06-30-2011, 02:40 PM
|
 |
Enlightener
|
� |
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 962
|
|
Pre-diabetes and vitamin D
Commentary: Pre-diabetes and vitamin D
Quote:
Vitamin D Council
Press Release
June 30, 2011
Diabetes
We are all waiting for the 900 or so randomized controlled trials that scientists are conducting using vitamin D. This morning, researchers working at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, under the direction of Professor Anastassios Pittas, published just such a randomized controlled trial in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Their research group reported that 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D, given for 12 weeks, significantly improved pancreatic function in mildly overweight adults with pre-diabetes. Unfortunately, the lead author, Dr. Joanna Mitri, did not comment on the low dose of vitamin D they used, 2,000 IU/day, which only increased vitamin D levels from 24 to 30 ng/ml. Nor, in spite of it being a randomized controlled trial, did the authors make any new clinical recommendations for the people who paid for their study, the citizens of the United States.
In spite of the low dose and short length of their study, they found their principal outcome, a measurement of pancreatic function, increased by 300 in the vitamin D group but fell by 126 in the placebo group. I cannot link the study to PubMed as it is not yet listed there; it will be in a few days.
Joanna Mitri, Bess Dawson-Hughes, Frank B Hu, and Anastassios G Pittas. Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on pancreatic b cell function, insulin sensitivity, and glycemia in adults at high risk of diabetes: the Calcium and Vitamin D for Diabetes Mellitus (CaDDM) randomized controlled trial. AJCN. First published ahead of print June 29, 2011 as doi: 10.3945/ajcn.111.011684.
In the end, they studied 22 volunteers in the vitamin D group and 22 in the placebo group. However, to give you an idea of what a feat this study was, how difficult it was to get enough subjects, they started with 911 subjects yet ended up randomizing only 44 into the vitamin D study. They did a parallel calcium study with 45 subjects, which found calcium had no benefit on pancreatic function.
The same senior author, Professor Anastassios Pittas, recently announced the results of a much larger epidemiological study that showed for every 5 ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels, the risk of developing diabetes dropped by 8%. However, he was quick to warn that such epidemiological studies should not change clinical recommendations, only randomized controlled trials can do that. Then, when he oversees just such a randomized trial, not a word of clinical advice, only the ever-present request for more research money from the citizens of this country.
https://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20110...sk-of-diabetes
Of course the Food and Nutrition Board will say they never said levels greater than 20 ng/ml had no added benefits, only that no good evidence existed for such a benefit at the time they issued their report. Actually, if you exclude the science of epidemiology, that is still a false statement. The point is that history will record that someone was wrong. Maybe it will be me and the Vitamin D Council�s recommendation, going into its fifth year, that adults should take at least 5,000 IU per day. Or maybe it will be Professor A. Catharine Ross, of Penn*sylvania State University, the chairwoman of the recent FNB that concluded 600 IU/day is the Recommended Daily Allowance, all adults need. Looking at the study published today, it is clear that 600 IU/day would not have resulted in a significant improvement in pancreatic function.
I predict that after most of the randomized controlled trials are out � in another ten years � the FNB will meet again and say �whoops,� it should have been 5,000 IU/day all along. However, by then the premature death count will be in the millions.
John Cannell, MD
Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Road, #134
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
|
Study: Vitamin D May Cut Risk of Diabetes
Researchers Say Vitamin D May Be Useful in Protecting Against Diabetes in High-Risk People
Bear in mind that up to 10,000iu/daily of vitamin D3 poses no risk of adverse effects for adults, even if this is added to a rather high physiologic background level of vitamin D.
I'd recommend the Country Life, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 200 Softgels where the carrier oil is MCT (medium chain triglycerides) as the most stable, most easily metabolised carrier oil. An Amazon/google shopping search will find it readily available but for UK reader IHERB offers the cheapest shipping to the UK. Code WAB666 saves $5 initial discount, sharing your reward discount code helps others and makes long term supplementation more economically viable.
You'll note that 2000iu only raised levels to 30ng/ml. Getting over 40ng/ml has advantages as some people don't maximise bone mineral density till 25(OH)D is well over 40ng/ml and for some people it's only around 50ng/ml 125nmol/l that Insulin Resistance is maximally reduced by vitamin D3.
Ideally 60ng/ml is better because by that point you've actually got stored D3 in tissue and there is sufficient to ensure human breast milk is vitamin D replete, it's also the level which humans, living naked outdoors, attain/maintain vitamin D3. equilibrium.
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
|
