apr 2009

I'm glad that you were able to look at the article.....and rethinking, it would have been better if I had posted the article for each man to read, and interpret as he wishes.

Looking at my previous posts, I simple quoted a good amount of what Dr. Moyad wrote......I believe that I did not misquote him......

After reading the article, I have made a different decision than you based on the following comments ......that is, "previous research has suggested that high blood levels of viatim D may increase the aggresiveness of prostate cancer", he goes on to say "that is why I continue to urge you not to take more than appr. 1000 IU of viamin D3, etc, etc as quoted in my post above" then his conclusion, "Better to be safe than really, really sorry!"

I have decided not to take a risk of possibly overdosing on this vitamin D until more research is done, so I will limit my vitamin d to 1000 iu...simply the way I react to this article which is different than you.+

Posts: 1
Joined: Nov 2010

Research in America suggests that men who consume large quantities of dairy products are more than twice as likely to go on to develop cancer of the prostate than men whose consumption is much more moderate. So you might want to cut down on high consumption of dairy products and animal fats as well as sugars in your food.

A study has found that sedentary lifestyle and high fat diet can lead to prostate cancer. An Illinois West Chicago research center for prostate cancer.Eating Meat can increase the risk for prostate cancer by 40%.Evidence continues to emerge that diet may play a significant role in the development of prostate cancer including a recent study from researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard University, published in The Lancet Oncology.Recommendations for prevention of prostate cancer include not eating too much red meat and reducing animal fats (butter, margarine, sausages and fatty meats.

Overall, it seems that levels of saturated fat in the diet can greatly increase the risk of prostate cancer. Therefore, making sure you have a healthy diet and keeping your intake of fat in check, can help to prevent/decrease the risk of prostate cancer. As an added bonus, reducing your consumption of fat can also decrease the risk of other cancers, as well as diseases such as heart disease and diabetes.For more information you may visit http://www.mynetpharma.com/prostrate-cancer-awareness-month.html

Posts: 227
Joined: Apr 2010

This is my understanding of how you handle the situation entirely. If you are pro-active, and feel the need to fight back as hard as you can, go with surgery+RT+lupron+diet...Now, that is if your numbers are on the high side. But I could also make a case for eating a Med diet to prevent before one is even Dxed with PCA. Everyone, even my grandchildren should really be eating this way, but that is another argument. Non organic, non grazed beef and dairy is BAD period. Sugars are BAD period. It is really your choice. Did my diet cause CA?? I don't know. Now that I have it, do I want to do all in my power to slow it??? You bet. Read "The Anti-Cancer Diet"...I think the MDs name is Dr. David Serfin-Schreiber, but google the book name...Great!!!

HeartofSoul's picture
Posts: 730
Joined: Dec 2009

Sedentary lifestyles with high fat and high carb diet can lead to more than prostate cancer. Eating red meat, dairy, high carb (such as flour, bakery goods,...... increases the risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and stroke which happens to be numbers
1, 3 and 7 on the top 10 causes of pre mature death (not including accidents)

I would be much more worried about one's chances of getting heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Today 25 million americans have type 2 diabetes for the year 2006.

81,100,000 people in the United States have one or more forms of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

High blood pressure — 73,600,000.
Coronary heart disease — 17,600,000.
Myocardial infarction (mi"o-KAR'de-al in-FARK'shun) (acute heart attack) — 8,500,000.
Angina pectoris (AN'jih-nah or an-JI'nah PEK'tor-is) (chest pain or discomfort caused by reduced blood supply to the heart muscle) — 10,200,000.
Stroke — 6,400,000.
Heart Failure — 5,800,000

Cardiovascular diseases
Claimed 831,272 lives in 2006 (final mortality) (34.3 percent of all deaths or 1 of every 2.9 deaths).

Other final 2006 mortality: total cancer 559,888; HIV (AIDS) 12,113.

Over 151,000 Americans killed by Coronary Vascular Disease in 2006 were under age 65.

2006 final death rates from CVD were 306.6 for white males and 422.8 for black males; for white females 215.5 and for black females 298.2. (Death rates are per 100,000 population.

The rates listed use the year 2000 standard U.S. population as the base for age adjustment.)

From 1996 to 2006, death rates from CVD declined 29.2 percent.

In the same 10-year period the actual number of deaths declined 12.9 percent.
Coronary heart disease

Coronary heart disease is caused by atherosclerosis (ath"er-o-skleh-RO'sis), the narrowing of the coronary arteries due to fatty build ups of plaque. It's likely to produce angina pectoris (chest pain), heart attack or both.

Coronary heart disease caused 425,425 deaths in 2006 and is the single leading cause of death in America today.

17,600,000 people alive today have a history of heart attack, angina pectoris or both.
This is about 9,200,000 males and 8,400,000 females.

This year an estimated 1.26 million Americans will have a new or recurrent coronary attack.

There are about 295,000 EMS-assessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests annually in the United States.

From 1996 to 2006 the death rate from coronary heart disease declined 36.4 percent.
In 2006, coronary heart disease death rates per 100,000 people were 176.3 for white males and 206.4 for black males; and 101.5 for white females and 130.0 for black females. (Death rates are per 100,000 population. The rates use the year 2000 standard population for age adjustment.)

Mortality — The total number of deaths from a given disease in a population during a specific interval of time, usually a year.

Prevalence — The total number of cases of a given disease existing in a population at a specific point in time.


Diabetes is one of the major causes of premature illness and death in most countries. Cardiovascular disease, resulting from damage to large blood vessels, causes the death of 50% or more of people with diabetes depending on the population. Damage to small blood vessels (microvascular disease) can affect many parts of the body. Due to different methods of assessing the presence of these complications it is difficult to make comparisons between different populations. However, it is clear that they are very common, with at least one complication present in a large proportion of people (50% or more in some studies) at the time of diagnosis

Burden of mortality due to diabetes
Close to four million deaths in the 20-79 age group may be attributable to diabetes in 2010, accounting for 6.8% of global all-cause mortality in this age group. This estimated number of premature deaths is similar in magnitude to deaths in this age group from several infectious diseases. The highest number of deaths due to diabetes is expected to occur in countries with large populations as they have the largest numbers of people with diabetes—India, China, United States of America and the Russian Federation. More women than men are expected to die from diabetes-related deaths, and diabetes makes for a higher proportion of deaths in women than in men, reaching up to a quarter of all deaths in middle-aged women in some regions (see Regional Overview). In most age groups women with diabetes, compared to those without, have a higher relative risk of death than men with diabetes. It is this that accounts for diabetes making a proportionately greater contribution to female mortality.

Posts: 11
Joined: Apr 2009

There is quite a bit of literature around to look at. You can get as aggressive as you like regarding diet and supplements. It is hard to find any elegant research that shows particular supplements to be certain as useful. As for me, along with the research from Dr. Smith I found a lot to look at in books by M. Milken, Keith Block. and several general books on cancer and diet.

I am currently using a shake with soy powder, fish oil, vitamin D, multi vitamin and a significant regimen of exercise(mostly bicycle riding). I keep all doses moderate. I have tried to cut out red meat, cut down dairy and sugar and to stay away from other known carcinogens.

Unfortunately this area is like a lot to do with PC, you hear opposite sides to everything.

Keep on,


Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

Hi Wardyboy,

Good to hear you are on the look to fix diet etc. My only suggestion is that you consider giving away the animal protein and try it for a year or so till you are back in the game 100% and then re-evaluate.

I have read many books and studied this stuff quite heavily over the years but the book that put it all together for me was 'The China Study' (Dr T Colin Campbell). It explains what the bad foods cause through a huge statistical study and his own scientific experiments to show you why would should give animal proteins a miss. Hard call maybe, but hey you are fighting off cancer not a common cold.

I have fought my fight from all sides, Surgery, rads chemo and then diet and supplements. I use a very good Naturopath and have one in the family, so I have been fortunate there. On the diet, I simply eliminated all Animal Proteins, all fried foods, all processed foods and all sugars unless they come in fruit. I eat as much Raw stuff as possible i.e. salads with a good quality cold pressed Olive oil as dressing. No more store bought crap.

One of the very important supplements (included below) is MCP (Modified Citrus Pectin) google it. You can go on my expressions page for explanations of what all these do.

As for supplements, I take the following :

Vitamin C (1-2g/day)
Vitamin B Complex
Multi-Viamin High Potency
Omega 3,6,9 oils (2 caps)
L- Glutamine (1-2 tsp a day)
Modified Citrus Pectin (MCP)
Lipoic Acid
Co Q10 (Digestive enzyme)
Turmeric (in Cap form)
Reishi Shitake
Vit D (Only Sometimes as it is an immunosuppressant)
Grape Seed Extract
Ginkgo Biloba (not good for everyone !)
Acidophilus (or a good probiotic)
Echinacea (1tsp in glass water)
Papaya Leaf Extract (1 tbs in Glass of water)

Hope this helps.


Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

Some enlightening reading, and research about increased response and survival or cancer patienst when supplements are included in the treatment, before during and after Sugery,Rads & Chemo.


Posts: 261
Joined: Sep 2010

Hey Scambuster,

I read your list of supplements. I take a couple of them and had heard of many of them, but I had never heard of anyone taking so many.

Do you take them all at once or several times per day?

Did a doctor or nutritionist help with this list or did you put it together by yourself, based on your readings?

Do you worry about interactions between the supplements?

Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

Hi Beau,

I take some of the stuff in a health shake and pour on my breakfast meal of fruit and cereal ie; The L-Glutamine Powder, MCP, Acidophilus and now Chia seed. I take a small glass of water first with a couple of Tbsl Spoons of the Echinacea, Papaya Leaf Extract and Olive leaf extract first. After I finish the cereal, I down the pills in about 3 small handfuls with water. I get no bad reflux at all (& was a chronic sufferer for 28 years till I changed diet and started this regimen). It takes a few minute more each day to get me out of the house, but I am happy to spend those extra minutes.

I have done a lot of research on all this stuff plus I have 3 Naturopaths with whom I consult. I am still adding new things as I learn more and I generally check with one of the NP's before I take anything.

Many of these supplements are common and have no negative effects like Vit C, B etc. Many of the supplements actually enhance each other, for example Vitamin C helps the body absorb Calcium, Iron and folates Vitamin C in turn can be absorbed better in company with a bioflavonoid complex. Also when C and E and A are taken together, all are shown to be more effective.

You should have some guidance especially of you have a pre-existing condition as this list may need some adjustment and also you need to get the dosages right. Some are given in higher than regular doses, others less.

PS - You can email or PM me for better contact as I am a ring in on this board and only surf through occasionally.

Posts: 45
Joined: Apr 2010

How much vitamin D is enough? Report sets new levels
Megadoses of 'sunshine vitamin' don't prevent disease, may be harmful

Jump to discussion
58 total comments


FeaturePics stock
Most people in the U.S. or Canada between the ages of 1 and 70 only need 600 international units of vitamin D a day, a new report finds. That's higher than the target on food labels, but much lower than the 2,000 IUs some scientists recommend.
NBC News and news services
updated 49 minutes ago
Share Print Font:
WASHINGTON — For the past few years vitamin D has been the "it" vitamin, with studies wildly trumpeting the supplement's role in strengthening bones, reducing the risk of some cancers, heart disease, along with fighting autoimmune diseases and diabetes. But long-awaited new dietary guidelines say there's no proof that megadoses of the "sunshine vitamin" prevent cancer, diabetes or other conditions.
While some people will need a bit more vitamin D than they're already getting, some studies suggest that too much could actually cause some kinds of cancer, according to the panel of experts at the prestigious Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences.
"More is not necessarily better," cautioned Dr. Joann Manson of Harvard Medical School, who co-authored the Institute of Medicine's report being released Tuesday.
Health highlights
Sip and sniff? Scientists thwart wine allergies
Sulfites long have been blamed for wine allergies, but new research suggests molecules called glycoproteins might be a bigger culprit.
14 foods that could change a diabetic's life
9 million Tylenol bottles recalled
Airport pat-downs may raise infection risk
Look at this turkey. Do you feel nicer already?
While the panel found powerful evidence that vitamin D — together with calcium — can protect bones, the new report could dampen the national sunshine vitamin fad.
Most people in the U.S. and Canada — from age 1 to age 70 — need to consume no more than 600 international units of vitamin D a day to maintain health, the report found. People in their 70s and older need as much as 800 IUs. The report set those levels as the "recommended dietary allowance" for vitamin D.
That's only a bit higher than the target of 400 IUs set by today's government-mandated food labels, and higher than 1997 recommendations by the Institute of Medicine that ranged from 200 to 600 IUs, depending on age.
Story: Many preventable cancers caught at late stage
But it's far below the 2,000 IUs a day that some scientists recommend, pointing to studies that suggest people with low levels of vitamin D are at increased risk of certain cancers or heart disease.
"This is a stunning disappointment," said Dr. Cedric Garland of the University of California, San Diego, who wasn't part of the institute's study and says the risk of colon cancer in particular could be slashed if people consumed enough vitamin D.
"Have they gone far enough [in raising recommended levels]? In my opinion probably not, but it's a step in the right direction," added prominent vitamin D advocate Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University Medical Center, who said the new guidelines draw needed attention to the vitamin D debate and encourage more food marketers to fortify their products with it.
Vitamin D and calcium go hand in hand, and you need a lifetime of both to build and maintain strong bones. But the two-year study by the Institute of Medicine's panel of experts concluded research into vitamin D's possible roles in other diseases is conflicting. Some studies show no effect, or even signs of harm.
How much should you take?
The amount of vitamin D recommended daily, from food or dietary supplements, in a report Tuesday from the Institute of Medicine:

Ages 1 to 70: 600 international units.

Ages 71 and older: 800 IUs.

Calcium and vitamin D must be taken together to build and maintain strong bones. Here are the recommended daily levels of calcium:

Ages 1 to 3: 700 milligrams.

Ages 4 to 8: 1,000 mg.

Ages 9 to 18: 1,300 mg.

Ages 19 to 70: 1,000 mg — but for women the amount rises to 1,200 mg at age 51.

Ages 71 and older: 1,200 mg.

Source: The Associated Press

A National Cancer Institute study last summer was the latest to report no cancer protection from vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the very highest D levels. Super-high doses — above 10,000 IUs a day — are known to cause kidney damage, and Tuesday's report sets 4,000 IUs as an upper daily limit — but not the amount people should strive for.
Vitamin D is the latest supplement to have been heavily touted based on animal studies and observations in humans and failed to live up to expectations during rigorous testing. For example, vitamins C and E, beta carotene and lycopene were believed to prevent cancer or heart disease, but didn't pan out, and sometimes caused harm, when tested.
Stay tuned: To help settle the issue, Manson is heading a government-funded study that's recruiting 20,000 healthy older Americans to test whether taking 2,000 IUs of vitamin D really will lower their risk for heart disease, a stroke or certain cancers.
Story: 8 simple ways to control blood sugar -- and save your life
In the meantime, it's hard to consume 600 IUs of vitamin D from food alone. A cup of D-fortified milk or orange juice has about 100 IUs. The best sources may be fatty fish — some servings of salmon can provide about a day's supply. Other good sources are D-fortified cereals.
But here's the report's big surprise: While some people truly are seriously deficient in vitamin D, the average American in fact already has enough circulating in his or her blood — because we also make vitamin D from sun exposure, and because many people already take multivitamins or other D-containing dietary supplements.
Wait a minute: Headlines in recent years have insisted the opposite, that a majority of people don't get enough vitamin D, especially during the winter. What explains the contradiction?
A relatively inexpensive blood test measures something called 25-hydroxy vitamin D, the active form in the body. Most testing laboratories are using a too-high cutoff for those blood levels, said report co-author Dr. Clifford Rosen of the Maine Medical Center. The report says at least 20 nanograms is adequate for bone health, while many labs instead list people as low if their blood levels are below 30 ng. Serious vitamin D deficiencies are diagnosed when levels dip well below 20, something that hasn't changed.
Most popular
Wis. students kept gunman talking, laughing
NYT: South celebrates Civil War, without slaves
Yemen cable gives al-Qaida new 'recruiting' tool?
Otter attacks teen on camera
Obama, GOP head to the bargaining table
Tension in the Koreas
Rosen called the state of vitamin D testing "the wild, wild West," and said he hoped that "with this report, we can at least temper people's enthusiasm for just taking tons of supplements."
As for calcium, the report recommended already accepted levels to go along with your daily D — about 1,000 milligrams of calcium a day for most adults, 700 to 1,000 mg for young children, and 1,300 mg for teenagers and menopausal women. Too much can cause kidney stones; the report said that risk increases once people pass 2,000 mg a day.
Story: 14 foods that could change a diabetic's life
It's true that most studies link poor health to vitamin D levels that are below 20 ng, said preventive cardiologist Dr. Erin Michos, a Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine professor who wasn't part of the study.
But, "I'm not sure I'm going to dramatically change my practice," said Michos, who pushes her patients to boost their levels until they're between 30 and 50 ng.
And even if future trials show that vitamin D does help protect against other diseases, the amounts required for bone health should be perfectly sufficient, panel members told NBC News.
The Associated Press and NBC's Robert Bazell contributed to this report

Scambuster's picture
Posts: 973
Joined: Nov 2009

It is shown that many vitamins and minerals and supplements work together and in varied levels to achieve a far superior effect and more effective absorption and metabolization when taken in the right combination along with many other aspects include NOT eating certain foods which may block or hinder the desired effect. A quick example is Calcium is not absorbed well from dairy sources. The countries with the highest consumption of dairy are also the same ones with the highest incidence of Osteoporosis. Coincidence ??

Isolating a particular Vitamin is not the best way to analyze the effects on health and disease. There far more to the complication way we metabolize foods.


Subscribe to Comments for "Diet and supplements"