Life Extension article on iodine

17. November 2009 William Davis (25)
Here's a link to my recent article in Life Extension Magazine on iodine:

Halt on Salt Sparks Iodine Deficiency

Iodized salt, a concept introduced into the U.S. by the FDA in 1924, slowly eliminated goiter (enlarged thyroid glands), along with an enormous amount of thyroid disease, heart attack, mental impairment, and death. The simple addition of iodine to salt ensured that salt-using Americans obtained enough iodine sufficient to not have a goiter.

Now that the FDA, goiters long forgotten from their memories, urges Americans to reduce salt, what has happened to our iodine?

I talk at length about this issue in the Life Extension article.
Tags :

Comments (25) -

  • Michael

    11/17/2009 1:08:06 PM |

    The link provided is based on the Life Extension search tool and seems broken.  This link works Halt on Salt, Oct 2009.

  • Terry H

    11/17/2009 1:20:13 PM |

    Dr D,

    The link does not work for me. Sends me to a www page that appears unrelated to your post and certainly not the the article you recommend.

  • Jim Purdy

    11/17/2009 1:22:21 PM |

    I don't think that link goes to the magazine article. It seems to go to a product advertisement instead. Did I do something wrong?

  • Daniel

    11/17/2009 3:28:09 PM |

    LE must have changed the link - it sends me to a page where I can purchase pure IGF, which, by the way, I'm surprised people want to take.

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 3:29:06 PM |

    I think you want this link

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • ciphen

    11/17/2009 4:06:49 PM |

    The link you posted doesn't go to your article. Might want to update that.

    Question: what is the best way to test for Iodine levels? I've been taking 400mg kelp iodine for a while, and want to make sure I'm not overdoing it (I'm 28).

  • Sara

    11/17/2009 4:15:05 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Clicking the link in the article takes me to the page to buy iodine supplements, not the article itself; I had to search to find the actual article. I think it's because you're linking to search results, and when someone else puts in the same URL without having given it the same inputs, it hiccups. This link should be to the actual article: http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 4:31:03 PM |

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 4:49:33 PM |

    The article appears to be at this link:

    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Halt-on-Salt-Sparks-Iodine-Deficiency_01.htm

    Tom

  • Catherine

    11/17/2009 5:59:27 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Great article on Iodine (had to use LEF search to get it--link doesn't work).
    I am the perfect example of the healthy-diet person who developed thyroid disease and fibrocystic breasts due to salt and dairy food avoidance.
    I also have that abnormal reaction to iodine now. Iodine causes a hashi flare-up, and as you've stated I have become hyper-sensitive to it now.  But you also stated that in your experience it is a "temporary" reaction which makes me want to try it again--maybe more slowly, very low doses at first?
    Any tips from your experience with this hyper-sensitivity?
    Thanks for addressing this iodine problem with thyroid---many thyroid books and articles say if you have Hashimoto's to just avoid iodine completely so as not to create a flare-up, but that is not healthy for the rest of the body either.
    Warm regards,  
    Catherine

  • jack

    11/17/2009 6:03:53 PM |

    Hi -

    The link to the LEF article pulls up an
    ad for one of their Human Growth Factor
    pills.

    Punching Iodine into their search engine
    did'nt find it - Perhaps I missed it...

  • Jack

    11/17/2009 6:08:15 PM |

    Here it is...

    http://search.lef.org/cgi-src-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=1490&query=iodine%20deficiency%20salt&hiword=DEFICIENCIES%20DEFICIENCYIN%20DEFICIENCYIS%20DEFICIENCYS%20DEFICIENT%20IODINATION%20IODINES%20SALTED%20SALTER%20SALTI%20SALTIN%20SALTING%20SALTMAN%20SALTO%20SALTS%20SALTY%20deficiency%20iodine%20salt%20

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 6:40:31 PM |

    It is rather interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such themes and anything connected to them. I would like to read a bit more soon.

  • Anonymous

    11/17/2009 7:01:46 PM |

    Good point. I'll make sure to eat spoonfuls of salt Wink But seriously, very important point and people should take their supplements.

    Off-topic: Can you share your thoughts on the virtually zero-fat diet described in the book by Dr. Esselstyn. Thanks.

  • Kevin

    11/17/2009 10:54:45 PM |

    My blood pressure is lower than the average so I ingest a lot of iodized salt.  Also I run a lot of marathons during the summer.  When I need more salt during races I can pour it in my mouth.  If I'm low on sodium it tastes great.  If I'm not in need of salt it just about makes vomit.  

    kevin

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/17/2009 11:14:48 PM |

    Thanks, all, for noting the broken link. I'm not sure what happened.

    It should be corrected.

  • Electronic Medical Records

    11/18/2009 2:58:10 AM |

    I completely agree to the post.Sea salt or rock salt is very good for health but definitely in measures.

  • Future Primitive

    11/18/2009 6:15:12 AM |

    I'm trying to understand what an appropriate dose is.  It seems like iodine dosage in relation to TSH follows a "U" shaped response, where too little iodine results in high TSH and too much iodine can likewise result in high TSH.  There's evidently a sweet spot, BUT it also seems to depend very much on whatever the thyroid is adapted to in terms of the ambient, dietary iodine intake prior to the beginning of supplementation.  That is, a mid-Westerner with a chronically low iodine intake is going to respond quite differently to a 1000 mcg iodine dose than, say, a person who grew up on the Northern coast of Japan... On an immediately related topic, I'm curious to know more about the apparent adaptive down-regulation of T3 in response to caloric restriction and likewise (similarly, it would seem), carbohydrate restriction.  Any thoughts?

  • Runner2009

    11/18/2009 5:42:23 PM |

    Dr Davis:

    My question is on a bit of a tangent to this topic, but on the related issue of what seems to be a situation where maintaining what was considered a "healthy" level now is possibly dangerous:

    "Low triglycerides are risk factor for hemorrhagic stroke"

    http://www.lipidsonline.org/news/article.cfm?aid=8578

    Do you have any insight into this study ? I have been diligently keeping my lipid levels in check .I lowered my triglycerides from a fairly low level of 75mg/dL down to 50 mg/dL. Now I am concerned. (My LDL is 95 mg/dL and HDL is 64 mg/dL). I don't take any drugs , just lots of exercise and diet (Krill oil, almonds, Beta Glucan fiber)

    Thanks

    Thanks

  • Runner2009

    11/18/2009 5:44:22 PM |

    Sorry, forgot the link:

    http://www.lipidsonline.org/news/article.cfm?aid=8578

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/18/2009 10:55:25 PM |

    Hi, Future--

    That is the frustration with iodine: insufficient data on what represents an ideal level of intake. And it may vary from region to region, individual to individual.

    The T3 issue is indeed fascinating, a topic that will be explored more fully in the blog and in the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Dr. William Davis

    11/18/2009 11:18:27 PM |

    Hi, Runner--

    I'm skeptical that this is an important effect that warrants action.

    Primitive cultures typically have triglycerides in very low ranges, since they avoid processed foods. I'd be shocked if achieving physiologic normal levels is the sole explanation behind increased stroke.

  • Anonymous

    12/12/2009 1:29:24 AM |

    mm... good  post

Add comment

Loading
Niacin makes NY Times

Niacin makes NY Times

24. January 2007 William Davis (0)
In the wake of the crash and burn of Pfizer's torcetrapib, media attention has turned up the miracles of . . .good old niacin. The NY Times carried a well-written report on niacin in its recent report, An Old Cholesterol Remedy Is New Again.


(Read the entire report at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/23/health/23consume.html?em&ex=1169701200&en=670fa84ae2ea648c&ei=5087%0A)

Among their comments:

...torcetrapib worked primarily by increasing HDL, or good cholesterol. Among other functions, HDL carries dangerous forms of cholesterol from artery walls to the liver for excretion. The process, called reverse cholesterol transport, is thought to be crucial to preventing clogged arteries.

Many scientists still believe that a statin combined with a drug that raises HDL would mark a significant advance in the treatment of heart disease. But for patients now at high risk of heart attack or stroke, the news is better than it sounds. An effective HDL booster already exists.

It is niacin, the ordinary B vitamin.

In its therapeutic form, nicotinic acid, niacin can increase HDL as much as 35 percent when taken in high doses, usually about 2,000 milligrams per day. It also lowers LDL, though not as sharply as statins do, and it has been shown to reduce serum levels of artery-clogging triglycerides as much as 50 percent. Its principal side effect is an irritating flush caused by the vitamin’s dilation of blood vessels.

Despite its effectiveness, niacin has been the ugly duckling of heart medications, an old remedy that few scientists cared to examine. But that seems likely to change.

“There’s a great unfilled need for something that raises HDL,” said Dr. Steven E. Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic and president of the American College of Cardiology. “Right now, in the wake of the failure of torcetrapib, niacin is really it. Nothing else available is that effective.”

In 1975, long before statins, a landmark study of 8,341 men who had suffered heart attacks found that niacin was the only treatment among five tested that prevented second heart attacks. Compared with men on placebos, those on niacin had a 26 percent reduction in heart attacks and a 27 percent reduction in strokes. Fifteen years later, the mortality rate among the men on niacin was 11 percent lower than among those who had received placebos.

'Here you have a drug that was about as effective as the early statins, and it just never caught on,' said Dr. B. Greg Brown, professor of medicine at the University of Washington in Seattle. 'It’s a mystery to me. But if you’re a drug company, I guess you can’t make money on a vitamin.'


Of course, you and I don't have to wait for the media to endorse something. I'm nonetheless thrilled that this hugely helpful vitamin is gaining greater recognition. My preferred form nowadays is over-the-counter SloNiacin (Upsher Smith). Weve seen no liver side-effects and a minimal quantity of flushing. It's also reasonably priced, $13.99 for 100 tablets of 500 mg at Walgreen's. That's a lot cheaper than prescription Niaspan at $130 for 60 tablets.

Perhaps the notoriety will cut back on the silly responses from some physicians that I still hear about from patients: "My doctor said to stop the niacin because it's going to destroy my liver."
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Should you become a vegetarian?

Should you become a vegetarian?

24. February 2007 William Davis (0)
Do you need to become a vegetarian in order to reduce your heart scan score?

No. Plain and simple. We’ve had many non-vegetarians drop their scores.

That said, are there still advantages to following a vegetarian diet, or some variation on the vegetarian theme?

Yes, there are. Let’s put aside the moral or religious arguments in favor of not eating animals—the need to eliminate killing animals for food, elimination of suffering common in modern livestock practices, Kosher considerations, etc. (Not that there aren’t real arguments here. Our focus for this conversation is not, however, the moral dilemma, but the health argument.)

Some of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever met, mostly males, are proud carnivores who boast of their prodigious capacities to eat meat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tease out the ill-effects of excessive meat eating, since these same men also tend to be substantially overweight, smoke, drink excessively, and fail to get exercise unless their job is physically demanding. You know the type.

What advantages does a vegetarian obtain? A number of studies have suggested that the reduced saturated fat, reduced exposure to parasites, as well as reduced exposure to the antibiotics and hormones now used routinely in livestock-raising practices, do indeed provide benefits to the vegetarian. Thus, vegetarians tend to be substantially thinner, experience less bowel cancer, have less diabetes and heart disease, and live longer.

(If you are interested in reading or seeing more about just how inhumane modern livestock practices are, take a look at the video, "Meet Your Meat" at meat.org. Be sure not to view this after dinner.)

Of course, some of the disadvantages of eating animal products diminish when free-range livestock are eaten, i.e., livestock not raised in the inhumane cramped, filthy conditions of livestock factories, but in the open, grazing or rooting freely. These animals tend to have different fat compositions and taste different.

The advantages of vegetarianism, however, have blurred in recent years, since many so-called vegetarians have failed to maintain the distinction between naturally-occurring foods and processed foods. So, Ritz Crackers, Oreo cookies, whole wheat bread, and Raisin Bran fit into a vegetarian program, but they’re awful for your health. I’ll occasionally meet a self-proclaimed vegetarian who looks every bit as unhealthy as a conventionally eating American, that is, overweight, pre-diabetic person with a developing heart scan score.

So it is not necessary to be vegetarian to reduce your score. You might consider vegetarianism for other reasons, such as moral considerations, or to reduce your risk for cancer. But it is not necessary to drop your heart scan score. A non-processed food diet? Now that's is worth giving serious consideration.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Carbohydrates and LDL

Carbohydrates and LDL

4. April 2010 William Davis (16)
There's a curious and powerful relationship between carbohydrates and LDL particles. Understanding this relationship is crucial to gaining control over heart disease risk.

(Note that I did not say "LDL cholesterol"--This is what confuses people, the notion that cholesterol is used as a surrogate marker to quantify various lipoproteins, including low-density lipoproteins, LDL. I'm NOT interested in the cholesterol; I'm interested in the behavior of the low-density lipoprotein particle. There's a difference.)

Carbohydrates:

1) Increase triglycerides and very low-density lipoprotein particles (VLDL)
2) Triglyceride-rich VLDL interact with LDL particles, making them smaller. (A process mediated by several enzymes, such as cholesteryl-ester transfer protein.)
3) Smaller LDL particles are more oxidizable--Oxidized LDL particles are the sort that are taken up by inflammatory white blood cells residing in the artery wall and atherosclerotic plaque.
4) Smaller LDL particles are more glycatable--Glycation of LDL is an important phenomenon that makes the LDL particle more atherogenic (plaque-causing). Glycated LDLs are not recognized by the LDL receptor, causing them to persist in the bloodstream longer than non-glcyated LDL. Glycated LDL is therefore taken up by inflammatory white blood cells in plaque.

Of course, carbohydrates also make you fat, further fueling the fire of this sequence.

The key is to break this chain: Cut out the carbohydrates. Cut carbohydrates and VLDL and triglycerides drop (dramatically), VLDL are unavailable to transform large LDL into small LDL, small LDL is no longer available to become oxidized and glycated, blood sugar is reduced to allow less glycation. Voila: Less atherosclerotic plaque growth.

Yet the USDA, American Heart Association, and the Surgeon General's office all advise you to eat more carbohydrates. The American Diabetes Association tells you to eat 70 grams or so carbohydrates per meal. (Yes: Diabetes, the condition that is MOST susceptible to these carbohydrate effects.) Follow their advice and you gain weight; triglycerides and VLDL go up; calculated (Friedewald) LDL may or may not go up, but true measured LDL (NMR LDL particle number or apoprotein B) goes way up; small LDL is triggered . . . You know the rest.

The dance between carbohydrates and LDL particles requires the participation of both. Allow one partner to drop out of the dance and LDL particles will sit this dance out.
Tags :

Comments (16) -

  • Jon

    4/4/2010 5:12:14 PM |

    What kind of carbs are we talking about exactly though? Is there a difference between carbs in fruits and vegetables vs breads? And what should I replace them with?
    (not looking for an argument, I would  just like to know).

    -Thanks.

  • Peter

    4/5/2010 12:49:40 AM |

    I wonder what the rationale is for the Diabetes Association's recommendation to eat a lot of carbs.
    Right or wrong, there must be some logic to it.

  • Drake

    4/5/2010 1:57:51 AM |

    Jon,

    I think you'll find this site and TYP focuses on cutting out the carbs most responsible for inflammation.  This includes getting rid of wheat and sugars.  Read this site for an evening or two and you'll quickly find out what to avoid.  The topics on the left column contain a wealth of information.

    I cut out all grains and sugars and limit my fruits to mostly berries (too much sugar in most everything else).  I eat meat, lots of vegetables, nuts, seeds, eggs, and some berries.  You'll get all that your body needs from those sources.  Ditch the bread; you don't need it.

  • Anonymous

    4/5/2010 1:07:09 PM |

    Dr. Davis,

    My older brother was recently diagnosed with Type II diabetes. I sent him many of your links but he tells me the classes he goes to, put on by the doctor, tell him he can eat 75 cabs per meal as you talk about in your recent post.

    The cabs include bread, oatmeal, and even chocolate. Any advice on how else I can get it through his thick skull he should not be eating this junk? I love him and want him around for many years.

    Thank you.

  • nightrite

    4/5/2010 3:56:14 PM |

    The paleo people will tell you to drop the carbs and replace those calories with more fat, especially saturated fat.

    Of all the carbs breads/grains are the worst and then fruits so keep those to a minimum if not total elimination (small amounts of berries are ok).

  • Christine

    4/5/2010 5:05:42 PM |

    I was just signing in to address the same question as Jon. Actually to put in my 2-cents worth:  When you say drop all carbohydrates, surely you mean all high glycemic carbs - the high starch carbs like wheat and other grains (breads, cereals, even gluten-free grains), potatoes, white rice, plus moderate those carbs that are very high in sugars like carrots, onions, corn, the list goes on.  I find it confusing, and other readers may also, for you to say cut out all carbs. For if that is the case, what do we eat?
    I've been reading your blog for some time and find it to be most helpful, but this is the one area in which I wish you would be more specific.
    Thanks for being there. The world needs you.

  • mojodiver

    4/5/2010 5:31:50 PM |

    Same here. I had great success in my cholesterol numbers and weight as a result of lowering my carb intake to ~70g per day. I don't eat grains and prefer to get my carbs via colorful fruits and veggies.

    I exercise a lot now too.

    When you mean cutting carbs, what kind and to how much are you recommending?

  • StephenB

    4/5/2010 6:18:20 PM |

    Thanks for the post. I did not know the mechanism for small LDL being formed or for their getting into arteries before reading this entry.

  • W8liftinmom

    4/5/2010 8:05:42 PM |

    IMO, common sense would dictate keeping the better more nutrient dense carbs and limiting the less nutrient dense and starchy carbs.  So stick to mainly vegetables as your carb source - that's how I like to do it.

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/5/2010 10:10:35 PM |

    Hi, Jon--

    Vegetables are, of course, desirable foods. Some fruit.

    Beyond this, the sensitivity to carbohydrates is best judged individually with at least a HbA1c or, even better, a one-hour postprandial glucose.

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/5/2010 10:11:21 PM |

    Anon--

    The most persuasive tool is to get your brother to check occasional 1-hour postprandial glucoses.

    These high values can be downright hair-raising.

  • Dr. William Davis

    4/5/2010 10:12:22 PM |

    By the way, I will start a series of Heart Scan Blog posts called "What to eat" to clarity the confusion.

    This is also already posted in exhaustive detail in Special Reports on the Track Your Plaque website.

  • Anonymous

    4/7/2010 6:54:03 PM |

    I'd like to know where lentils, chickpeas and beans sit.
    When I've tested I get very little BG spike after eating them

  • Ned Kock

    4/8/2010 3:40:51 PM |

    Indeed, very good advice Dr. Davis.

    It is worth noting that low fasting triglycerides, especially below 70 mg/dl, are a marker for large-buoyant LDL particles:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/04/low-fasting-triglycerides-marker-for.html

  • Peter

    4/8/2010 4:57:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, How can we tell which of these is the main problem?

    1.  Wheat.  The cultures that eat rice or corn and beans don't seem to have much heart disease or diabetes.

    2. Refined carbohydrates.  The cultures that don't have many of the diseases of civilization don't have Cheerios, etc.

    3. Carbs in general.  All carbs seem to raise our post-prandial
    glucose levels.

    4. Sugar and it's variants.  Increasingly sugar seems to be linked with health problems.

  • Anonymous

    4/9/2010 8:51:07 PM |

    Hi Ned Kock
    I have read your article, and I'd like to know how much exercise is considered excessive.

Add comment

Loading
When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol?

When is LDL cholesterol NOT LDL cholesterol?

18. October 2006 William Davis (0)
Darlene had a high LDL cholesterol, at times as high as 200 mg/dl. Her primary care doctor first tried Mevacor, then Pravachol, then Zocor, then Lipitor. Every statin drug failed to reduce Darlene's LDL below 160 mg/dl, even when maximum doses were used. The higher doses also resulted in nearly intolerable muscle aches and weakness.

When we sent Darlene's blood sample off for lipoprotein analysis, a surprise came back: she had a high lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a). This explained a lot.

LDL cholesterol is not always just LDL cholesterol. One of the particles that can masquerade as LDL is Lp(a). Darlene's story is typical of many people who've had high cholesterol levels poorly responsive to the statin drugs. That's because their LDL conceals Lp(a), which does not respond to these agents. LDL cholesterol does drop some because there's also some real LDL mixed in.

A poor response to statin agents or to nutritional strategies to reduce LDL is a tip-off that Lp(a) may be hidden. The answer: just measure Lp(a)! If you and your doctor don't measure it, you won't know whether or not you have it. Rather than a statin drug, we put Darlen on niacin. Not only did her Lp(a) drop, but her LDL also plummeted.
Tags :

Add comment

Loading
Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. February 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.
Tags :

Comments (20) -

  • perots

    2/14/2009 11:40:00 PM |

    how do you treat a very low level?non prescripton D3? how much ? I was taught to gve 50000 unts for 8 weeks.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 1:23:00 AM |

    Could you please explain why gelcaps or drops only, not tablets? I could probably guess why, but for the benefit of the audience can you tell us? Smile

  • Tom

    2/15/2009 5:29:00 AM |

    Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.

    Could you elaborate this point?  Is this a general recommendation (e.g. ease of digestion) or are there vit. D-specific reasons?

    I have a large supply of D tablets and, after reading this, am trying to make a decision regarding replacing them.

  • Rick

    2/15/2009 5:46:00 AM |

    What's wrong with tablets?

  • TedHutchinson

    2/15/2009 9:31:00 AM |

    I have been told that some UK Doctors correcting Vitamin D status of elderly people in care homes use ANNUAL injections of about 300,000iu/D2.

    The graph in Heaney's paper from Dr Davis's blog shows roughly how long 50,000iu/D2 lasts, unfortunately because the half life of Vitamin d is only around 21days, six times Heaney's amount will not last six times as long.

    If daily/weekly or even monthly supplements are not practicable then surely injections every 2 months using D3 would be a be the least worst option.

    Any longer interval than 2 months for an elderly person without access to sunlight surely cannot be in the patients best interests.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 1:07:00 PM |

    Anyone.
    Why the emphasis on not using tablets?
    Tks.

  • Jessica

    2/15/2009 2:23:00 PM |

    Had a friend get all excited b/c her doctor finally ordered a 25(OH) D level on her....which came back at 16 ng/mL.

    She ended her email with, "yea, so I've got to pick up the RX for the D after work today."

    I immediately wrote her back and said, " did he also tell you to eat more fruits and veggies? If so, don't forget to pick up a single blueberry to eat. You need your fruits and veggies!"

    Taking D2 in an effort to raise you 25OH is like eating a single blueberry in an effort to get more fruits in your diet. Its not nearly enough, it doesn't work well and it's not worth the effort, as far as I am concerned.

    Then I went on to tell her about D2 being the FOREIGN source of D in humans and how it's 1/3 less effective than D3 which is the natural form of D in humans.

    Why would you settle for a foreign substance when you can get the natural form and it's more effective?

    In our practice, we haven't experienced any negative issues with using the bio-pharm mini-capsules of D3. In our experience, they raise blood levels consistently and adequately.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 2:55:00 PM |

    I recently had my 25hyroxy D level checked (finger stick test recommended on this site)after 2 months of 5000/day tablets and the level was 80, so perhaps some tablets are better formulated/absorbed now.

  • dogscapes

    2/15/2009 3:28:00 PM |

    While I am not a medical professional, it is my opinion from my use and study of nutritional supplements that the most bio-available form of anything is best. D3 is a hormone and the oil/softgel form is the best way to maintain the integrity of the supplement so the body can absorb it.  A tablet is processed, dried, things are added, etc.  This changes the action of the substance in the body and you can lose the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 4:34:00 PM |

    For those asking about why one shouldn't use the tablet-based Vitamin D, but rather the oil-based Vitamin D, he has answered this before a number of times in previous blog posts. Do a quick look under his Vitamin D posts. But here is one of the relevant posts: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2006/11/oil-based-vitamin-d.html

  • Anne

    2/15/2009 5:52:00 PM |

    Why not tablets? Because D is fat soluble and needs to be taken with some fat for best absorption.

    I keep meeting people who are put on the prescription vitamin D for 2-3 months and then they are told to stop taking it. Some of these people have told me their doctor retested and told them they now had a "normal" level. Others were told to discontinue the D after a few months with no further testing.

    Two people have been off and on vitamin D 3 times. They said their doctor cannot figure out why their vitamin D test keeps dropping after they stop taking the supplement.

    Not only is the wrong D being prescribed by many physicians, but it seems that many don't understand that D supplementation needs to be maintained.

  • Nameless

    2/15/2009 6:32:00 PM |

    It's weird how most doctors don't know how to treat vitamin D deficiencies. When I was first tested, like 2 years ago, my family doctor came out and said she had no idea what the proper treatment was. She looked it up in her little medical PDA thing, said she'd write a prescription for 50K of D2.

    I declined, saying I'd use D3 instead. She didn't seem so keen on the idea, and made a point that if D3 didn't raise my levels, she wanted me to use the prescription. She also didn't seem to think they sold D3 in anything higher than RDA levels.

    So... basically saying... most doctors are clueless here. But what I don't understand is, can't doctors simply look up information the same way patients can? Just because they were trained in medical school a certain way, I assume doctors would want to learn and keep up-to-date with recent treatments and such.

    As for gel/drops vs tablets, it's because vitamin D is fat soluble. Take your tablets at the same time as you take your fish oil -- when you run out, get gels or drops instead.

  • Anonymous

    2/15/2009 11:22:00 PM |

    "D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)"

    I started using 5 grams of D3 because I'd read it can help syptoms of S.A.D.  I take generic D3 with dietary fat: fish oil caps and nuts mainly.  I haven't had my levels tested but having done nothing else, this has been one of the easiest winters for me to survive.  I believe D3 requires fat for absorption.  Generic D3 is cheap, dietary fat is cheap, those D3 gelcaps are not.  Plus, living in rural Wyoming I'd have to drive for three hours to the nearest place that sells them.  

    kevin

  • kris

    2/16/2009 12:37:00 AM |

    here is the best video on D3. it is an hour long and will work in IE only i guess.
    http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/

  • Anonymous

    2/16/2009 5:08:00 AM |

    "Plus, living in rural Wyoming I'd have to drive for three hours to the nearest place that sells them. "

    Well, there must be internet access in Wyoming.  Lots of reputable online shops sell vitamins, including host of D3 options at very competitive prices, (ordinary drug stores usually have the worst selection of D doses/options at the highest prices, too.  

    Doesn't compute that sourcing Vit D would require that long of a drive.  No mail delivery?  The only other barrier I can think of is no c/c or debit card for non-cash purchases.

  • moblogs

    2/16/2009 10:58:00 AM |

    What about capsules, or is that covered under tablets too?

  • mike_cawdery@btinternet.com

    2/18/2009 4:24:00 PM |

    As I understand it Vitamin D is metabolised in the body from cholesterol derivatives. Since statins reduce cholesterol I take it they will also reduce Vit D as well as CoQ10, dolichols  selenoproteins and hormones and steroids that are also derived from cholesterol.

    Since Vit D and other molecules (eg CoQ10) tend to be depleted in the elderly, the use of statins would increase the risk of defiencies. Statins also deplete the anti-oxidant capacity.
    But when prescribed statins, no replacement for the depleted items is ever prescribed. The Canadian authorities do require a black box warning on the data sheet for statins but neither the FDA or the MHRA do so despite the known depletion. This was known in 1988 when Merck registered two patents for their statins incorporating CoQ10.
    In short, the trivial gains in cardiac attacks are one thing but the adverse effects of statins are another. Given the infomercials  claiming minimal adverse reactions (having excluded all possible reactors as in the HPS study and JUPITER) doctors blieve that they do not happen and do not report patients complaints. A study has shown that only 1 to 10% of doctors actually report adverse reactions.

    In the case of simvastatin, the MHRA has recorded 66 deaths in their Drug Analysis Print for this statin. This represents, then between 660 and 6600 deaths.

  • dina

    2/23/2009 6:51:00 PM |

    You're preaching to the choir here...

    I am a weight loss surgery post-op.  I had a biliopancreatic diversion with duodenalswitch nearly 7 years ago.  I had already been diagnosed with osteoporosis at that time - and had never been directed to do *anything* to address it.

    Fast forward nearly 7 years.  I've lost 210 pounds, a wheelchair, diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, sleep apnea, high cholesterol and triglycerides - to name a few.

    It wasn't until I was a post-op - who malabsorbs fats significantly, meaning fat stored vites A, D, E, and K - that I found I not only *could* do something - but should.

    Today I take boatloads of calcium citrate, dry forms of A, D, E, K1, and K2 - to name a few, and have a diagnosis of osteopenia - no longer osteoporosis.  And everything is trending in the right direction.

    I hope you don't mind - I enducate patients now - and I've sent a bunch of people a link to your blog to read this info about Vitamin D.  It's so important for my community to know this!

    THANK YOU!

  • Anonymous

    3/17/2009 4:44:00 PM |

    My D level was 20 when my doc prescribed 50,000 iu D2 1x per week.  After 1 month, my D levels went down to 14.  She increased me to 50,000 iu D2 3x per week.  After another month, my D level is now 7.  Why is the D2 depleting my D level?  help!!

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 2:25:21 PM |

    In my view, this is the knuckleheaded thinking of the conventional practitioner: “Don’t bother me until you’re really sick.” Prevention is a practice that has become fashionable only because of the push of the drug industry. Nutrition is an afterthought, a message conceived through consensus of “experts” with suspect motivations and allegiances.

Add comment

Loading