HealingWell
Search Close Search
☰

The Task Force strikes again

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
Posted 6/13/2012 5:36 PM (GMT 0)
I personally don't use any of these supplements, but I know a lot of guys do, so I thought the USPSTF's latest pronouncements of Vitamin D and Calcium supplements might be of interest.

The article addresses issues that affect both women and men.

Here's the link to the article:  http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-07/panel-vitamin-d-recommendations/55549414/1

Posted 6/13/2012 5:40 PM (GMT 0)
Good article. Read this same info from another news source, but it stated the same thing. For starters, more isn't often better in many cases. My oncology dietician has said this often, this is one of the problems when patients self-medicate with vitamins and supplements, that they generally don't know what they are doing, nor do they know the consequences of over-doing certain vitamins and supplements. In my opinion, its best to use such products only under your doctors specific advisement. I did the same thing with the Vitamin D a couple of years back, and when the doctor said to stop, I stopped. My level has been fine ever since.

david
Posted 6/13/2012 7:12 PM (GMT 0)
The USPSTF recommendation has a very narrow scope.  It is targetted only to postmenopausal women who self-supplement calcium/VitD for the primary purpose of preventing bone fractures.  The recommendation is based on the findings that their increased risk of heart attack exceeds the smaller benefit to bones.  There is no USPSTF recommendation related to premenopausal women, and none whatsoever for men:

"The USPSTF recommends against daily supplementation with ≤400 IU of vitamin D3 and 1,000 mg of calcium carbonate for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women."

For men, low levels of VitD has repeatedly been associated with higher likelihood of developing lethal forms of prostate cancer.  Dr Mark Scholz recommends 2000 IU per day maintenance dosage for men with PC.  Beyond this general recommendation, some doctors will prescribe a short-term "mega-dose" of VitD (tens-of-thousands of IUs) to boost ultra low levels—but only after conducting a special (although inexpensive) blood test to confirm ultra low levels of VitD—then shift to a maintenance dosage level once the VitD baseline is raised.  While less is bad, a lot more is not necessarily better, and high-doses (tens-of-thousands of IUs) should only be taken under doctor's orders.

Furthermore, all patients prescribed ADT for prostate cancer should also be aware of their normal calcium and vitamin D levels and take supplements as appropriate (after discussion with their doctors).

Excellent PCF-supported VitD work for men with PC reported on HERE.

Posted 6/13/2012 7:15 PM (GMT 0)
Just to be clear:  when I titled this thread, I didn't mean to imply anything negative about these new recommendations of the USPSTF.  It's just that they've been making a lot of about various health issues, and this particular title popped into my head.  As I said, I don't take any supplements at all.  On the other hand, I know a lot of women who take Calcium tablets on their doctors' recommendations, and I know some of the guys here on HW have talked about Calcium and Vitamin D supplementation.
Posted 6/13/2012 10:37 PM (GMT 0)
This is interesting. Shortly after I was diagnosed I had my Vitamin D tested and I was low.  Yet, I was G6.  I started taking a supplement, because I thought Vitamin D would help me combat my desease.  It then crossed my mind that, if I had low Vitamin D and a low Gleason score, then maybe I should not mess with my bodies chemistry.   So, I quit.  I have never had a broken bone in my life either.  However, as a child and threw much of my adulthood I have drank a ton of milk.  I stopped right after I was dx.  I now believe that stopping drinking milk was dumb to.   I drink it, but not as much.  I have lost weight and feel better when I don't drink as much.  Soy milk, although not really milk, feels better in my system.
Posted 6/14/2012 1:10 AM (GMT 0)
 

This is the same panel that grabbed headlines recently by recommending against PSA (prostate-specific antigen) tests to screen for prostate cancer in healthy men and told women ages 50 to 74 to have a mammogram every other year, instead of annually.

i'll keep taking my vitamin D, calcium and other supplements.  i prefer to listen to the top PC oncologists rather than a panel i already dislike and distrust.

ed

Posted 6/14/2012 1:55 AM (GMT 0)
F8, you aren't a postmenopausal woman, are you?
Posted 6/14/2012 2:05 AM (GMT 0)
F8, you aren't a postmenopausal woman, are you?

no.  but i speak for them.  do you have a problem with that cool ?

ed

 

Posted 6/14/2012 2:12 AM (GMT 0)
Chuckle, chuckle...
Posted 6/14/2012 2:20 AM (GMT 0)
Ed, I agree with you on this one. Just who is this panel, what is their real motivation, and who is really "paying" for their wisdom?

None of my doctors agree even remotely with their reccomendations.

david
Posted 6/14/2012 3:12 AM (GMT 0)
David -- there's a larger agenda at play here.  i usually am not one for vast conspiracy theories but these folks have lost all credibility with me.

ed

 

Posted 6/14/2012 3:26 AM (GMT 0)
I too, dont like to advocate or promote silly conspiracy theories either, but this has to be a planned motive with this panel, because it really doesnt make any medical sense what they are advising. it has to be about protecting someone or something, perhaps the medical insurance industry, not sure really.

I dont think many good doctors will pay any attention to their advice, I know mine dont.

david
Posted 6/14/2012 11:00 AM (GMT 0)
As a post-menopausal woman with some bone thinning in my hips (spine is fine), both my OB/GYN and primary care physician have me on 1200 mg of calcium each day and not more than 1000 IU of Vitamin D. My PCP cautioned me about taking more than 2000 IU of D each day, and said read the labels of all my vitamins as many already contain some D (such as a multi vitamin). My Vitamin D level has gone up from 28 (two years ago) to 34 (this past February). My husband's D level is at 60 according to his blood work.

I agree that self-prescribing any supplements can be a dangerous thing. My husband's cholesterol was high. Rather than go on a statin, he choose to treat it with red yeast rice, a product called Cholestoff (a nutritional supplement) plus alot of fish oil. After a few years on these, his kidney values came back elevated this year and his PCP was concerned about all the supplements he was taking and whether they were affecting his kidneys. Bottom line: the doctor said stop the supplements and go on a low dose of Lipitor.
Posted 6/14/2012 11:48 PM (GMT 0)
Sephie, your doctor has you on amounts of the supplements that are greater than the low levels which are addressed in the USPSTF recommendation.  Sorry if I'm stating the obvious and you already know this, but the recommendation is not directed to you.

Their recommendation is based on the finding that:

In postmenopausal women, there is adequate evidence that daily supplementation with 400 IU of vitamin D3 combined with 1,000 mg of calcium carbonate has no effect on the incidence of osteoporotic fractures. However, there is inadequate evidence regarding the effect of higher doses of combined vitamin D and calcium supplementation on fracture incidence in postmenopausal women.

At the low levels, the supplements do more harm (significant increased heart attack risk) than good (essentially no good)...this "trade-off" is a no-brainer which the USPSTF seeks to communicate to women. 

Heart attacks are often stereotyped as typically a "man's" health problem...but that's a myth.  It is also a leading killer of women.

For the 55-64 age group in the US, as an example, coronary heart disease is essentially tied with lung cancer as the #1 cause of death of women.  If you are not a smoker, lung cancer is obviously much less likely.  50% more women die of heart disease than the next leading cause, breast cancer.  In the 65-74 age group, coronary heart disease jumps to the sole #1, and at 75+ the gap to the #2 is huge.

 

✚ New Topic ✚ Reply