Vitamin D stuff (was Random Thoughts: Epistemology...)

[kiran]

Suikerbuik, The references you've given for 25-OHD being bad are mostly the effects of 1,25-OHD. In theory 25-OHD can block 1,25-OHD.
Are there in vivo studies that indicate this?

Something like bacterial load should be measurable right, even in the short term?

Sorry j, if I'm hijacking your topic.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

Suikerbuik, The references you've given for 25-OHD being bad are mostly the effects of 1,25-OHD.
Have any specific citations? Cases of 1,25D being over the reference are a sign of Vitamin D receptor (VDR) disregulation too, normally an active (activated) VDR plays a role in feedback mechanism upregulating 24-hydroxylase which breaks down 1,25OH (also 25D). Excess is indeed 'toxic', for example 1,25D will compete for different hormone receptors, like thyroid receptors. Hormonal disbalance in general is the result, leading to variety of issues that all have many complications on themselves too.

In theory 25-OHD can block 1,25-OHD. Are there in vivo studies that indicate this?
Nope, as I said somewhere this is something I'd like to see being done by some research group. But is supported by many observations and experiences reported by people, and studies being done with 25OH that show statistical increase in disease progression (after years) compared to control. And certainly no disease remission, what you would expect if vitamin D is soo important??. The studies done on old people and mortality rate also support this, although the outcomes may be postive at first. I mean live longer, because immunomodulation and partly suppression will make you feel better for years at first. You also have less pathology going on by the immune system, but once overwhelmed systemic disfunction becomes more and more apparent and homeostasis is incredible difficult to maintain.

By the way to add another layer, it has been established that 25D at supraphysiological concentrations becomes an activator of the VDR

Something like bacterial load should be measurable right, even in the short term?
Yes that should be possible but don't think we are capable of now. It is not so easy, especially if we hardly know what to look for in specific. Research is this area is incredible difficult, detection assays are highly specific and must be validated first. I mean, we must be sure that we measure what we're looking for and not something else. When measuring a load, quantitative measuring means that we can not have any contamination how do we know we don't have contamination?.

There are so many studies being done on vitamin D. I have yet to see ONLY 1, that says vitamin D cures any disease or helps remission over longer periods of time. Could you show me one?

 

[j.]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

Any disease? Really? Rickets?

 

[Suikerbuik]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

Is that the only thing you can come up with? Even rickets is barely caused by ONLY a lack of vitamin D it more likely has a genetic aspect, severe malnutrition of calcium and phopshorous and environmental probably. And certainly not vitamin D per se.

Vitamin D deficiency remains the major cause of rickets among young infants in most countries, because breast milk is low in vitamin D and its metabolites and social and religious customs and/or climatic conditions often prevent adequate ultraviolet light exposure. In sunny countries such as Nigeria, South Africa, and Bangladesh, such factors do not apply. Studies indicated that the disease occurs among older toddlers and children and probably is attributable to low dietary calcium intakes, which are characteristic of cereal-based diets with limited variety and little access to dairy products. In such situations, calcium supplements alone result in healing of the bone disease. Studies among Asian children and African American toddlers suggested that low dietary calcium intakes result in increased catabolism of vitamin D and the development of vitamin D deficiency and rickets. Dietary calcium deficiency and vitamin D deficiency represent 2 ends of the spectrum for the pathogenesis of nutritional rickets, with a combination of the 2 in the middle.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15585795?dopt=Abstract

CONCLUSIONS:
Vitamin D deficiency appears unlikely to be the primary etiologic factor of rickets in African children. Moreover, low dietary calcium intake alone does not account for rickets. Insufficient dietary calcium probably interacts with genetic, hormonal, and other nutritional factors to cause rickets in susceptible children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10969262

CONCLUSIONS:
There was no evidence of a threshold for reduced calcium absorption in the serum 25OHD range of 10-66 ng/ml (25-165 nmol/liter). The increase in absorbed calcium of 6% on high doses of vitamin D is so small that the same amount could be obtained from half a glass of milk (100 ml) or 100 mg elemental calcium. The results challenge assumptions about the value of adding vitamin D to increase calcium absorption except when serum 25OHD is very low that is less than 10 ng/ml (25 nmol/liter)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22855333

 

[j.]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

Is that the only thing you can come up with? Even rickets is barely caused by ONLY a lack of vitamin D it more likely has a genetic aspect, severe malnutrition of calcium and phopshorous and environmental probably. And certainly not vitamin D per se.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

Haha , come on proof me then...? Show me that people with rickets, all have normall vitamin D metabolism (no genetic anomalies), have enough calcium and phosphate intake, and having everything else they need except vitamin D. Maybe as said, they indeed have a complete lack of sun exposure or solely living on mother's milk, which is something to think about on itself too - Rickets from mom's milk????

I don't think you can.. Anyway in that case you really can. Am I still against vitamin D suppletion? No not at all... If the cause has really been tracked down, and only, is caused by complete lack of sun exposure. Fine then, use vitamin D suppletion for a few months, come out your rabbit hole and increase your sun exposure, eat products that contain it..

Don't know what point you tried to make though. Fine if you want to discuss such things, I don't mind really. I just want to know how things really work instead of blindly following the crowd. If am wrong, great will take all credits for my mistakes. The only thing I want, and everyone should want, is a proper functioning vitamin D receptor that is what matters and nothing else.
If vitamin D works for that. Great even better because then, also for me, that would be much much easier!! Anyway so far no one has been able to come up with a case against what I have been saying. Which has widely been proved by peoples experiences and backed up by many scientific studies and some of them fairly recent ones too..

This is not about stroking my ego, hope you get that point.

 

[j.]

Re: Random Thoughts: Epistemology in Medicine and Carrots

This is not about stroking my ego, hope you get that point.

I don't know, Marshall Protocol people always strike me as a little lunatic. The stuff about being covered all day and using glasses to avoid UVB doesn't seem healthy. It reminds me of scientology.

Claiming that vitamin D is harmful for some diseases, is one thing. Claiming there is no one disease it can cure, that's deep into crazy territory.

 

[Suikerbuik]

The stuff about being covered all day and using glasses to avoid UVB doesn't seem healthy. It reminds me of scientology.

This is exactly why I haven't mentioned the marshall protocol (the guidelines provided by the protocol is not what I stand behind). Though you believe it or not the science is intriguing and certainly not based on poor evidence. It helped people recovering from certain diseases likes RA, MS, CFS. Importance of proper functioning VDR is seen in many many studies, increases brain function, longlivety, etc.

Physicians in these fields, unrelated to Marshall are using his ideas about vitamin D, though not following the protocol. I have spoken with people, met them in real life. The protocol has indeed some points, I am not recommending anyone.

Claiming that vitamin D is harmful for some diseases, is one thing. Claiming there is no one disease it can cure, that's deep into crazy territory.

Give me ONE single prove that it has ever cured diseases like MS, CFS, RA without recurrence in the nearby years, established by antibody titers or else. IF people cured at all (I don't know anyone), prove that it was the vitamin D. And not things like Peating (see viral thread, a possibilty how Peating might help regain homeostasis).

There are more ways that lead to rome. I think Rome should be cure and not palliation, as said before. Hopefully Peat is another avenue that make you reach that target. I really don't care how..

 

[mt_dreams]

This guy seems to be curing several auto immune issues with Vitamin D. I'm not sure if he's doing other things, or just mega dosing the Vitamin D. He's having trouble getting his work published, from what I remember from the video, so that might be another reason it's hard to gather info stating that vit D alone fixed something.
http://vitamindwiki.com/Video+by+Dr.+Co ... April+2014

 

[SaltGirl]

I think the proper question would be: Where is the proof that avoiding Vitamin D cures disease? No, anecdotal evidence from people you've met or talked online is not sufficient enough. Otherwise I could just as well point you to all the testimonials on Amazon for Vitamin D if that were the case. Hell, me and a few people I know get benefits from Vitamin D supplementation if we are in anecdotal territory.

Are Vitamin D studies all over the place? Yes, much like most nutritional and vitamin research. I wouldn't be surprised that in the end Vitamin D is very context sensitive(it is a hormone after all). One other hormone that I know has research all over the place is progesterone, mainly because many scientists list synthetic progestins as progesterone even though the activity of each is very different. Also, vitamin D might be important in prevention of certain diseases, but it may not cure. That it doesn't cure disease doesn't make it less important in prevention of disease. These two things are not one or the another.

In the end I think what would serve people best is to try and experiment with Vitamin D. If it makes them feel like crap then stop using it. If it makes you feel good, then continue using it.

So far the only thing I've seen anything related to Marshall's theory about Vitamin D is very much in FUD territory. The annoying part is that FUD tends to create fanatics. I am also seeing some parallels to people's fears about Vitamin D and Progesterone after the result about Women's Health Initiative was shut down early.

 

[Suikerbuik]

The proof, like the doctor Mt_dreams refers too, is because medical science is to blame. Studies are impossible on a cohort that is diverse. Why exclude people that need a treatment? Why doing double blind randomized trials? Isn't in the benefit of the patient.

I myself had major benefit at first too.. Then after months all kinds of little issues came up. Had my level to 70 ng/ml by the way.

I wouldn't be surprised that in the end Vitamin D is very context sensitive(it is a hormone after all).
Sure this is, and that is how this discussion started. We shouldn't say one to get his or her vitamin D levels to 50ng/ml.

In order to say something about the prevention of diseases we get to the point, to question what is disease actually? What is the origin or disease? Before diagnosis of some diseases, 17 years on beforehand you see markers like antibodies. What triggers these antibodies to be formed? How would vitamin D prevent the initial stimulus, besides modulating immunity?

If it makes you feel good, then continue using it.
No I don't agree. We must first understand disease, then measure reliable markers, that really tell us something valuable. Feeling isn't in all cases.

This guy seems to be curing several auto immune issues with Vitamin D.

It is interesting to see how it is supposed to work, which is in theory by letting refunctioning the vitamin D receptor by increasing the competition for the site. If high doses of vitamin D are okay for this, fine. But that's actually a study that needs to be done, does it really? Or is it some other effect? There are recent studies that indicate it doesn't. The follow up isn't that long, from my interpretation of the info being given here. Although he is speaking about 11 a year mark too somewhere. It doesn't answer most of the other questions that have been proposed though... Nor shouldn't we forget the cause and correlation.

How is evalution of patients being done? Only by scans? Has the proteome, behind found to be aberrant in MS, been evaluated? If that is the case and vitamin D suppletion did indeed alter the proteomics and thus gene transcription back to seen in a healthy state and having this stable in most of the patients around the +10 year mark or so. I'd indeed consider this a cure and another avenue to reach what should be target. End justifies the means, just still the question if we reach the end.

I don't think a forum like is the place to discuss the latter thing into detail. Has not much to do with Ray Peat. Only message I had and still have is to be be careful with vitamin D. Up until something really has been proved. It can be harmful, depending on the person in context and shouldn't be a general advise to people. Time will tell, exposure to sunlight should get most attention instead of drugs (vitamin D can be regarded as a drug).

4:32 And then, when we started to give the physiologic dose, which is the dose of 10,000 units per day,
5:34 but if a person is exposed to the sun for 20 minutes, producing 10,000 units!

11:24 and are adjusted according to the degree of resistance that every person with an autoimmune disease
11:33 has for vitamin D (to the degree of resistance that possesses in relation to the effects of vitamin D).
11:41 What we have done is to develop a method to adjust the daily dose for each individual patient,
11:51 and it is done through laboratory tests.
11:55 You collect laboratory tests before treatment,
12:00 after which damage of the doses already established vitamin D;and after at least 2 months,
12:09 which is the time required to increase and stabilize the level of vitamin D in the blood of patients.
12:19After 2 months refer these tests and comparing the results obtained before and after treatment.
12:31 Through this comparison, we can adjust the individual dose for a given patient.
12:38 And after two months we adjusted, we get
12:44 the full effect, which means, in practice, to obtain the status of a suppression of activity of the disease.
12:55 The disease remains suppressed after 2 months after dose adjustment.

16:05 and prove that in two consecutive spaced resonances of 1 year, ie, separated by 1-year interval,
16:18 there has been no appearance of new lesions, recent lesions can disappear, but there is no activity in the lesion,
16:29 then when we are able to prove this and the patient has improved,
16:36 if he did not damage the oldest, back to having a normal life,
16:41 at the end of the two years of treatment, during which we do 3 or 4 visits,

17:19 We do not know yet how long the patient needs to maintain this high dose of vitamin D
17:26 and now the treatment is for an indefinite period, demanding that patients do this revaluation
17:34 after two and five years, and maybe this time we will be able to establish

33:13 We have started to use vitamin D in the treatment of autoimmune diseases in the interest of the patient.
33:21 Our goal was not looking, was not to convince anyone,
33:27 but was simply fulfill the 2nd basic principle of medical practice:
33:32 optimally benefit the patient
33:37 ie, if the patient has a deficiency of a potent immunoregulatory known and documented,
33:43 we need to correct this deficiency,
33:45 if it has a resistance, we need to increase the dose so that it can compensate for this deficiency.

 

[Suikerbuik]

The treatment of MS with vitamin D kept me thinking. Even after carefully rereading his work, I can’t get how it works and even think this is short sighted. I am not no neurlogogist, certainly not, so who am I to degrade this work? And why shouldn’t it work? Although I have my doubts, see further. Although he may even admit himself too, because he uses the words disease suppression himself. Anyway like to be being open-minded on this subject, as long as the stone at the bottom isn’t revealed yet.

So can anyone direct me to some more information? Data like, what are these people 25D levels, what are their 125D levels? Before treatment? after treatment? Do they reach steady state, if yes at what concentrations is that? Do they need less 25D over time? Does the resistance he is talking about ever subsides?

It has clearly been shown that 1,25D may interfere with all kind of other nuclear receptors (androgen receptor, glucocorticoid receptor, thyroid receptors for example, see the work Marshall produces on this*). This is very very likely to be happening in the human body and is likely a HUGE cause of systemic dysfunction which even fits Peat view in terms of autoimmunity. Peat is saying that (partly) auto-immunity is because of proteins (receptors in this case) aren’t in their native shape thus provoking an antibody response. A protein with a ligand that is the not the original ligand, leads to a change in shape thus epitopes, but this is theoretical mostly and really hard to figure out how this works in reality. Maybe the change in change is too small to provoke such response, but who knows? No protein is the same either.

And playing a huge role in systemic dysfunction. To give an impression how. Only the estrogen receptor is said to influence >25% of our genes, that’s over 5000 genes! So basically, for those used with biochemical terms, the transcription is affected, which leads to different and different concentrations of proteins (enzymes for example) and in this way many of biological functions are influenced. However, if the estrogen receptor is affected by 1,25D, likely not, but this was just to give an impression how huge of an influence a protein can have on gene transcription. Information from different sources say that the VDR at least affects 1.000 - 4500 genes.

So you definitely don’t want your D metabolites too high, which I guess is happening which such high doses. I mentioned that I once had my vitamin D over 70ng/ml, that was only with 1000-2000 i.u/day, but often ate salmon too, and was in the summer. And this was just me...

For those suffering MS it can be very appealing to see such studies but I hope people will think twice. My advice for people who actually suffer MS, I would to carefully read Peats work. It’s a gem on this subject although not covering the whole story, but that will be clear when reading the work he himself admits that too. Still it’s a true piece of gold!

*Note that the work Marshall produces on this is not in vivo, but I think in vivo work is not capable of producing such conclusions with statistical relevance.

 

[Blossom]

I read recently that some cases of starvation can mimic MS. When I first came to discover Peat I had a whole host of problems several of which were similar to a family member with MS. I never sought a diagnosis because by that time I was very disillusioned with the 'medical' field. Long story short my symptoms disappeared after I changed my diet and lifestyle based on studying Peat's work. I probably had a situation of starvation in a sense and not true MS that my Peat approach corrected. Interestingly the last vitamin d level I had drawn prior to my rapid health decline was also 70 just like yours suikerbuik. I don't really know if that contributed or not but I'm certain the starvation like diet I was on (per my last doctor's order) definitely did. The body is on one hand very complex but in many cases it responds quite dramatically to very simple interventions like eating well and having hope. How long does it take after stopping D supplements to get a good idea of one's baseline D level? I had heard from a dietician that it is 6 months but wondered if that was really true.

 

[Suikerbuik]

Yeah starvation can mimic many many things. But symptoms in general often don't say much, nor does a diagnosis by the way. Simple interventions do help tremendously, again it is not to confuse.

It is actually very simple, don't try to force anything. The body tries it's best to keep homeostasis in it's best attempt. When you follow advices given by peat, which support the functioning of an organism, that homeostasis is maintained and helped in many ways. Translated to vitamin D, be careful with vitamin D suppletion, especially when having health issues.

Depends on season to some extent, I think 6 months can be true taking halflife into account. 1,25D should be stable year round, if your body can regulate this well, 25D has not so much of an influence to this.

 

[j.]

1,25D should be stable year round

Most vitamin D researchers disagree with this. 1,25D goes up and down. The significant number is 25(OH)D, the precursor. Ray Peat's suggestion that getting to 50 ng/ml is a good goal is about 25(OH)D, not 1,25D.

 

[j.]

25(OH)D is a better predictor of PTH level then 1,25D. As 25(OH)D level increases, PTH keeps going down until 25(OH)D reaches about 30 to 35 ng/ml.

The same happens with the average amount of protein in the urine (a bad thing) in the population. As 25(OH)D increases, the amount of protein keeps going down until 25(OH)D reaches about 40 ng/ml.

All cause mortality is lower for those who have a 25(OH)D level of about 47 ng/ml.

 

[j.]

It is actually very simple, don't try to force anything.

Just want to note that this is like the opposite of Peat's views. He definitely wants to 'force' better thyroid function with interventions that go from evaluating the hormonal impact of every food, using lights, and altering the intestinal flora to taking thyroid hormone, or other related hormones.

 

[Blossom]

Thanks gentleman! I think I'll lay off the D for a bit and test to see where my levels are at. I appreciate the input!

 

[Suikerbuik]

The numbers you mention are not difficult to reach for a healthy person. When a person is healthy generally he or she will have such numbers. Also a sign of little VDR resistance. Note that resistance doesn't mean every cell is resistant.

What about people having difficulty reaching those numbers (e.g. increased turnover of 25D to 1,25D resulting in higher supplementing with 25D? - observation seen in multiple people. Do they have different 1,25D numbers compared to control? (studies suggest this, some examples:1,2).

This is the rationale for selecting 30 ng/mL as the cutoff value for defining optimal vitamin D status. However, this definition represents an average value at a population level but does not account for the wide variation in the 25(OH) D level that represents adequacy at an individual level. Many patients have very low 25(OH)D values without evidence of increased production of PTH, and conversely, 25(OH)D levels greater than 30 ng/mL do not guarantee PTH suppression

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3012634/#R19

Why not increase calcium intake? Which likely will even lead to stronger bones and lower VDR turnover.

1,25D will differ between indivudials, but the individual variation is usually negligible. In woman it may vary somewhat depeding on where they are in their cycle. 1,25D will show variation depeding on acute cytokin expression. If the numbers are not tighly regulated that is likely to be a sign of inflammation and certainly not health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6972382

25D is seen as a the storage hormone and 1,25D is not, hence there's not so much of interest by most. Nor 1,25D alone doesn't say anything without 25D and other values. Besudes that 25D is way easier to measure (nmol/L range), 1,25D (pmol/L range). 1,25D is highly unstable when not handled carefully. May also be a reason not to test 1,25D. A study testing different methods even showed variation in 25D outcome..

I think Peat is about optimizing biology and not forcing. Not everything we undertake means forcing. Forcing in my eyes induces stress or harm. With thyroid we help biology and with vitamin D there is a relatively high chance of forcing biology, especially when relying on 25D tests only. Vitamin D should have a personal approach. And in many cases that is not increasing vitamin D suppletion. Have to admit, just depends on what your target is ofcourse. If you want palliation, vit. D is all you need.

Edit: added study

 

[Blossom]

I had my vitamin D tested years ago and it came back at 52. During the office visit to follow-up the doctor then INCREASED my vitamin D dosage despite my level being adequate and I willingly went along with her poor decision. That was my mistake for not doing my own research and questioning her treatment. Quite regularly I'm discovering more and more errors in the treatment I received. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience. I have a good friend that is a racial mix of Hispanic/African and I'm certain she is probably at higher risk for a vitamin D deficiency than I am with my 3/4 European and 1/4 Native American heritage (we live in at northern latitude). I do believe the natural skin tone plays a role in our vitamin D status. I have also noticed that elderly people who are institutionalized are frequently deficient in vitamin D regardless of race because they simply do not get out in the sun. I don't necessarily fear vitamin D per se but it probably is irresponsible and unfounded to have people with adequate levels supplementing large amounts and pushing the levels significantly higher than the 50 range that Peat recommends. I can't say for sure that having my D significantly higher than 50 definitely harmed me in any way but at this point I'm thinking it would be silly to continue supplementing without at least exploring the issue in more depth. RP has pointed out that one of the most important things we can do is question the 'medical' treatments we are prescribed (not a direct quote). How true.