Vitamin D3 & Gleason 6. A relationship?

BillyBob@388 said...
Also keep in mind that it doesn't take much of our southern sun in the summer to generate 10,000 IU's.

Oh really...?


That's not really true based on the analysis I've seen. First of all, 10,000 IUs is a butt-load. Let's dial-it-down to analysis of what it takes for a human to absorb enough sunlight to produce 1,000 IUs Vit D. In my early days in engineering I was involved in Solar Energy research, so I've done some similar calculations on insolation incidence (no, "insolation" is not a typo).

Maybe your source (do you have a source?) has included all the relevant variables in their calculation, but there are many to consider.

As you point out, certainly latitude is one of the variables due to the sun's zenith. So is elevation; in the upper reaches of the mountains it will be different than at sea level. The time-of-day is relevant because the sun's azimuth. In fact, your surrounding grounds also can play a role due to reflection of radiation...are you at the beach (sand), on a grass lawn, on blacktop (wet has more reflection than dry), or in snow—probably not snow if you are in the south.

I'm not exactly sure where you are but the furthest south I've lived is Ft. Lauderdale, which is pretty far south in the mainland US...let's say you're there, at the beach (sand, at 10ft elevation, around mid-day). Let's just assume for simplicity that it's a beautiful cloudless day, with typical UV index and medium ozone layer thickness...just to keep it simple. Gotta pick a day of the year, too, which also affects zenith...let's pick the longest day of the year, June 22.

Then, there's the body-specific variables associated with each individual. I don't know you, so I'll use mine. I'm a blonde caucasian (well, I used to be blonde until my mid-20s after which it started turning more brown...Scandinavian blood). If you are "black," your exposure time increases a bit; at the other extreme, if you are "pale" your time decreases a bit.

So, the smart Norskes at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research have built a tool for calculating the amount of sun—given this set of variables—one would need to produce, on average, 1,000 IUs (25 mg) of Vitamin D. They actually made several models for calculating the needed hours of sunlight, but this is from the simplified one. Oh, there was one other variable worth noting which is that it is assumed that no Vit D is obtained from diet; this is, of course, not the case, but they recognize that this affects the amount your body will absorb, and an assumption had to be made for the mathematical model.

In my case (based on the variables I listed in bold above, I would need 13 hours 55 minutes of sunlight exposure to produce 1,000 IUs of Vitamin D. You can do the math to calculate what it would be for 10,000 IUs.

I don't know about you, but I'm not staying at the beach in Ft. Lauderdale on a late-June day for nearly 14 hours; being more practical, it might be safe to assume that about 100 IUs might be produced after about a hour-and-a-half at the beach...so your wild-ass guess—and I don't think it was anything more than that—was only off by a factor of about 100X. What I do is to acknowledge that I will need to accumulate Vitamin D through other sources besides the sun, although I do enjoy the out-of-doors. I eat a really good, healthy, balanced diet (almost every day), including lots of oily fish like salmon, citrus from fresh OJ plus a lime-a-day at cocktail hour, and vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower, and I also supplement with over-the-counter Vit D.

It's probably also worth noting that those smart Norskes have learned—perhaps better than others—that there are other well-being reasons for catching some rays on a nearly daily basis even if only for a little while on your lunchbreak in the middle of a cold Scandinavian winter. Cabin fever.

Post Edited (JackH) : 3/7/2017 3:15:07 PM (GMT-7)

JackH said...

BillyBob@388 said...
Also keep in mind that it doesn't take much of our southern sun in the summer to generate 10,000 IU's.

Oh really...?


That's not really true based on the analysis I've seen. First of all, 10,000 IUs is a butt-load. Let's dial-it-down to analysis of what it takes for a human to absorb enough sunlight to produce 1,000 IUs Vit D. In my early days in engineering I was involved in Solar Energy research, so I've done some similar calculations on insolation incidence (no, "insolation" is not a typo).

Maybe your source (do you have a source?) has included all the relevant variables in their calculation, but there are many to consider.

As you point out, certainly latitude is one of the variables due to the sun's zenith. So is elevation; in the upper reaches of the mountains it will be different than at sea level. The time-of-day is relevant because the sun's azimuth. In fact, your surrounding grounds also can play a role due to reflection of radiation...are you at the beach (sand), on a grass lawn, on blacktop (wet has more reflection than dry), or in snow—probably not snow if you are in the south.

I'm not exactly sure where you are but the furthest south I've lived is Ft. Lauderdale, which is pretty far south in the mainland US...let's say you're there, at the beach (sand, at 10ft elevation, around mid-day). Let's just assume for simplicity that it's a beautiful cloudless day, with typical UV index and medium ozone layer thickness...just to keep it simple. Gotta pick a day of the year, too, which also affects zenith...let's pick the longest day of the year, June 22.

Then, there's the body-specific variables associated with each individual. I don't know you, so I'll use mine. I'm a blonde caucasian (well, I used to be blonde until my mid-20s after which it started turning more brown...Scandinavian blood). If you are "black," your exposure time increases a bit; at the other extreme, if you are "pale" your time decreases a bit.

So, the smart Norskes at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research have built a tool for calculating the amount of sun—given this set of variables—one would need to produce, on average, 1,000 IUs (25 mg) of Vitamin D. They actually made several models for calculating the needed hours of sunlight, but this is from the simplified one. Oh, there was one other variable worth noting which is that it is assumed that no Vit D is obtained from diet; this is, of course, not the case, but they recognize that this affects the amount your body will absorb, and an assumption had to be made for the mathematical model.

In my case (based on the variables I listed in bold above, I would need 13 hours 55 minutes of sunlight exposure to produce 1,000 IUs of Vitamin D. You can do the math to calculate what it would be for 10,000 IUs.

I don't know about you, but I'm not staying at the beach in Ft. Lauderdale on a late-June day for nearly 14 hours; being more practical, it might be safe to assume that about 100 IUs might be produced after about a hour-and-a-half at the beach. I have, therefore, acknowledged that I will need to accumulate Vitamin D through other sources besides the sun, although I do enjoy the out-of-doors. I eat a really good, healthy, balanced diet (almost every day), including lots of oily fish like salmon, citrus from fresh OJ plus a lime-a-day at cocktail hour, and vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower, and I also supplement with over-the-counter Vit D.

It's probably also worth noting that those smart Norskes have learned—perhaps better than others—that there are other well-being reasons for catching some rays on a nearly daily basis even if only for a little while on your lunchbreak in the middle of a cold Scandinavian winter. Cabin fever.

WOW! That certainly is counter to other information I have seen over the years, and it sounds like you are NEVER going to get even the minimal amounts of vitamin D recommended by way of sunshine. But maybe your info is correct and no one else is able to get enough from the Sun either, unless enough is something way under 1000. (and yes, I do have a source or 10, but who knows if they know what they are talking about)

/www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/#

Somebody said...

It can get complicated

Specific recommendations are not easy! Skin types are different and depending on the day of year, place and time of day, recommendations vary. Let’s see how complicated it can get if we expose a quarter of our body to the sun:

At noon in Miami, an individual with skin type III would probably need about 6 minutes of exposure to the sun to make 1,000 IU of vitamin D in summer and 15 minutes in winter.
Someone with skin type V would probably need around 15 minutes in summer and 30 minutes in winter.
At noon in Boston during summer, an individual with skin type III would probably need about 1 hour of exposure to the sun to make 1,000 IU of vitamin D.
Someone with skin type V would probably need about 2 hours of exposure.
During the winter months in Boston, it’s not possible for anyone to make vitamin D from the sun, no matter their skin type.

And that’s assuming you’re exposing a quarter of your body. As you can see, there are lots of things that factor into vitamin D production. The best recommendation is to get half the sun exposure it takes for your skin to turn pink.

So, working out in the yard or laying around the pool or on the beach in the summer it would require about 1 hour for 10,000 units for some folks, others would take longer. And that is assuming only 1/4 of their body is exposed to the sun. If I am on a beach or by a pool, I am exposing probably at least 3/4 of my body, so I guess we can divide the above required times by what, about 3? So, 2 minutes for 1000 or 20 minutes for 10,000? Of course, some folks are going to require a bit more. At least according to these sources, but I can not prove they are not in error.
health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/heart/articles/2008/06/23/time-in-the-sun-how-much-is-needed-for-vitamin-d

Somebody said...
In the winter, it's impossible to produce vitamin D from the sun if you live north of Atlanta because the sun never gets high enough in the sky for its ultraviolet B rays to penetrate the atmosphere. But summer is a great time to stock up on the nutrient. When the sun's UV-B rays hit the skin, a reaction takes place that enables skin cells to manufacture vitamin D. If you're fair skinned, experts say going outside for 10 minutes in the midday sun—in shorts and a tank top with no sunscreen—will give you enough radiation to produce about 10,000 international units of the vitamin. Dark-skinned individuals and the elderly also produce less vitamin D, and many folks don't get enough of the nutrient from dietary sources like fatty fish and fortified milk.

/www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/

Somebody said...
You don’t need to tan or to burn your skin in order to get the vitamin D you need. Exposing your skin for a short time will make all the vitamin D your body can produce in one day. In fact, your body can produce 10,000 to 25,000 IU of vitamin D in just a little under the time it takes for your skin to turn pink. You make the most vitamin D when you expose a large area of your skin, such as your back, rather than a small area such as your face or arms.

I'm not sure 10,000 is really such a butt load compared to how much we must have produced for much of human history working or hunting/fishing and gathering outdoors , or later planting- all day, probably with little clothing in the tropics?

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/7/2017 3:35:16 PM (GMT-7)

tommyc said...
Ha bb, we must have googled the same thing, at about the same time.

Exact same timing!

Yes...10,000 IUs of Vit D is a butt-load.

Actually D is a hormone, mislabeled as a vitamin.

I agree that a regular check is a good idea. I have mine checked every six months. When I started my PCa treatment I was about 20. I started on 5,000iu daily and have finally gotten in the 70 range for the last two years. I also get a significant amount of sun.

I take a supplemental dose of 4500 IUs daily. And it has made a world of difference for me.

UV B is what helps your body create Vitamin D3.

UV A is the "bad" rad, this is the one that "induces" melanoma.

As for getting too much Vit D, as kids we were outside in the KS sun all day. We never got sick from too much sun.

NOTE: I'm not defending getting sun burns, just saying you will never OD by getting Vit D from the sun

Also, I read somewhere that 30000 IUs is where it becomes toxic. Sorry, I can't find the document.

This article from Mayo, says 50K IUs is too much.

www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108

Still searching

I have no real thoughts on Vitamin D other then what I've read here over a couple of years and misc. info that I never really paid much attention to. I did finally get my D checked last year around June and to my surprise I was low. I have worked outside since I was 17 in landscaping/lawn service, 40 years. I do use sun screen but I do not re-apply it after putting it on at 7am and I sweat a ton so I wouldn't think it would stop the rays from doing its D job.

When I asked my Dr. his thoughts he said almost everyone he tests in our area is low and that with the angle of the sun it is not enough to really increase the D level significantly. I was quite surprised with that response as i live in NJ near the shore areas and our summers can be pretty hot but I guess that goes to what Jack said and even the info from the D experts that have been posted here seem to relate it with direct sunlight nearer the equator for higher level of D.

Now I don't really know what if any affect there is from being below the D threshold, I don't think it's anything that I can feel. The Dr. didn't seem overly concerned and because we seemed a bit curious and concerned he recommended 2000iu of D daily. I kind of wonder a little if a large portion of the population is low in certain areas maybe they should lower the normal range a bit because maybe lower is normal....

Jim

JamesE,

One symptom I had was fatigue.
Within a short while after I started taking the supplements I had so much more energy.

It pretty simple to determine if you are getting too much sun. If you burn the skin it is too much. Suntan lotion screens the skin from vitamin D. In the summer time I spend about 40 minutes a day in the noon day sun. Does not burn my skin and gives me plenty of vitamin D. There are other benefits to the sunshine. for sure getting vitamin D from the sun is best but in the winter if you live in the northern hemisphere that is not possible unless you have access to a sunscreen.

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-5999/10-Healing-Benefits-of-the-Sun.html

alephnull said...
Last I'll say on Vit D levels

Above 10,000
/medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001594.htm

40000
www.news-medical.net/health/Vitamin-D-Overdose.aspx

Very interesting!
"Long term intakes of vitamin D above the upper limit recommended causes symptoms of toxicity. However, the intakes must be higher than about 40,000 IU/day, or the serum level of 25-hydroxy above 500-600 ng/mL, and the patient is usually also taking excessive amounts of calcium as well."

I had no symptoms with 10,000/day for a couple of months, though I backed off when my blood level was shown to be 80 ng/ml. But any above 10,000 would be higher than I would want to go, unless blood work clearly showed I needed that much. Even though this seems to be mainly warning about over 40,000 and 500 ng/ml ! I agree that seems to be a tad high! ;) ( and I wonder who would take that much? )

Also interesting from that article:

Somebody said...
The symptoms of toxicity include:

Hypercalcemic symptoms:
Such as calcification of blood vessels and tissues in the heart, kidney and other organs, called metastatic calcification or calcinosis............. A serum calcium measurement above 14 mg/dL................Hypertension.........

An anecdote: So I was taking 2000/day for a year or so, moved up to something higher when I only tested at 30, then 10,000 a day for a few months and backing off to about 5000/day when I got that 80 ng/ml reading. Sometime after all of this, though I had no symptoms and actually had a blood pressure well less than 120/70(max), my doc was worried about my cholesterol and wanted me to have a Calcium Score imaging test to quantify my heart disease risk in order to convince me to start taking statin drugs. I had the test and my score was zero, the best possible reading. A hundred would be kind of bad, 500 more so, etc. So if the 1st sign on the list for too much Vit D is calcium in your blood vessels and also a high blood calcium and hypertension, and I had no signs of any of this, then I it seems likely I had not been taking too much Vit D. Or so it seems anyway. But who ever really knows?

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 3/11/2017 12:55:39 AM (GMT-7)

This is OT re: PCa,, but some might still find it interesting(video, plus text of video copied here:
nutritionfacts.org/video/should-vitamin-d-supplements-be-taken-to-prevent-falls/?utm_source=NutritionFacts.org&utm_campaign=96f3c804f3-RSS_VIDEO_WEEKLY&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_40f9e497d1-96f3c804f3-23982641&mc_cid=96f3c804f3&mc_eid=620cd771e1

Somebody said...

Transcript: Should Vitamin D Supplements Be Taken to Prevent Falls in the Elderly?

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

We’ve known for over 400 years that muscle weakness is a common presenting symptom of vitamin D deficiency. Bones aren’t the only organs that respond to vitamin D; muscles do too. But, as we age, our muscles lose vitamin D receptors, perhaps helping to explain the loss in muscle strength as we age.

And indeed, vitamin D status does appear to predict the decline in physical performance as we age, with lower vitamin D levels linked to poorer performance. But, maybe the low vitamin D doesn’t lead to weakness; maybe the weakness leads to low vitamin D. Vitamin D is the sunshine vitamin, and so, if you’re too weak to run around outside, that could explain the correlation with lower levels. To see if it’s cause and effect, you have to put it to the test.

There’s been about a dozen randomized controlled trials: vitamin D supplements versus sugar pills. Put all the studies together, and older men and women do get significant protection from falls with vitamin D, especially among those who start out with relatively low levels, leading the conservative USPSTF, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, the official prevention guideline-setting body, and the American Geriatric Society to recommend vitamin D supplementation for those at high risk for falls.

We’re not quite sure of the mechanism, though. Randomized, controlled trials have found that vitamin D boosts global muscle strength, particularly in the quads, which are important for fall prevention—though vitamin D supplements have also been shown to improve balance. So, it may also be a neurological effect, or even a cognitive effect. We’ve known for about 20 years that older men and women who stop walking when a conversation starts are at particularly high risk of falling. Over a six-month timeframe, few of those who could walk and talk at the same time would go on to fall, but 80% of those who stopped when a conversation is initiated ended up falling.

Other high risk groups that should supplement include those who’ve already fallen once, or are unsteady, or on a variety of heart, brain, and blood pressure drugs that can increase fall risk. There’s also a test called “Get-Up-and-Go,” which anyone can do at home. You time how long it takes you “to get up from an armchair, walk 10 feet, turn around, walk back, and sit down.” If it takes you longer than ten seconds, then you may be at high risk.

So, how much vitamin D should you take? It seems to take at least 700 to a thousand units a day. The American Geriatric Society recommends a total of 4,000 a day, though, based on the rationale that this should get about 90% of people up to the target vitamin D blood level of 75 nanomoles per liter. 1,000 should do it for the majority of people, 51%, but they recommend 4,000 to capture 92% of the population. Then, you don’t have to routinely test levels, since you would get most people up there, and it’s considerably below the proposed upper tolerable intake of 10,000 a day. They do not recommend periodic megadoses.

Because it’s hard to get patients to comply with pills, why not just give people one megadose, like 500,000 units, once a year, like when you come in for your flu shot, or something? That way, every year, you can at least guarantee an annual spike in D levels that lasts a few months. It’s unnatural, but certainly convenient (for the doctor, at least). The problem is that it actually increases fall risk—a 30% increase in falls in those first three months of the spike. Similar results were found in other megadose trials. It may be a matter of “too much of a good thing.”

See, “vitamin D may improve physical performance, reduce chronic pain, and improve mood” so much that you start moving around more, and, thereby, increase fall risk. You give people a whopping dose of D, and you get a burst in physical, mental, and social functioning, and it may take time for your motor control to catch up with your improved muscle function. It would be like giving someone a sports car all of a sudden when they’ve been used to driving some beater. You gotta take it slow.

It’s possible, though, that such unnaturally high doses may actually damage the muscles. The evidence they cite in support is a meat industry study showing you can improve the tenderness of steaks by feeding steers a few million units of vitamin D. So, the concern is that such high doses may be over-tenderizing our own muscles, as well. So, yeah, higher D levels are associated with a progressive drop in fracture risk, but too much vitamin D may be harmful.

The bottom line is that vitamin D supplementation appears to help, but the strongest and most consistent evidence for prevention of serious falls is exercise. If you compare the two, yes, taking vitamin D may lower your fall risk, compared to placebo. But, strength and balance training, with or without vitamin D, may be even more powerful.

Dave, it sounds like you are doing some form of active surveillance, as you mentioned a recent psa test.

Supplements are a touchy matter. I know of another PCa forum where your post would likely have been deleted, as it is not "standard therapy".

However, I see nothing wrong with what you advocate AS LONG as you are also seeking medical advice to keep tabs on your PCa pathology.

Like so many other guys, I had a test of low D just before my first positive biopsy. Since then, I have been taking 1,000IU daily. Things haven't gotten worse, so I'm content with taking it.