Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
Mornin'!
I just read an article about some research showing a possible link between high vitamin D levels and an increased risk of pancreatic cancer. Researchers pooled data from a number of studies and found that people with the highest vitamin D levels (over 40 nanograms per ml.) were about twice as likely to be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer than those with lower levels. Only about 3% of the study subjects had levels of 40 ng/ml. or more. No reason is proposed for this finding. In fact, some of the people with high levels were not taking any vitamin D supplements or vitamins. The references cited are:
Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 91:1550, 2010 and J. Clin. Endocrin. Metab. 95: 2963, 2010.
I guess the wisest approach is to aim for a vitamin D level of 40 ng/ml or less until more research is available.
Love,
Polly
Too Much Vitamin D?
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Too Much Vitamin D?
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
But Polly - that's not what we wanted to hear. 
I couldn't locate that article on the net, so I wasn't able to read it, but we have to remember that despite the fact that twice the risk sounds bad, statistically, we are still talking about a reasonably low risk. The prevalence of pancreatic cancer in North America, (and in Northern Europe), is only about 10 per 100,000, (or 1 in 10,000), in the general population, so doubling the odds, would only change that to 20 per 100,000, (or 1 in 5,000). For a frame of reference, 10 per 100,000 is roughly the level at which MC was originally thought to exist.
However, I note an interesting relationship with this issue. North America and Northern Europe are generally considered to be high-prevalence areas for pancreatic cancer. Since both those locations are also presumably considered to be high prevalence areas for vitamin D deficiency, (or at least insufficiency), these two situations appear to be incongruent. Obviously, according to the finding about the relationship between high vitamin D levels, and pancreatic cancer, if we are going to undertake a campaign to increase vitamin D levels, then some/many additional people will find themselves in that "high-risk" zone, over 40 ng/mL. This suggests that perhaps the nay-sayers in the medical establishment might possibly have a legitimate point, (about not raising the RDAs for vitamin D - though it is extremely unlikely that most of them are even aware of the pancreatic cancer link). But the big question is, "why does this seemingly incompatible situation exist in the first place?" Could there be something rotten in Denmark, as they say?
I have to get to work, unfortunately, but several questions come to mind: What is the typical 25(OH)D level for other parts of the world, where sun exposure is high? Is pancreatic cancer more prevalent there, or less prevalent? And what does Dr. Cannell have to say about this?
Love,
Tex
I couldn't locate that article on the net, so I wasn't able to read it, but we have to remember that despite the fact that twice the risk sounds bad, statistically, we are still talking about a reasonably low risk. The prevalence of pancreatic cancer in North America, (and in Northern Europe), is only about 10 per 100,000, (or 1 in 10,000), in the general population, so doubling the odds, would only change that to 20 per 100,000, (or 1 in 5,000). For a frame of reference, 10 per 100,000 is roughly the level at which MC was originally thought to exist.
However, I note an interesting relationship with this issue. North America and Northern Europe are generally considered to be high-prevalence areas for pancreatic cancer. Since both those locations are also presumably considered to be high prevalence areas for vitamin D deficiency, (or at least insufficiency), these two situations appear to be incongruent. Obviously, according to the finding about the relationship between high vitamin D levels, and pancreatic cancer, if we are going to undertake a campaign to increase vitamin D levels, then some/many additional people will find themselves in that "high-risk" zone, over 40 ng/mL. This suggests that perhaps the nay-sayers in the medical establishment might possibly have a legitimate point, (about not raising the RDAs for vitamin D - though it is extremely unlikely that most of them are even aware of the pancreatic cancer link). But the big question is, "why does this seemingly incompatible situation exist in the first place?" Could there be something rotten in Denmark, as they say?
I have to get to work, unfortunately, but several questions come to mind: What is the typical 25(OH)D level for other parts of the world, where sun exposure is high? Is pancreatic cancer more prevalent there, or less prevalent? And what does Dr. Cannell have to say about this?
Love,
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.
Hmmmmm. Maybe I should get my Vit D level checked. I'm taking 6000U a day, as a year ago my level was at 28 ng. The reason I'm a bit more concerned is that while pancreatic cancer is quite rare, there is a history of it on my mother's side. My maternal grandmother died of pancreatic cancer. She had 10 children, and one of them (George) died of pancreatic cancer. Then his daughter also died of pancreatic cancer. So that's 3 generations in a row. But none of my grandmother's other 9 offspring have had it, so I'm hoping that it's just some genetic glitch that was just passed down through the one son. I'm hoping for the long life seems to run in the line too. My mom is still going at 93, and 4 other siblings made it to their 90's, with one hitting 100! And I will say that both George and his daughter were heavy smokers/drinkers so it may be a combination of genetic predisposition and behavioral actions.
Rosie
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Pancreatic cancer is certainly not to be taken lightly. I'm still undecided, though. Check these articles:
Full text of the scientific article:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1688.full
Of course, they are talking about much lower supplementation rates, than we are. The following article, though discusses much higher rates:
And there is the possibility of other influences. According to the following article, at least one study shows that being taller, thinner, having lower blood pressure, having asthma or diabetes, drinking more milk, eating less fish, and working at a desk job, all predispose to an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. That's pretty confusing information, and makes me wonder if all of it may be totally irrelevant. The fact is, we probably don't have the foggiest idea what causes pancreatic cancer, and all of this evidence may be entirely coincidental.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Vitamin-D-and ... id=1070745
Rosie, you might be interested in this article:
http://www.savvynaturalhealer.com/2008/ ... ancer.html
That article leads me to feel that if we are concerned about high D3 levels leading to pancreatic cancer, we should make sure that we have plenty of folic acid available to our digestive system. I believe that unless I can find convincing evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to take megadoses of folic acid, and continue to try to push my vitamin D level back up to where it was last summer, (near 100). Now that my total cholesterol level is down in the dangerous range, I have to be concerned about an increased risk of infections and cancer, so I'm going to keep my D3 level high, if I possibly can.
Tex
http://purplemedicalblog.blogspot.com/2 ... -does.htmlWe observed that a higher intake of vitamin D was associated with a decreased risk for pancreatic cancer in two large U.S. cohorts.
Full text of the scientific article:
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1688.full
Of course, they are talking about much lower supplementation rates, than we are. The following article, though discusses much higher rates:
http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Nut ... ancer.htmlDr. Cannell says a high serum level of vitamin D ranging from 50–80 ng/mL (or 125–200 nM/L) is needed to help prevent all sorts of cancer.
And there is the possibility of other influences. According to the following article, at least one study shows that being taller, thinner, having lower blood pressure, having asthma or diabetes, drinking more milk, eating less fish, and working at a desk job, all predispose to an increased risk of developing pancreatic cancer. That's pretty confusing information, and makes me wonder if all of it may be totally irrelevant. The fact is, we probably don't have the foggiest idea what causes pancreatic cancer, and all of this evidence may be entirely coincidental.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Vitamin-D-and ... id=1070745
Rosie, you might be interested in this article:
http://www.savvynaturalhealer.com/2008/ ... ancer.html
That article leads me to feel that if we are concerned about high D3 levels leading to pancreatic cancer, we should make sure that we have plenty of folic acid available to our digestive system. I believe that unless I can find convincing evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to take megadoses of folic acid, and continue to try to push my vitamin D level back up to where it was last summer, (near 100). Now that my total cholesterol level is down in the dangerous range, I have to be concerned about an increased risk of infections and cancer, so I'm going to keep my D3 level high, if I possibly can.
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, Tex. It looks like the smoking/drinking was probably the major contributor to pancreatic cancer in my family, along with perhaps a genetic predisposition. So I'll continue with my vitamin D and add some folic acid, and not worry overmuch!
Rosie
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Rosie,
That certainly might have been the key. Do you happen to know whether your relatives who developed pancreatic cancer might have had diabetes, or pre-diabetic markers?
Tex
That certainly might have been the key. Do you happen to know whether your relatives who developed pancreatic cancer might have had diabetes, or pre-diabetic markers?
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.
Tex, as far as I know, diabetes doesn't run in my mother's family and none of those relatives had diabetes. But I don't know for sure.
On the other hand, my dad's family has lots of diabetes and other autoimmune diseases. I know my dad had lots of food "allergies" that were never made clear.......they were of the generation that kept health concerns very private. I suspect that's where my MC predisposition came from.
Rosie
On the other hand, my dad's family has lots of diabetes and other autoimmune diseases. I know my dad had lots of food "allergies" that were never made clear.......they were of the generation that kept health concerns very private. I suspect that's where my MC predisposition came from.
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
My mother had all sorts of food sensitivities also, (and certain odors would cause her to have migraines), but as you mentioned, she was never willing to talk about her digestive problems. 
Tex
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.
My mom also was secretive. She always stayed close to home, had autoimmune thyroid disease, and I remember some mad bathroom dashes, etc. But she refused to discuss it with me.
Tex, I emailed Dr. Cannell to get his take on this issue. Stay tuned.
Love,
Polly
Tex, I emailed Dr. Cannell to get his take on this issue. Stay tuned.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Here's the response from the Vitamin D Council:
Hello Dr. Roberts,
Yes, you are referring to the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers (American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 172 NO. 1) which found:
"...An increased risk at very high levels (100 nmol/L) was noted for pancreatic cancer, confirming previous reports."
Vitamin D Council does not support the results of the study as proof of a non-beneficial, or even harmful, effect of vitamin D on cancer risk.
The meta-analysis from ten studies, none of which were intervention studies, has only succeeded in proving the case that inadequate vitamin D levels do not affect cancer rates.
Vitamin D Council does not consider serum levels of 100 nmol/L (40 ng/mL) to be "very high levels" and recommends that serum levels be at a minimum of 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) in order to obtain the most benefit possible from vitamin D.
This is based on the fact that virtually everyone begins to store vitamin D for future use at 50 ng/mL. It is only once the body has enough substrate to begin storing it that the tissues are able to produce calcitriol, what will -- at lower serum levels -- only be produced by the kidneys for the purposes of maintaining blood calcium levels. Increase substrate levels even beyond 50 ng/mL, and cells are able to produce the calcitriol they require for proper functioning.
Calcitriol, a metabolite of vitamin D, is the most potent steroid hormone in the human body and has powerful anti-cancer actions such as: inhibits inappropriate cell division and metastasis, reduces blood vessel formation around tumors, and regulates proteins that affect tumor growth.
Additional points:
*the number of subjects in the study with levels slightly over 100 nmol/L was really too small (around 114) to draw any meaningful conclusions.
*only one serum level measurement from each subject was used, this will not predict where levels will be further into the study.
Please see Dr. William Grant's statement regarding the study on our Vitamin D Announcements page.
Best wishes and may all your days be filled with sunshine,
Dana Clark
Vitamin D Council
Interesting............... I didn't know all that.
Love,
Polly
Hello Dr. Roberts,
Yes, you are referring to the Cohort Consortium Vitamin D Pooling Project of Rarer Cancers (American Journal of Epidemiology Vol 172 NO. 1) which found:
"...An increased risk at very high levels (100 nmol/L) was noted for pancreatic cancer, confirming previous reports."
Vitamin D Council does not support the results of the study as proof of a non-beneficial, or even harmful, effect of vitamin D on cancer risk.
The meta-analysis from ten studies, none of which were intervention studies, has only succeeded in proving the case that inadequate vitamin D levels do not affect cancer rates.
Vitamin D Council does not consider serum levels of 100 nmol/L (40 ng/mL) to be "very high levels" and recommends that serum levels be at a minimum of 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) in order to obtain the most benefit possible from vitamin D.
This is based on the fact that virtually everyone begins to store vitamin D for future use at 50 ng/mL. It is only once the body has enough substrate to begin storing it that the tissues are able to produce calcitriol, what will -- at lower serum levels -- only be produced by the kidneys for the purposes of maintaining blood calcium levels. Increase substrate levels even beyond 50 ng/mL, and cells are able to produce the calcitriol they require for proper functioning.
Calcitriol, a metabolite of vitamin D, is the most potent steroid hormone in the human body and has powerful anti-cancer actions such as: inhibits inappropriate cell division and metastasis, reduces blood vessel formation around tumors, and regulates proteins that affect tumor growth.
Additional points:
*the number of subjects in the study with levels slightly over 100 nmol/L was really too small (around 114) to draw any meaningful conclusions.
*only one serum level measurement from each subject was used, this will not predict where levels will be further into the study.
Please see Dr. William Grant's statement regarding the study on our Vitamin D Announcements page.
Best wishes and may all your days be filled with sunshine,
Dana Clark
Vitamin D Council
Interesting............... I didn't know all that.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Hmmmmmmm. If those researchers consider 40 ng/mL to be a very high level, then either something confounded their study, and the alleged connection was a coincidence, or there is a "J" curve relationship between vitamin D and pancreatic cancer, similar to the "J" curve that defines mortality risk versus total cholesterol level, for older people, (IOW, overall mortality risk for older people is greatest at a total cholesterol level of about 150 mg/dL, but the risk decreases both above and below that level - just the opposite of the well-known "J" curve for total cholesterol, [or blood pressure], versus cardiovascular disease, for younger people). Or, maybe those researchers are going out of their way to try to find a way to derail the vitamin D movement, and they don't mind selectively choosing their data, to further their agenda. 
Otherwise, all the research results that I have seen, shows that true high rates of vitamin D, (say 90 - 150 ng/mL), help to prevent all types of cancer, and even provide therapeutic effects at 25(OH)D levels above 100 ng/mL.
Thanks for sharing.
Love,
Tex
Or, maybe those researchers are going out of their way to try to find a way to derail the vitamin D movement, and they don't mind selectively choosing their data, to further their agenda. Otherwise, all the research results that I have seen, shows that true high rates of vitamin D, (say 90 - 150 ng/mL), help to prevent all types of cancer, and even provide therapeutic effects at 25(OH)D levels above 100 ng/mL.
Thanks for sharing.
Love,
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.