Vitamin D reduces diabetes risk by 43 percent

[Kregener]

Vitamin D reduces diabetes risk by 43 percent - is there anything this vitamin can't do?

http://www.naturalnews.com/028659_vi..._diabetes.html

(NaturalNews) A team from Warwick Medical School in the U.K. has found that people who maintain healthy vitamin D levels are 43 percent less likely to get heart disease or diabetes. After evaluating 28 different studies conducted on nearly 100,000 people, researchers concluded that people who eat oily fish two or three times a week and five servings of fruits and vegetables a day are able to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D.

While the team evaluated only natural sources of vitamin D, including from sunlight exposure and consumption of oily fish like tuna, salmon, and mackerel, it is probable that supplementation with natural vitamin D3 would prove to have the same effect.

Published in the journal Maturitas, the study revealed that high levels of vitamin D reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular disease by 33 percent, metabolic syndrome by 51 percent, and type-2 diabetes by an astounding 55 percent.

According to Dr. Johanna Parker, one of the study authors, sunlight exposure is the best way to get vitamin D. "People should expose themselves for 30 minutes twice a week – this means exposing the face and arms with no sunscreen. This would provide the body with adequate vitamin D," she explained.

Some experts recommend getting sunlight exposure every single day, especially in the summer when the sun delivers the most ultraviolet (UV) rays which produce vitamin D in the skin. Twenty minutes of sunlight exposure on a summer day can produce a healthy 20,000 IU of vitamin D in the skin, delivering optimal protection from all kinds of diseases.

Last summer, a study published in Diabetes Educator also found that vitamin D helps to prevent diabetes and can even help those who already have the disease. "Vitamin D has widespread benefits for our health and certain chronic diseases in particular," said Sue Penckofer, Ph.D., R.N., and co-author of that study.

It appears that people who have diabetes are generally low in vitamin D, which is also the case with many other diseases. Since vitamin D-deficiency and serious illness are so closely related, many medical professionals are advising people to have their levels checked to be sure they fall within a healthy range. More often than not, people who are acutely ill are deficient in the necessary vitamin.

If one is deficient in the vitamin, it is best to get more sunlight exposure, eat foods with vitamin D, and supplement with vitamin D3 in order to achieve optimal levels.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/art...

[Fanakapan]

is there anything this vitamin can't do?

Probably not, Age related Cognitive disorders, Cancer, Parkinsons, and now Diabetes, seems each passing month brings the results of another long term study revealing more potential benefits from D.

Check out Holick on the subject.

[Simpleworld]

Vitamin D is not a miracle. It is simply a nutrient that is EXTREMELY deficient in the high carbohydrate, highly processed diets most folks follow.

This is compounded by the demonization of SUNLIGHT by the modern health industry.

I started a thread on the old GIM about vitamin D3. One of the most important things to remember if you choose to supplement is that all the positive benefits involve vitamin D3 (not D2) and it appears the oil form that comes in gelcaps is best.

[Bigfoot]

Probably not, Age related Cognitive disorders, Cancer, Parkinsons, and now Diabetes, seems each passing month brings the results of another long term study revealing more potential benefits from D.

Check out Holick on the subject.

Thanks Fanakapan, great video!!

[NotTheOne]

Vitamin D is not a miracle. It is simply a nutrient that is EXTREMELY deficient in the high carbohydrate, highly processed diets most folks follow.

This is compounded by the demonization of SUNLIGHT by the modern health industry.

I started a thread on the old GIM about vitamin D3. One of the most important things to remember if you choose to supplement is that all the positive benefits involve vitamin D3 (not D2) and it appears the oil form that comes in gelcaps is best.

Also tanning oils (sunscreens) block UVB and interfere with the production of vitamin D. 10 minutes of sun, twice a week, without sunscreens will generate sufficient vitamin D. The rest will be wasted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

"When the UV index is greater than 3 (which occurs daily within the tropics and daily during the spring and summer seasons in temperate regions) adequate amounts of vitamin D3 can be made in the skin after only ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen. With longer exposure to UVB rays, an equilibrium is achieved in the skin, and the vitamin simply degrades as fast as it is generated."

[Simpleworld]

I would also theorize that the reason people with high 25-hydroxy vitamin D level are less prone to disease is because they eat more of the right foods (meats, eggs, butter, vegetables) and less of the bad stuff (grains, sugar) The vitamin D levels are simply a side effect of their superior dietary habits.

Here's a good piece by a cardiologist who uses high dose D3 supplementation along with elimination of wheat, sugar and cornstarch to quantifiably reduce arterial plaque, metabolic disorders and CHD.
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/20...vitamin-d.html

10,000 units of vitamin D

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

[Juristic Person]

Just a bump as a reminder to all to stock up on some D3 for these coming winter months where sun exposure is minimal. 2000iu/day should be a minimal daily doseage.

[Nickelless]

I take 1000 IU per day in addition to at least a quart of skim milk. I read a medical column recently that said that excessive amounts of vitamin D could be linked to muscle cramps, but I've never had any problems. I've got fibromyalgia anyway but have such a high tolerance to most pain (except migraines) that I hardly notice when I'm in pain. Come to think of it, though, I've been taking vitamin D for about four or five months and have felt great.

[Lt Dan]

Been taking 3000 iu since my last case of bronchitis in the spring. I fought it all winter last year with two times of taking antibiotics, Have not even had a cold since, and others around me have, so I don't know, maybe luck, maybe something to it. Also, seem to have more energy.