Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
This was on the Gluten Free Goddess' website.
http://www.nytimes.com/.../risks-when-t ... oo-much.ht...
Too much Vitamin D?
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
I think this a corrected link to the article Nancy is referencing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/healt ... ref=health
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/healt ... ref=health
Thanks, Nancy and Gabby, this is something that has become an issue for me since I've been taking 5,000 IU/day, plus there's probably some in the calcium I take. I'm having blood tests done this Thursday, I'll let you know what it shows. I've always been on the low side until recently.
Resolved MC symptoms successfully w/L-Glutamine, Probiotics and Vitamins, GF since 8/'09. DX w/MC 10/'09.
It appears to me that they are simply looking for ways to discourage the taking of vitamin D supplements. Note that the data show that up to the arbitrary mean that the researchers selected, (21 mg/dl), CRP was reduced 4 times a fast as it was increased on the other side of 21 mg/dl. 
So what? at that rate, one's 25(OH)D level would have to get up to 84 mg/dl, in order for the loss of benefit to match the gains made on the other side of 21 mg/dl.
And who takes vitamin D in order to lower their CRP. I sure don't. I take it to strengthen my immune system, and prevent all sorts of undesirable issues, such as infections and cancer. If it boosts CRP so much, why is vitamin D so effective at preventing so many diseases? Maybe CRP is not a valid parameter to be considering as a gauge of disease risk. Also, we now know that not all calories are equal. The source of the calorie makes a huge difference, (for example a calorie from fructose causes much more weight gain than a calorie from glucose). Maybe the effect of any change in CRP value depends on the source of the change. Medical science is still using training wheels when it comes to dealing with issues such as this. They know very little about how the systems in the human body actually work. What they don't know would probably fill the universe.
That particular research only has meaning if CRP is a valid predictor of disease. We know that it is associated with inflammation, but can it be used to predict disease risk? Maybe - maybe not. No one knows.
Consider this: Research shows that CRP predicts cardiovascular risk approximately as well as cholesterol, for example. The problem is, other research also shows that cholesterol level has nothing to do with cardiovascular risk. So much for that theory.
The bottom line is, researchers will prove virtually anything, if they think it will get them published, and inspire some funding for additional research, (so that they can put food on their table). Whether or not their conclusions are accurate, and whether or not they are even relevant, is rarely a consideration - they really don't care, so long as they get published, and they get a regular paycheck.
Research shows that the conclusions reached by most research articles is incorrect:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124
So, logically, anytime you read a research conclusion, if you assume that the opposite is true, you'll be correct more often than if you accept the article at face value.
Tex
So what? at that rate, one's 25(OH)D level would have to get up to 84 mg/dl, in order for the loss of benefit to match the gains made on the other side of 21 mg/dl.And who takes vitamin D in order to lower their CRP. I sure don't. I take it to strengthen my immune system, and prevent all sorts of undesirable issues, such as infections and cancer. If it boosts CRP so much, why is vitamin D so effective at preventing so many diseases? Maybe CRP is not a valid parameter to be considering as a gauge of disease risk. Also, we now know that not all calories are equal. The source of the calorie makes a huge difference, (for example a calorie from fructose causes much more weight gain than a calorie from glucose). Maybe the effect of any change in CRP value depends on the source of the change. Medical science is still using training wheels when it comes to dealing with issues such as this. They know very little about how the systems in the human body actually work. What they don't know would probably fill the universe.
That particular research only has meaning if CRP is a valid predictor of disease. We know that it is associated with inflammation, but can it be used to predict disease risk? Maybe - maybe not.
No one knows. Consider this: Research shows that CRP predicts cardiovascular risk approximately as well as cholesterol, for example. The problem is, other research also shows that cholesterol level has nothing to do with cardiovascular risk. So much for that theory.
The bottom line is, researchers will prove virtually anything, if they think it will get them published, and inspire some funding for additional research, (so that they can put food on their table). Whether or not their conclusions are accurate, and whether or not they are even relevant, is rarely a consideration - they really don't care, so long as they get published, and they get a regular paycheck.
Research shows that the conclusions reached by most research articles is incorrect:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/inf ... ed.0020124
So, logically, anytime you read a research conclusion, if you assume that the opposite is true, you'll be correct more often than if you accept the article at face value.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Thanks for posting that article Nancy. I have always believed that the truth resides somewhere in between opposing strong opinions :). I have at least 3 varieties of "pure" vitamin D in my pantry. Any time I try to introduce one, I react, so I have never successfully been able to incorporate them. Same goes for any other supplement, including B12 and probiotics. I have wasted a lot of money on things I'm unable to take:(.
Love,
Kari
P.S. Tex - I agree that "researchers" can easily "influence" their results in favor of their anticipated outcome. I figured that out when I was introduced to the "Scientific Method" during my psych studies:). It doesn't take much to skew statistical results.
Love,
Kari
P.S. Tex - I agree that "researchers" can easily "influence" their results in favor of their anticipated outcome. I figured that out when I was introduced to the "Scientific Method" during my psych studies:). It doesn't take much to skew statistical results.
"My mouth waters whenever I pass a bakery shop and sniff the aroma of fresh bread, but I am also grateful simply to be alive and sniffing." Dr. Bernstein
Thanks Gabby for correcting the website.
Tex, I take 5,000 IU's of Vitamin D3 and just had it checked and it was 85. During the summer I took 3,000 and it was about 69. My PCP didn't say it was too high, only that I didn't need more. So I am presuming she means not to add more than what I am already taking.
Nancy
Tex, I take 5,000 IU's of Vitamin D3 and just had it checked and it was 85. During the summer I took 3,000 and it was about 69. My PCP didn't say it was too high, only that I didn't need more. So I am presuming she means not to add more than what I am already taking.
Nancy
Hi Nancy,
Somewhere in that neighborhood is where I would like to get my level. I had mine up to 97, 3 summers ago, so I skipped taking it during the rest of that summer, (2009), and now I can't seem to get it back up in that range. I'm taking approximately what you're taking, now, but last year I took about 1000 IU less, and my level has been 46, the last two times it was checked, (about October, last year, and July, 2010).
Still, it's working pretty good - I haven't had a cold or any sort of virus that I'm aware of, in 2 or 3 years. It's been so long that I can't remember when I had the last one, but it's been at least that long.
Tex
Somewhere in that neighborhood is where I would like to get my level. I had mine up to 97, 3 summers ago, so I skipped taking it during the rest of that summer, (2009), and now I can't seem to get it back up in that range. I'm taking approximately what you're taking, now, but last year I took about 1000 IU less, and my level has been 46, the last two times it was checked, (about October, last year, and July, 2010).
Still, it's working pretty good - I haven't had a cold or any sort of virus that I'm aware of, in 2 or 3 years. It's been so long that I can't remember when I had the last one, but it's been at least that long.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Connie,
I'm sorry - I didn't intend to confuse the issue, but obviously I did. The thing is, you can find research that concludes virtually anything you want to promote, and you can find research that "proves" the opposite. No one is even close to understanding how the human body actually works, so the best we can hope to do is to use our common sense, and our gut feeling, and try to find our way through all the technical obfuscation, without becoming so confused, that we lose our way.
Remember that many medical policies, like most government policies, are based on politics, rather than science, and common sense is almost never a part of the equation. That gives us a huge advantage, since we still respect and appreciate the value of common sense.
Tex
I'm sorry - I didn't intend to confuse the issue, but obviously I did. The thing is, you can find research that concludes virtually anything you want to promote, and you can find research that "proves" the opposite. No one is even close to understanding how the human body actually works, so the best we can hope to do is to use our common sense, and our gut feeling, and try to find our way through all the technical obfuscation, without becoming so confused, that we lose our way.
Remember that many medical policies, like most government policies, are based on politics, rather than science, and common sense is almost never a part of the equation. That gives us a huge advantage, since we still respect and appreciate the value of common sense.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I was just being cheeky, Wayne, I know how ridiculous and slanted most of research is. I'm thinking of writing a proposal to present to our local PBS affiliate (who I freelance for) and asking them to create a show about "medical mysteries" and have them bring in experts to analyze whole family units who have a history of weird illnesses. Not sure if the drug industry has a controlling interest in PBS yet 
That would be a deal killer, wouldn't it?
That would be a deal killer, wouldn't it?Resolved MC symptoms successfully w/L-Glutamine, Probiotics and Vitamins, GF since 8/'09. DX w/MC 10/'09.
Dr. Cannell apparently agrees with me about the absurdity of those research conclusions about vitamin D and CRP. Here's what he had to say in a recent newsletter:
TexResponse to CRP and vitamin D association finding
January 11, 2012 -- Dr John Cannell
In a paper critical of higher levels of vitamin D for allegedly increasing a marker of inflammation, c-reactive protein (CRP), Drs. Muhammad Amer and Rehan Qayyum of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, began their paper by saying:
“The cardiovascular protection offered by vitamin D and its analogues is probably mediated by modulation of inflammatory cytokines.”
Amer M, Qayyum R. Relation Between Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D and C-Reactive Protein in Asymptomatic Adults (From the Continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2001 to 2006). Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 12.
If you will notice, both physicians know that vitamin D offers “cardiovascular protection.” However, they are concerned 25(OH)D levels higher than 20 ng/ml will increase inflammation as measured by CRP and thus worsen cardiovascular protection. CRP is a protein in the blood which tends to rise in response to inflammation or injury. Its physiologic role is to take part in the “complement system.”
The authors arrived at this conclusion by adjusting their data for up to 9 variables and finding that a 25(OH)D of 20 ng/ml is associated with a CRP (range 0-5) of approximately 1.7 while a 25(OH)D of 50 ng/ml is associated with a CRP of 1.9. Their raw findings contradict their adjusted data in that the raw data showed what we have known for some time and that is that in the lower ranges of 25(OH)D, vitamin D reduces CRP. As with most biomarkers of vitamin D, the big improvement is in people who get their 25(OH)D up from 5 ng/ml up to 20 ng/ml. We know that in most cases, the biggest bang for the buck is in treating severe deficiency in people with such low levels.
So if you have natural levels of vitamin D, say a 25(OH)D of 50 ng/ml, and you want to decrease your CRP by 0.2, then stop your vitamin D and stay out of the sun, get your levels to 20 ng/ml, and see if all the corrections and adjustments the doctors performed were correct. I certainly am not going to do such a silly thing.
Dozens of studies now exist showing supplemental vitamin D3 reduces mortality rates, in part due to its cardiovascular protection. The majority of these studies show that improvement in mortality continues through 30 ng/ml and even up to 40 ng/ml. Not enough people have levels of 50 ng/ml for scientists to see if such levels offer further protection. However, cardiovascular disease is rare in native peoples around the equator where vitamin D levels of 50 ng/ml are not uncommon.
The takeaway message from this paper is that scientists will need to recalculate lots of different “normals,” using vitamin D sufficient subjects. It’s not just that normal CRP may be a bit higher in vitamin D sufficient people, their red blood count and the protein albumin may be a bit lower, for example. The point is that pathologists and epidemiologists will need to redo much of their work. We don’t know the normal range of CRP in 65-year-old men; we know the range of CRP in 65-year-old vitamin D deficient men. Likewise, we don’t know the incidence of heart disease in 65-year-old men; we know the incidence of heart disease in vitamin D deficient 65 year-old men. We have lots of work to do.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.