The Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) of the Institute of Medicine is charged with setting the values for the Recommended Daily Allowances of various essential nutrients. However, when it comes to vitamin D, the FNB decided that "evidence is insufficient to develop an RDA and [an Adequate Intake, AI] is set at a level assumed to ensure nutritional adequacy."

The National Institutes of Health Office of Dietary Supplements lists the AI's for various groups of people:

14-18 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

19-50 years
Male 200 IU
Female 200 IU

51-70 years
Male 400 IU
Female 400 IU

71+ years
Male 600 IU
Female 600 IU

A reconsideration is apparently being planned in near-future that will (hopefully) incorporate the newest clinical data on vitamin D.

My question: Who cares what the FNB decides? Let me explain.

I monitor blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D to assess the 1) starting level of vitamin D without supplementation, and 2) levels while on supplementation, preferably every 6 months (during sunny weather, during cold weather). I have done for the past 3 years in over 1000 people.

The requirement for vitamin D dose in adults, in my experience, ranges from as low as 1000 units per day to as high as 20,000 units per day, rarely more. The vast majority of women require 5000 units per day, males 6000 units per day to maintain a blood level in the desirable range. (I aim for 60-70 ng/ml.) A graph of the distribution of vitamin D needs in my area (Milwaukee, Wisconsin) is a bell curve, a curve more heavily weighted towards the upper vitamin D dose range.

Need for vitamin D to achieve the same blood level is influenced by age, sex, body size, race, presence or absence of a gallbladder, as well as other factors. But needs vary, even among similar people. For instance, a 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 4000 units per day to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D of 65 ng/ml. Another 50-year old woman weighing 140 lbs might need 8000 units to achieve the same level, and 4000 units might increase her level to only 38 ng/ml. Two similar women, very different vitamin D needs. The differences can be striking.

Being a hormone--not a vitamin, as it was incorrectly labeled--vitamin D needs to be tightly regulated. We should have neither too little nor too much. I would liken it to thyroid hormones, which need to be tightly regulated for ideal health.

Now the FNB, in light of new data, wants to set new AI's, or even RDA's, for vitamin D for the U.S. This is an impossible--impossible--task. There is no way a broad policy can be crafted that serves everyone. It is impossible to state that all men or women, categorized by age, require X units vitamin D. This is pure folly and it is misleading.

The only rational answer for the FNB to provide is to declare that:

It is not possible to establish the precise need for vitamin D in a specific individual because of the multiplicity of factors, only some of which are known, that determine vitamin D needs. Individual need can only be determined by assessing the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D prior to initiation of replacement and periodically following replacement to assess the adequacy of replacement dose. Continuing reassessment is recommended (e.g., every 6-12 months), as needs change with weight, lifestyle, and age.

Sure, it adds around $100-150 per year per person for lab testing to assess vitamin D levels. But the health gains made--reduced fractures, reduced incidence of diabetes, reduced colon, breast, and prostate cancer, less depression, reduced heart attack and heart procedures--will more than compensate.

We use Armour thyroid almost exclusively. I take it myself.

I am thoroughly convinced that, for at least 70% of people requiring thyroid replacement, the added T3 component makes a world of difference compared to isolated T4: More energy, greater alertness, better mental clarity, better weight loss, larger effects on lipoprotein(a).

However, there are substantial price disparities in different pharmacies.

For instance, in Milwaukee, a one month supply of 1 grain (60 mg) tablets costs:

Walgreen's: $36.00

Walmart: $9.54

That's a considerable price difference of nearly 400%. It therefore always pays to do a little bit of shopping.

If you want information on how prescription drugs fit into your life, then go to WebMD.

But, if you are looking for information that cuts through the bullcrap, is untainted by the heavy-handed tactics of the drug industry, or doesn't support the "a heart catheterization for everyone" mentality, then don't go there.

A Heart Scan Blog reader turned up this gem on the WebMD site:

Should I have a coronary calcium scan to check for heart disease?

In their report, they list some reasons why a heart scan should not be obtained:

Most of the time, a physical exam and other tests can give your doctor enough information about your risk for heart disease.

You've got to be kidding me. What tests are they talking about?

EKG? An EKG is a crude test that tells us virtually nothing about the coronary arteries or risk for heart attack. It is helpful for heart rhythm disorders and other abnormalities, but virtually useless for coronary disease unless a heart attack is underway or has already occurred.

Cholesterol? What level of cholesterol tells you whether you have heart disease? Tim Russert, for instance, had the same cholesterol values 5 years before his death as on the day of his death. How would cholesterol have told his doctor that heart disease was present? Does an LDL cholesterol of 180 mg/dl tell you that someone has heart disease, while a value of 130 mg/dl does not?

Stress test? You mean like the normal stress test Bill Clinton had 3 months before his near-fatal collapse? Stress tests are a gauge of coronary flow, not of coronary atherosclerosis. Huge amounts of coronary plaque can be present while a stress test--flow--remains normal.

No, a physical exam does not uncover hidden heart disease. The annual physical is, in fact, a miserable failure for detection of hidden heart disease.

You already know that your risk for heart disease is low or high. The test works best in people who are at medium risk but have no symptoms.

This bit of fiction comes from a compromise statement in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association "consensus" document detailing the role of heart scans in heart disease detection. Because conventional thinkers don't like the idea of very early detection in seemingly "low risk" people, nor do they like the idea of diabetics and smokers getting a heart scan because it's "obvious" that they are already at high risk, the middle ground was taken: Scan only people at "intermediate risk."

What the heck is "intermediate risk"? Are you intermediate risk?

In real life, using standard criteria (e.g., Framingham scoring) to decide who is low-, intermediate-, or high-risk fails to identify over 1/3 of people with heart disease, while subjecting many without heart disease (plaque) to needless treatment (meaning statins, since that's the only real preventive treatment on most doc's armamentarium).

Another fact: Heart scans are quantitative, not just normal or abnormal. Your heart scan score could be 5, it could be 150, it could be 500, or 5000---it makes a world of difference. The risk of someone with a score of 5000 is at very different risk than someone with a score of 5. It also provides much greater precision in determining a specific individual's risk.

The test could give a high score even if your arteries aren't blocked. This might lead to extra tests that you don't need.

This is true--if you doctor has no idea what he's doing.

This is like saying that you should never take your car to the repair shop because all mechanics are crooks. If you have an unscrupulous cardiologist who tells you that your heart scan score of 25 means you are a "walking time bomb" and heart catheterization is necessary to determine whether you "need" a stent . . . well, this is no different than the shady mechanic who advises you that your car's engine needs to be rebuilt for $3000, when all you really needed was a few new spark plugs.

Coronary plaque is coronary plaque, and all coronary plaque has potential for rupture (heart attack)--even if it doesn't block flow. This is true at a score of 10, or 100, or 1000--all plaque is potentially rupture-prone, though the more plaque you have, the greater the likelihood.

Not all blocked arteries have calcium. So you could get a low calcium score and still be at risk.

They're missing the point: ANY calcium score carries risk, so a low score should not be interpreted as having no risk. But, just because a procedure like stenting or bypass surgery is not necessary to restore flow, it does not mean that risk for plaque rupture is not present--it is.

Any heart scan score should be taken seriously, meaning sufficient reason to engage in a program of heart disease prevention.

Although not perfect, coronary calcium scoring remains the easiest, most accessible, and least expensive means for identifying and quantifying coronary atherosclerosis--whether or not WebMD and drug industry money endorse them.

The media outlets are gushing with the "research"/marketing spinoff of the JUPITER trial, an analysis conducted by Dr. Erica Spatz of Yale University, that suggests that statin use should be expanded to many millions more Americans.

USA Today: Study: 11M more should get statins

MedPage: JUPITER Findings Could Boost Statin Use by 20%

Health Day: Millions More Americans Might Be Placed on Statins

WebMD: More May Benefit From Cholesterol Drugs: Study Shows More Would Qualify for Statin Treatment if Levels of C-Reactive Protein Are Considered

You may recall that the JUPITER trial (discussed previously in a Heart Scan Blog post) studied the cardiovascular event risk in people with "normal" LDL cholesterols (calculated, of course, not measured) of 130 mg/dl or less, along with increased c-reactive protein, a crude inflammatory measure, of 2.0 mg/dl or greater. A 54% (relative) reduction in cardiovascular events occured in the group taking Crestor 20 mg per day.

What I see is a confluence of events that have brought us to the "statin drugs are necessary for everybody" mentality:

--The low-fat diet advice of the last 40 years has increased non-fat or low-fat foods that increase LDL, since removing fat from the diet provokes small LDL particle production and increases the inflammatory measure, c-reactive protein (CRP).

--The proliferation of "healthy whole grains" in the diet have also caused an enormous boom in small LDL particles, which is interpreted to the uninformed as "high cholesterol." It has also provoked CRP substantially.

--The advice to reduce salt intake has brought a broad re-emergence of iodine deficiency. When thyroid hormone production flags due to lack of iodine, LDL cholesterol (both large and small) increase.

--Our lives, which are increasingly conducted indoors, have worsened the already substantial vitamin D deficiency. While deficiency of vitamin D primarily reduces HDL cholesterol and increases triglycerides, it can also cause an increase in small LDL and a large increase in CRP.

In other words, a collection of events have converged to provide the appearance of high LDL cholesterol and high CRP. This creates the appearance of a "need" for statin drugs. The JUPITER trial now exploits both the LDL-reducing and CRP-decreasing effects of statins.

I view the foisting of Crestor via the JUPITER argument on the public as taking full advantage of the helpless situation many Americans find themselves in: Reduce fat intake, eat more healthy whole grains and . . . cholesterol and CRP skyrocket! "You need Crestor! See, I told you it was genetic," says the doctor after attending the nice AstraZeneca-sponsored drug dinner.

The notion of using a drug like Crestor to suppress inflammatory patterns is absurd. There are far better, easier, cheaper ways to achieve this goal, along with dramatic reduction in cardiovascular risk. But, to the ignorant, the helpless, or non-compliant with real change in diet and lifestyle, then Crestor does serve a purpose.

I can only hope that the excessive pushing of statin drugs on the public will sooner or later trigger a revolt.

Please be aware of the ignorant propagating information they have no business talking about.

This is one such example, a newsletter from pop exercise guru, Denise Austin.

Although I'm sure she means well, I have a problem with people who have little to no experience acting as experts, often simply repeating something they heard or read somewhere else. This has become particular problem with the internet, in which bad information can get repeated thousands of times, gaining a veil of "truth" through its repetition. I don't mean to pick specifically on Ms. Austin, since she joins a growing rank of pseudo-experts on vitamin D and other topics, but she provides a good example of how far wrong mainstream information can be.

Simple Steps
Do Your D!

Calcium often gets all the glory when it comes to bone health. But calcium wouldn't benefit your bones much without its partner, vitamin D!

Why? Vitamin D helps your body absorb calcium and keeps your bones strong; without enough vitamin D, the bones become weak and brittle, a condition called rickets in children, and osteomalacia in adults. Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

Unfortunately, not too many foods contain vitamin D naturally. (Tuna and sardines canned in oil are exceptions.) The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals. You can check the Nutrition Facts panel on packages and containers to see which products contain vitamin D. It should be listed after vitamins A and C, along with the percentage of the Daily Value that a serving of the food contains. The Daily Value (a standardized amount) for vitamin D is 400 IU, so if your milk has 25 percent of the Daily Value, it provides 100 IU per serving.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week to make enough. However, because of the increasing incidence of skin cancer in recent years, many experts are wary about recommending sun exposure.

So take a closer look at milk, yogurt, cereal, and margarine selections when you're doing your weekly shopping, and stock up on brands that are fortified with vitamin D. Challenge yourself to consume one source of vitamin D at least three days in the coming week! If you cannot eat or do not like any foods that contain vitamin D or are fortified with it, talk with your health care provider ASAP about taking a supplement. Your bones will thank you for it!

Let me list the mistakes in this piece:

Adults from 19 to 50 need 200 IU (international units) per day, while those from 51 to 70 need 400 IU daily. Those over 70 need 600 IU per day.

This is the same non-information that was the advice originally offered by the Food and Nutrition Board based on a best guesstimate due to lack of data. It is clear from newer data that doses required for full restoration of vitamin D are in the thousands of units. (My personal dose for full restoration of vitamin judged by serum levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D is 8000 units per day.)

The information coming from the Food and Nutrition Board is about as good as the information coming from the USDA (you know, that "government" agency meant to represent the interests of ConAgra, Cargill, and Big Farming) and the American Heart Association (that represents consensus opinion from data 20 years out of date and now arm-in-arm with Big Food like General Mills, Kraft, and Nabisco). These agencies and the advice they offer has, over the past few years, become increasingly irrelevant and outdated. It is the Information Age, in which ulterior motives are becoming more readily exposed, yet they still operate by the rules of the Industrial Age and deliver a message that serves their own purposes.

Ms. Austin fell for it.

The good news is that many foods are now regularly fortified with vitamin D, including milk, some yogurts, margarines, and cereals.

First of all, what is a "diet expert" doing advocating industrial foods? Cereals, in particular, are among the worst foods on the supermarket shelves, whether or not they are fortified. Candy bars can be fortified, too; that doesn't make them any better for you.

The vitamin D added to these foods is, more often than not, the ergocalcferol, or D2, form that is woefully ineffective. And the dose added is trivial, usually in the 100-200 unit range per serving. The same goes for the milk, an inadequate source that we don't even factor into total intakes because of the low quantity.

Your skin can also make vitamin D using sunlight — you need about a half hour of exposure to the midday sun twice a week.

Nope. This might be true for a young person below age 30 in a southern environment. It is NOT true for the majority of people in northern climates and anyone over age 30 or 40, since we lose most of the capacity to activate vitamin D in the skin as we age. A deep, dark Florida tan does not necessarily mean that vitamin D has been activated. See A tan does not equal vitamin D. Here in Wisconsin, where, despite this darn cold winter, does enjoy wonderfully warm and beautiful summers, the average vitamin D dose need ranges from 4000-8000 units per day in summer, slightly more in winter.

By the way, it is not calcium that is instrumental to bone health. It is vitamin D. Calcium is the passive bricks and mortar of bones, while vitamin D is the bricklayer, the determinant of calcium's fate, the master control of bone health. Calcium supplementation becomes almost immaterial when vitamin D is restored.

I praise Ms. Austin for her hard work, trying to help fat Americans lose weight. But please ignore her advice on vitamin D, along with the numbing repetition of this mis-information that will likely propagate from other exercise gurus, dietitians, and pseudoexperts.

Kurt, a 50-year old businessman with a heart scan score of 323, had a :

--Conventional (calculated) LDL of 128 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL 241 mg/dl.

Laurie, a 53-year old woman who underwent a coronary bypass operation last year (before I met her), had a:

--Conventional LDL of 142 mg/dl
--Real measured LDL was 85 mg/dl.

(By "real, measured" LDL, I'm referring to LDL particle number in units of nmol/L obtained through NMR lipoprotein testing and dividing by 10, or just dropping the last digit to convert the value to mg/dl. This technique was arrived at by comparing the population distributions of these two parameters, LDL particle number and calculated LDL. This is the gold standard in my view. Similar numbers can be obtained by measuring apoprotein B, direct LDL, or calculated non-HDL, with diminishing reliability from first to last.)

In other words, Kurt's conventional LDL underestimated real LDL by 88%. Laurie's conventional LDL overestimated real LDL by 40%.

Interestingly, Laurie's doctor had insisted she take Lipitor for a high LDL cholesterol. Her real LDL was, in fact, low to begin with and benefits of a statin drug would be little to none. (Remember, in our Track Your Plaque approach, multiple other treatments are included, such as omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, vitamin D normalization, and wheat elimination, strategies that yield benefits that others expect to obtain with statins.) Laurie's real cause of her heart disease proved to have nothing to do with LDL cholesterol, but involved lipoprotein(a) and thyroid issues.

Kurt proved to have a severe preponderance of small LDL particles--the worst kind of LDL, while Laurie had none--a benign pattern.

Then how can anyone make sense of the conventional, calculated LDL cholesterol that is generally (95% of the time) provided? If accuracy can stretch to plus or minus 80% . . . you can't. Conventional LDL is a miserably inaccurate number. The problem is that obtaining a superior number requires a step or two more testing and insight, something most busy primary care doc's simply don't have in the midst of a day filled with arthritis, bronchitis, diarrhea, belly aches, and seborrhea.

Yet conventional--I call it "fictitious"--LDL serves as the basis for this $27 billion (annual revenues) industry selling statin drugs.

This is meant to be neither an argument in favor of nor against statin drugs. However, it is plain as day that any study designed to reduce LDL cholesterol will be hopelessly clouded by calculated LDL imprecision. A calculated LDL of, say, 143 mg/dl might really be 187 mg/dl, or it might be 74 mg/dl--you can't tell by looking just at LDL. Yet billions of dollars of research and billions of dollars of healthcare costs are based on the treatment of this number.

This reminds me of the mark-to-market accounting magic that helped topple Wall Street.

I don't think that the statin world is poised for such a huge downfall. But I do see this as a source of enormous dilution of the effects of statin drugs. People who barely stand to benefit get the drugs, while others who might truly benefit are treated inadequately. It provides fuel to the growing idea that reducing LDL cholesterol fails to truly provide benefit.

I am no lover of statin drugs nor drugs in general. But I am a fan of knowing the truth. Despite my bashing of the drug industry (and make no mistake: the drug industry is a cutthroat, profit-seeking, do-anything-to-increase-sales industry), I do believe that there is a role for statin drugs (though far smaller than $27 billion per year). But the usual method of selecting people for treatment is pure fiction. The ATP-III cholesterol treatment guidelines? An anemic attempt to apply structure to meaningless values.

You and I do not need to subscribe to this sort of non-quantitative nonsense.

In the Track Your Plaque program, we often resort to niacin (vitamin B3 or nicotinic acid) to:

--Raise HDL cholesterol
--Reduce the proportion of small LDL particles
--Shift HDL towards the healthy larger fraction (HDL2b or "large")
--Reduce lipoprotein(a), the most aggressive risk factor known

But niacin comes with a crazy "hot flush," a warm, prickly feeling that usually envelops the upper chest, neck and face that is, without a doubt, annoying. Around 1 in 20 people simply cannot tolerate any amount of niacin >100 mg, while others have no problem even into the 3000 mg per day or more range. (Tolerance to niacin is genetically determined, governed by the rapidity of metabolism to the niacin metabolite, nicotinuric acid.)

The niacin flush has spawned an entire panel of niacin-like scams, agents that sound like niacin or may even contain niacin, but exert no beneficial effect whatsoever:

Flush-free niacin--I have previously posted on this useless but ubiquitous preparation that often costs several times more than conventional niacin. Flush-free niacin, or inositol hexaniacinate, does indeed contain niacin, but it is not released in the human body. You simply pass it out down the toilet, where this preparation belongs in the first place.

Nicotinamide--Also called niacinamide. While the nicotinamide/niacinamide forms of vitamin B3 can be used to treat B3 deficiency ("pellagra"), they do not reproduce the lipid and lipoprotein effects of niacin. For our purposes, they are useless.

Niacin-containing heart-healthy supplements--These are the multi-supplements that contain a little of everything that might be beneficial for the heart, but none at a dose that provides genuine benefit. Don't throw your money away.

There's also a prescription niacin, Niaspan, that costs 20-fold more than the best over-the-counter preparation, Sloniacin. Niaspan has yielded hundreds of millions of dollars for the pharmaceutical industry. Your money, in my view, is far better spent on Sloniacin (around $12-14 per bottle of 100 tablets of 500 mg).

For more on niacin, here's an article I wrote for the Life Extension Magazine people a while back: Using Niacin to Improve Cardiovascular Health.

HeartHawk brought a report and debate on The Heart.Org website to my attention:

Screening for risk factors or detecting disease? Debate divides the CV community. After landing on theheart.org, paste this onto your URL address:article/883239.do. (Full address: http://www.theheart.org/article/883239.do. I don't know why, but I couldn't go there directly.)

Some interesting comments:

Dr. Jay Cohn (University of Minnesota):

"They're saying that we can't identify disease very effectively so let's just stick with risk factors, which we know are very poorly predictive and nonspecific. It boggles my mind as to why they won't open up their minds to the importance of moving forward in finding better strategies to identify the disease that we are treating. It's very strange. They criticize these disease markers because they are not predictive of events, but they are looking at very short-term outcomes. We're interested in lifetime risk. We're screening people in their 40s who are concerned about morbid events in their 60s and 70s, and no trials are going to track them that long."

"You have to accept the pathophysiologic reality that heart attacks don't occur in the absence of coronary disease, and coronary disease doesn't occur in the absence of endothelial dysfunction and vascular disease, all of which now can be identified."

". . . Can we as a society and as a profession accept the idea that there is a link between the vascular abnormalities and the events? "And that that linkage is tight enough that it should allow us to accept slowing of progression of the vascular abnormalities as an adequate marker for slowing disease progression, without waiting for events to occur? As soon as you use the word surrogate, people jump up and say we have all these markers that we know don't work well—things like premature ventricular contractions [PVCs] on the electrocardiogram, LDL, HDL—but those are not the markers we're talking about. We're talking about structural and functional changes in the blood vessel and in the heart."

Wow. The idea may be starting to catch on.

As an interesting aside, Cohn et al use a 10-test panel to screen for vascular disease:

"Named for the center's benefactor, the Rasmussen score includes tests for large and small artery elasticity (compliance), resting blood pressure, blood-pressure response to moderate treadmill exercise, optic fundus photography, carotid intimal-media thickness (IMT), microalbuminuria, electrocardiography, left ventricular (LV) ultrasonography for LV volume and mass, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Each test result is scored out of 10 for low, intermediate, or high risk, and the combined results yields a score that Cohn et al believe is more predictive than any of the existing standalone tests."

The counterarguments in this debate were provided by Dr. Philip Greenland (Northwestern University), who repeated his oft-used argument that, while he accepts that vascular disease can be identified, no one has proven that measuring it improves outcomes:

"We do have that evidence for risk-factor screening. Even though people criticize risk-factor assessment because it is not sensitive enough or not accurate enough, the interesting and curious thing is that we actually have evidence that if you go to the trouble of screening for risk factors and treating them, patients have better outcomes. We do not have that evidence for any of these other tests."

An interesting debate ensues that includes Track Your Plaque friend, Dr. William Blanchet, who characteristically argues persuasively in favor of broad screening for coronary disease with coronary calcium scoring:

"If we were doing our jobs in primary prevention, we would not need to look at improved intervention and secondary prevention to reduce coronary death."

Here's a shock: Dr. Melissa Shirley-Walton, the cardiologist who previously preached the "cath lab on every corner" argument seems to have undergone a change of heart:

"What if I walked up to a gentleman and said, "you are at risk for CAD, take a statin", to which he replies, "I'm afraid of those meds". BUT if he sees his calcium score........he is then convinced to be pro-active. What is so wrong with that? What is so wrong with allowing him to spend 250.00 US out of pocket in order to save the US 150,000.00 US later on?

No hard endpoints you say with intensive therapy for primary prevention? What about extrapolating from trials for secondary prevention like HATS? ARBITER2? And what exactly is the true definition of secondary prevention? Is it truly primary prevention if we already have intima thickness abnormalities, or fatty streaks? That would more likely fall under secondary prevention by today's new standards.

So, I'm all for any visual aid that will encourage compliance with life style change, necessary medical therapy and followup. If the patient is willing to spend 250.00$ to get a calcium score, so be it. Better yet, why not lower the price so everyone can have the option if they are motivated enough to seize an opportunity?"

I have to admit that I thought that Dr. Blanchet was wasting his time trying to persuade Shirley-Walton et al, but perhaps he is having an impact, though having hammered away at them for the last year or so.

These arguments, for me, eerily echo many previous debates I've heard. But I am encouraged by the more favorable treatment the notion of atherosclerosis screening is receiving. Just 5 years ago, all coronary calcium scoring would have received from the conventionalists is "more clinical studies are needed."

So perhaps the cardiology and medical worlds are inching slowly towards broad acceptance of screening for coronary and vascular disease.

BUT, screening is not sufficient. What do you do with the information?

Here is where the conventional-thinkers stop. The question that seems to occupy them: Perhaps we should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs a statin drug or a procedure.

I would pose a different challenge: We should screen people for hidden coronary and vascular atherosclerosis so we can better decide who needs to engage in an intensive program of disease reversal using natural means and as little medication and procedures as possible.

Well, perhaps in time.

Here's a recipe to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Others have done it and you can do it, too!

1) Identify a nutritional supplement that works.

Find some agent deemed to fall within the broad allowances of the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act . However, because this agent is already in the public domain and is essential non-patent-protectable, you may need to develop some patent protectable aspect of its production, application, or encapsulation. This patent-protected aspect may or may not provide genuine advantage, but that's not your concern. Your concern is protecting your investment and providing the appearance of exclusivity.

2) Identify a medical indication for your product.

Choose a disease or condition that is likely to yield unquestioned efficacy, e.g., omega-3 fatty acids to reduce high triglycerides in people with familial hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides >500 mg/dl). While this will restrict your ability to make market claims, it will not restrain your ability to sell or allow use of your agent for "off-label" applications. In fact, there are methods to surreptitiously promote the use of your product for off-label use, such as hiring experts to discuss the science behind your product with doctors who can prescribe your product. Ideally, your product's primary indication will provide a substantial market on its own to justify your investment. However, the eventual off-label sales can be substantial, even outstripping the sales generated through your primary indication.

3) Obtain at least $230 million to pay for the clinical trials required to obtain FDA approval.

You will also have to raise the capital to build the business to manufacture, distribute, and sell your product.

4) After FDA approval is obtained, your business is up and running, and distribution begins, start bashing the non-FDA-approved nutritional products that stand to compete in your market.

You could point out that only your product has actually passed through the rigorous FDA process. You could make claims regarding purity, potency, "approved by your doctor," etc., whether or not there is any truth behind the claim.

5) Buy that second vacation home in Aspen and the corporate jet you've been dreaming about! After all the risks you've taken, you deserve it!

That's it, plain and simple. It is a tried-and-true formula that has been applied many times.

It is a formula like this that brought Lovaza-brand omega-3 fatty acids to market, Niaspan brand of niacin, ergocalciferol form of vitamin D, Folbee (prescription combination B vitamins), with a slightly different spin for Synthroid (since the Armour Thyroid it is meant to replace is not a nutritional supplement, but a low-cost, generic thyroid replacement).

Whatever you do, don't EVER run a head-to-head comparative trial of your agent versus the nutritional supplement competition. For instance, NEVER compare Lovaza to supplemental fish oil capsules, matched milligram-for-milligram for EPA and DHA content. NEVER compare Niaspan to over-the-counter Sloniacin. NEVER compare Armour Thyroid to Synthroid. You never know what you might find. (Psssssttt! They might be equivalent!)

The formula is not a foolproof road paved with riches, however. There have been market failures, as well. Folbee, for instance, is hardly a household name. So there's risk involved, no question about it. But, should it all work out, the payoff can be big, VERY big, as it has been for Niaspan and Lovaza.

So, start thinking about how you might follow this formula for:

1) Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3)--e.g., for osteopenia, low HDL, or high c-reactive protein
2) Vitamin K2--also for osteopenia
3) Magnesium--for suppression of ventricular arrhythmias (especially Torsade de Pointes)
4) Iodine--for goiter and iodine deficiency
5) Vitamin C--for uric acid reduction

Who said you can't turn lead into gold?

You can always count on Dr. John Cannell for unique perspectives on vitamin D. I reprint here his unfailingly entertaining and informative Vitamin D Newsletter on whether vitamin D replacement enhances physical performance.

The whole vitamin D "discovery" sometimes worries me. Vitamin D has proven to be an unbelievable, remarkable, dramatic boon to health, including facilitation in dropping CT heart scan scores. Yet the answer was always right in front of us. It worries me that you and I might have the answer to important questions right within our grasp all along--but don't know it. What if the same were true, say, for cancer? That is, a profound answer is right there, but our eyes just pass right over it.

Anyway, we should all keep our eyes open and perhaps you and I will continue to identify the most powerful tools available that return control over heart disease to us and take it away from the perverse, procedural hospital formula that still reigns.

If you haven't done so already, be sure to visit Dr. Cannell's website, www.vitamindcouncil.com.

The Vitamin D Newsletter
March, 2007

Peak Athletic Performance and Vitamin D

"No way doc." I had just finished telling my patient about the benefits of vitamin D, telling him he should take 4,000 IU per day, using all the techniques I had learned in 30 years of medical practice to convince someone proper treatment is important. But, he knew the U.S. government said he only needed 200 IU per day, not 4,000. He also knew the official Upper Limit was 2,000 IU a day. "What are you trying to do doc, kill me?" I told him his 25(OH)-vitamin D blood test was low, only 13 ng/ml. He had read about that too, in a medical textbook, where it said normal levels are between 10 and 40 ng/ml. "I'm fine doc;" adding "Are you in the vitamin business?" I explained I was not; that the government used outdated values; that recent studies indicate ideal 25(OH)D levels are about 50 ng/ml; and that they indicated that he needed about 4,000 IU per day to get his level up to 50. "No thanks doc, I'm fine."

So I tried a different tact. I brought him copies of recent press articles. "Look," I said, "look at these." Science News called vitamin D the Antibiotic Vitamin. The Independent in England says vitamin D explains why people die from influenza in the winter, and not the summer. U.S. News and World Report says almost everyone needs more. Newsweek says it prevents cancer and helps fight infection. In four different recent reports, United Press International says that: it reduces falls in the elderly, many pregnant women are deficient , it reduces stress fractures, and that it helps heals wounds.

He glanced at the articles, showing a little interest in stress fractures. Then he told me what he was really thinking. "Look doc, all this stuff may be important to old guys like you. I'm 22. All I care about are girls and sports. When I get older, maybe I'll think about it. I'm too young to worry about it. I'm in great condition." I couldn't argue. He was in good health and a very good basketball player, playing several hours every day, always on indoor courts.

What could I do to open his eyes? As an African American, his risk of early death was very high, although the risk for blacks doesn't start to dramatically increase until their 40's and 50's. Like all young people, he saw himself as forever young. The U.S. government was no help, relying on a ten-year-old report from the Institute of Medicine that is full of misinformation.

I tired to tell him that the 200 IU per day the U.S. government recommends for 20-year-olds is to prevent bone disease, not to treat low vitamin D levels like his. I pointed out the U.S. government's official current Upper Limit of 2,000 IU/day is the same for a 300 pound adult as it is for a 25 pound toddler. That is, the government says it's safe for a one-year-old, 25-pound, child to take 2,000 IU per day but it's not safe for a 30-year old, 300-pound, adult to take 2,000 and one IU a day. I mean, whoever thought up these Upper Limits must have left their thinking caps at home. Nevertheless, nothing worked. My vitamin D deficient patient was not interested in taking any vitamin D.

What are young men interested in? I remembered that he had told me: "Sex and sports." Two years ago I had researched the medical literature looking for any evidence vitamin D enhanced sexual performance. Absolutely nothing. That would have been nice. Can you imagine the interest?

Then I remembered that several readers had written to ask me if vitamin D could possibly improve their athletic performance? They told me that after taking 2,000 to 5,000 IU per day for several months, they seemed just a little faster, a little stronger, maybe had a little better balance and timing. A pianist had written to tell me she even played a better piano, her fingers moved over the keys more effortlessly! Was vitamin D responsible for these subtle changes or was it a placebo effect? That is, did readers just think their athletic performance improved because they knew vitamin D was a steroid hormone precursor (hormone, from the Greek, meaning "to set in motion")?

The active form of vitamin D is a steroid (actually a seco-steroid) in the same way that testosterone is a steroid and vitamin D is a hormone in the same way that growth hormone is a hormone. Steroid hormones are substances made from cholesterol, which circulate in the body, and work at distant sites by "setting in motion" genetic protein transcription. That is, both vitamin D and testosterone regulate your genome, the stuff of life. While testosterone is a sex steroid hormone, vitamin D is a pleomorphic (multiple function) steroid hormone.

All of a sudden, it didn't seem so silly. Certainly steroids can improve athletic performance although they can be quite dangerous. In addition, few people are deficient in growth hormone or testosterone, so when athletes take sex steroids or growth hormone they are cheating, or doping. The case with vitamin D is quite different because natural vitamin D levels are about 50 ng/ml and, since almost no one has such levels, extra vitamin D is not doping, it's just good treatment. I decided to exhaustively research the medical literature on vitamin D and athletic performance. It took me over a year.

To my surprise, I discovered that there are five totally independent bodies of research that all converge on an inescapable conclusion: vitamin D will improve athletic performance in vitamin D deficient people (and that includes most people). Even more interesting is who published this literature, and when. Are you old enough to remember when the Germans and Russians won every Olympics in the 60's and 70's? Well, it turns out that the most convincing evidence that vitamin D improves athletic performance was published in old German and Russian medical literature.

With the help of my wife and mother-in-law, both of whom are Russian, and with the help of Marc Sorenson, whose book Solar Power is a must read, I finally was able to look at translations of much of the old Russian and German literature. When one combines that old literature with the modern English language literature on neuromuscular performance, the conclusion is inescapable. The readers who wrote me are right.

If you are vitamin D deficient, the medical literature indicates that the right amount of vitamin D will make you faster, stronger, improve your balance and timing, etc. How much it will improve your athletic ability depends on how deficient you are to begin with. How good an athlete you will be depends on your innate ability, training, and dedication. However, peak athletic performance also depends upon the neuromuscular cells in your body and brain having unfettered access to the steroid hormone, activated vitamin D. In addition, how much activated vitamin D is available to your brain, muscle, and nerves depends on having ideal levels of vitamin D in your blood - about 50 ng/ml, to be precise.

Why would I write about such a frivolous topic like peak athletic performance when cancer patients all across this land are dying vitamin D deficient? Like many vitamin D advocates, I have been disappointed that the medical profession and the public don't seem to care about vitamin D. Maybe people, like my young basketball player, will care if it makes better athletes. So, Hey! You jocks! Listen up! I'm talking speed, balance, choice reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. Important stuff. Here's the Vitamin D Council's first ever sports quiz.

1. Vitamin D-producing UVB radiation improves athletic performance and may have been widely practiced by German and Russian Olympic athletes in the 1960's and 70's.

True. I found tantalizing evidence the Russians and especially the Germans were on to this during the 60's and 70's when those two nations took turns placing number one and number two in the Olympics every year?

For example, in 1938, Russian researchers reported that a course of ultraviolet irradiations improved speed in the 100-meter dash in college students compared to matched controls, both groups undergoing daily training. Average 100-meter dash times decreased from 13.51 seconds to 13.28 seconds in the non-irradiated controls, but from 13.63 seconds to 12.62 seconds in the irradiated students. Here we see training improved times but training and irradiation improved times much more. Obviously, irradiation or vitamin D would not render the same magnitude of improvements in world-class sprinters, but they would be happy with a few milliseconds.

Gorkin Z, Gorkin MJ, Teslenko NE. [The effect of ultraviolet irradiation upon training for 100m sprint.] The Journal of Physiology of the USSR [Fiziol, z. (RSSR)] 1938; 25: 695-701. (In Russian)

If you want to know what early German thinking was on this, read this summation of the German literature:

"It is a well-known fact that physical performance can be increased through ultra-violet irradiation. In 1927, a heated argument arose after the decision by the German Swimmers' Association to use the sunlamp as an artificial aid, constituting an athletic unfairness, doping, so to speak. In 1926, Rancken had already reported the improving effect of sunlamp irradiation on muscle work with the hand-dynamo-graph. Heib observed an improvement in swimming times after repeated irradiations. In thorough experiments, Backmund showed that a substantial increase in muscle activity happens after radiation of larger portions of the body with an artificial sunlamp; that this performance increase is not caused through local - direct or indirect - effects on the musculature, but through a general effect. This general effect, triggered by ultra-violet irradiation, is caused by a systemic effect on the nervous system." (p. 17)

Parade GW, Otto H. Die beeinflussung der leistungsfahigkeit durch Hohensonnenbestrahlung. Zeitschrift fur Klinische Medizin (Z Klin Med),1940;137:17-21 [In German]

In 1945, two Americans measured the cardiovascular fitness and muscular endurance of 11 male Illinois subjects undergoing training in an indoor physical education class, comparing them to 10 matched controls. Both groups underwent similar physical training. Treatment consisted of ultraviolet irradiation, given in the nude, up to two minutes per session, three times per week, for ten weeks in the late fall and winter. After ten weeks, the treatment group had a 19% standard score gain in cardiovascular fitness compare to a 2% improvement in the control students. To regular readers of this newsletter, it should come as no surprise that the un-irradiated control group reported twice as many viral respiratory infections as the treatment group.

Allen R, Cureton T. Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Physical Fitness. Arch Phys Med 1945: 10: 641-44.

In 1952, the German sports medicine researcher, Spellerberg, reported on the effects of wholesale irradiation of athletes studying and training at the Sports College of Cologne - including many elite athletes - with a "central sun lamp." He irradiated the athletes in their bathing suits, on both sides of their bodies, for up to ten minutes, twice a week, for 6 weeks. He reported a "convincing effect" on athletic performance and a 50% reduction in sports injuries. Results were particularly impressive for swimmers, soccer, handball, hockey, and tennis players, as well as for boxers and most track and field athletes. He reported that irradiation leading to burns, further irradiation of athletes having achieved peak performance, and irradiation within 24 hours of competition, all impaired athletic performance. Their results were so convincing, the Sports College of Cologne officially notified the "national German and International Olympic committee." (p. 570)

Spellerberg AE. [Increase of athletic effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 567-70. [In German]

In 1952, Ronge exposed 120 German schoolchildren to UV lights installed in classrooms and compared them to 120 un-irradiated control children. Over a two-year period - excluding summer vacations - he tested both groups with a series of six cardiovascular fitness tests using a bike ergometer. Un-irradiated children showed a distinct seasonality in fitness, with the highest values right after summer break and the lowest values in the spring. Treated children showed no seasonal differences in physical performance. Differences in work performance between the irradiated and un-irradiated children were most conspicuous in the spring with 56% difference between the two groups. In a final experiment, he gave 30 children in the control classrooms 6.25 mg (250,000 IU) of vitamin D as a single dose in February and found their performance had "increased considerably," one month later but did not report the actual numbers. He concluded that vitamin D, either as a supplement or induced via UV irradiation, improved physical performance.

Ronge HE. [Increase of physical effectiveness by systematic ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie 1952; 88: 563-6. [In German]

In 1954, another researcher, at the Max-Planck Institute for Industrial Physiology in Dortmund, Germany, administered three different wavelengths of UV light over 8 weeks to university students. He found that ultraviolet light in the vitamin D-producing UVB range was consistently effective in reducing resting pulse, lowering the basal metabolic rate, and increasing athletic performance. UVA had no effect; interestingly, artificial UVC irradiation (the atmosphere normally completely filters out UVC radiation and thus it's not naturally present on earth) also gave some positive results.

Lehmann G. [Significance of certain wave lengths for increased efficacy of ultraviolet irradiation.] Strahlentherapie. 1954 Nov;95(3):447-53. [In German]

In 1956, Hettinger and Seidel irradiated seven subjects in two different experiments: athletic performance on bike-ergometers and forearm muscle strength. They found that UV radiation induced a significant improvement in both muscle strength and athletic performance.

Hettinger T, Seidl E. [Ultraviolet irradiation and trainability of musculature.] Internationale Zeitschrift für angewandte Physiologie, einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiologie 1956; 16: 177-83. [In German]

Another German researcher, at the Institute for Medical Physics and Biophysics at the University of Gottiingen, studied reaction times (the time needed to recognize a light and switch it off) during October and November in a series of controlled experiments on 16 children and an unspecified number of adults. He first controlled for practice effects (getting better by practicing) and then administered nine full-body UV radiation treatments over three weeks to the two treatment groups, using placebo radiation in the two control groups. UV radiation improved choice reaction time by 25% in children and 20% in adults while reaction time worsened in controls. The improvements in the irradiated groups peaked at the end of the three weeks of UV treatments and reverted to baseline levels three weeks later. In the two control groups, he found distinctly improved reaction times in the sunnier months.

Sigmund R. [Effect of ultraviolet rays on reaction time in man.] Strahlentherapie. 1956; 101: 623-9. [In German]

The next study threw me because it was very well conducted, meticulously designed, and completely negative. In 1963, Berven reported on the effects of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin D supplementation in a group of 30 Stockholm schoolchildren, aged 10 -11, comparing them to appropriate controls. He found no seasonality of fitness in the control group and no effect from either irradiation or two different vitamin D supplementation protocols (1500 IU of cholecalciferol daily for two months and a single dose of 400,000 IU of ergocalciferol) on performance on a bike ergometer.

Berven H. The physical working capacity of healthy children; seasonal variations and effect of ultraviolet irradiation and vitamin-D supply. Acta paediatrica. Supplementum 1963; 148: 1-22.

However, two things were not right and got me thinking. One, Berven found no seasonality of physical fitness and was the only author who found no such seasonal variations in athletic performance. Second, he found no effect from irradiation, again, the only author. Then I realized he was working with Swedish children in the late 1950's. Supplementation of children with high doses of vitamin D - often as cod liver oil - was routine in Scandinavia in the past, particularly in children. For example, in neighboring Finland, the official recommended daily dose of vitamin D for children - including infants - was 4,000 IU per day until 1964, when authorities reduced it to 2,000 IU/day. (That's right, you read that correctly, 4,000 IU per day for infants, which is too much by the way.)

In 1975, Finnish authorities reduced it to 1,000 IU per day, and, in 1992, to 400 IU per day. I emailed Professor Elina Hypponen who confirmed that the Swedish recommendations were similar to the Finnish ones. Therefore, it seems highly unlikely that many of Berven's Swedish children, studied in 1958 and 1959, all from "families with a good standard of living," were vitamin D deficient. Therefore, this study showed that vitamin D will not improve athletic ability in vitamin D replete people. That's very important because it indicates more is not necessarily better. More is only better if you are not taking enough.

Hypponen E, et al. Intake of vitamin D and risk of type 1 diabetes: a birth-cohort study. Lancet. 2001 Nov 3;358(9292):1500-3.

In the 1960's, three American researchers conducted experiments with university students. Rosentswieg studied the effects of a single six-minute dose of UV light on each side of the trunk in 23 college women, recording changes in various tests of muscle strength at one and five hours. He found a trend towards significance after five hours in white but not African American students. In 1968, Cheatum found that a six-minute administration of UV light, on each side of the trunk, increased the speed of 15 college women in the 30-yard dash. In 1969, Rosentswieg found a six-minute dose of UV light, on each side of the trunk, finding improved performance on a bicycle ergometer in college women. However, unlike the Germans and Russians, I could find no evidence that any of these American findings interested any American professionals involved in the care or training of athletes.

Rosentsweig J. The effect of a single suberythemic biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the strength of college women. J Assoc Phys Ment Rehabil. 1967 Jul-Aug;21(4):131-3.

Cheatum BA. Effects of a single biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the speed of college women. Res Q. 1968 Oct;39(3):482-5.

Rosentswieg J. The effect of a single suberythemic biodose of ultraviolet radiation upon the endurance of college women. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 1969 Jun;9(2):104-6.

2. Athletic performance peaks in the summer when vitamin D levels peak, and is at its lowest in the winter when vitamin D levels are at their lowest.

A. True
B. False

True. The studies below - all I could find in the literature - show tests of physical performance peak in the summer, when vitamin D levels peak, start to decline in early autumn, as vitamin D levels decline, and athletic performance reaches its lowest point in late winter, when vitamin D levels bottom out. However, it is reasonable to assume that any associations between athletic performance and summer season may be due to "reverse causation." That is, improved athletic performance in the summer might be secondary to increased outdoor physical and recreational activity in the warmer weather with an indoor sedentary lifestyle during the colder months. Maybe people have better athletic ability in the summer because they exercise more. If that is true - and using the same logic - athletic performance should not begin to decline until late autumn, because at most temperate latitudes early fall weather is ideal for outdoor physical activities.

However, some of the studies below controlled for seasonal variations in time spent exercising. Furthermore, besides a consistent positive association of summer season with improved athletic performance, the below studies found an abrupt - and unexplained - reduction in athletic performance beginning in the early fall - when vitamin D levels decline - but when the weather is ideal for outdoor activities.

For example, in 1956, German researchers found a distinct seasonal variation in the trainability of musculature, studying wrist flexor strength in 21 German subjects undergoing daily training. They found highly significant seasonal differences with peak performance during the later part of the summer, nadirs in the winter, and an unexplained sharp autumn decline beginning in October.

Hettinger T, Muller EA. Seasonal course of trainability of musculature. Int Z Angew Physiol. 1956;16(2):90-4.

A study of Polish pilots and crew found physical fitness and tolerance to hypoxia were highest in the late summer with an unexplained sharp decline starting in September. The authors hypothesized that seasonal variations in an unidentified hormone best explained their results.

Kwarecki K, Golec L, Klossowski M, Zuzewicz K. Circannual rhythms of physical fitness and tolerance of hypoxic hypoxia. Acta Physiol Pol. 1981 Nov-Dec;32(6):629-36.

Cumulative work ability among 1,835 mainly sedentary Norwegian men during bicycle exercise tests showed an August peak, a sharp decline starting in the autumn, and a wintertime nadir. There were no seasonal changes in body weights, as might be expected if more caloric-demanding recreational activity during the sunnier months explained their results.

Erikssen J, Rodahl K. Seasonal variation in work performance and heart rate response to exercise. A study of 1,835 middle-aged men. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979 Oct;42(2):133-40.

Koch and Raschka reviewed the mostly German literature on the seasonality of physical performance, discussing studies indicating that muscle strength and stamina peak in the late summer. The authors then attempted to control for seasonal variations in the time spent exercising by instituting a controlled yearlong training regimen, beginning in December. The training regimen consisted of at least 20 push-ups per day and 2 or 3 long-distances races per week for the entire year. They found the both the number of push-ups and muscle strength peaked in late summer followed by a rapid decline in the fall, and a nadir in the winter, despite continued training. They concluded that seasonal variations in an unidentified hormone best explained their results. In addition, by now we all know that vitamin D is a seasonal hormone, and a steroid hormone precursor to boot.

Koch H, Raschka C. Circannual period of physical performance analysed by means of standard cosinor analysis: a case report. Rom J Physiol. 2000 Jan-Dec;37(1-4):51-8.

3. Vitamin D has direct muscle-building (anabolic) effects.

A. True
B. False

True, but only in vitamin D deficient subjects. Both animal and human studies have found that vitamin D directly affects muscle. That is, vitamin D increases muscle mass.

For example, Birge and Haddad found that vitamin D caused new protein synthesis in rat muscle.

Birge SJ, Haddad JG. 25-hydroxycholecalciferol stimulation of muscle metabolism. J Clin Invest. 1975 Nov;56(5):1100-7.

What about humans? In 1981, Young performed muscle biopsies on 12 severely vitamin D deficient patients before and after vitamin D treatment. They found type-II (fast-twitch) muscle fibers were small before treatment and significantly enlarged after treatment. Sorensen performed muscle biopsies on eleven older patients with osteoporosis before and after treatment with vitamin D. The percentage and area of fast twitch fibers increased significantly after treatment, despite the lack of any physical training.

Young A, Edwards R, Jones D, Brenton D. Quadriceps muscle strength and fibre size during treatment of osteomalacia. In: Stokes IAF (ed) Mechanical factors and the skeleton. 1981. pp 137-145.

Sorensen OH, Lund B, Saltin B, Lund B, Andersen RB, Hjorth L, Melsen F, Mosekilde L. Myopathy in bone loss of ageing: improvement by treatment with 1 alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol and calcium. Clin Sci (Lond). 1979 Feb;56(2):157-61.

Sato reported that two years of treatment with 1,000 IU of vitamin D per day significantly increased muscle strength, doubled the mean diameter, and tripled the percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers, in the functional limbs of 48 severely vitamin D deficient elderly stroke patients. The placebo control group suffered declines in muscle strength, and in the size and percentage of fast-twitch muscle fibers.

Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Kanoko T, Satoh K. Low-Dose Vitamin D Prevents Muscular Atrophy and Reduces Falls and Hip Fractures in Women after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005 Jul 27;20(3):187-192 [Epub ahead of print]

These studies clearly show that vitamin D when administered to vitamin D deficient people stimulates the growth and number of those muscle fibers critical to athletic ability, type-2, or "fast twitch," muscle fibers.

4. Many studies have found direct associations between physical performance and vitamin D levels. That is, the higher your vitamin D level, the better your athletic performance.

A. True
B. False

True. I found 13 positive studies of associations between vitamin D levels and various parameters of neuromuscular performance. However, they were all in old people. Of course, old people can be athletes too. Furthermore, age differences in physiology and pharmacology are quantitative, not qualitative. That is, what is true in old people will be true in young people, although the magnitude might be different. Higher vitamin D levels are associated with a wide variety of athletic performance but appear to have the strongest associations with balance, timing, and timed tests of physical performance.

The three largest studies had more than 7,000 elderly subjects. All found evidence of a vitamin D threshold of between 30 - 50 ng/ml, above which further improvements in athletic performance were not seen. Wicherts and her colleagues found a linear correlation between vitamin D and neuromuscular performance; scores were 78% better for those with vitamin D levels greater than 30 ng/ml compared to those with levels less than10 ng/ml.

Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Dietrich T, Orav EJ, Hu FB, Zhang Y, Karlson EW, Dawson-Hughes B. Higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations are associated with better lower-extremity function in both active and inactive persons aged > or =60 y. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Sep;80(3):752-8.

Gerdhem P, Ringsberg KA, Obrant KJ, Akesson K. Association between 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, physical activity, muscle strength and fractures in the prospective population-based OPRA Study of Elderly Women. Osteoporos Int. 2005 Nov;16(11):1425-31.

Wicherts IS, et al. Vitamin D status predicts physical performance and its decline in older persons. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Mar 6; [Epub ahead of print]

Professor Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, now in Switzerland, did the largest study. She and her colleagues found a strong positive correlation and suggestion of a U-shaped curve with athletic performance on one test peaking with vitamin D levels of 50 ng/ml but deteriorating at higher levels. It is interesting to speculate that levels around 50 ng/ml may be optimal for athletic performance as such levels are common in humans living in a "natural" state of sun-exposure, such as lifeguards or tropical farmers.

Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Urscheler N, Ehrsam R, Vonthein R, Perrig-Chiello P, Tyndall A, Theiler R. Muscle strength in the elderly: its relation to vitamin D metabolites. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Jan;80(1):54-8.

Interestingly, all three studies that looked for an association between mental abilities and vitamin D levels found one. A fourth study, unrelated to athletic function, also found an association. The obvious explanation for these findings is that cognitively impaired patients do not go outdoors as often as higher functioning patients and thus have lower vitamin D levels. However, Dhesi found the association after excluding all but mildly demented patients, making such an explanation more difficult. Flicker and - more recently - Przybelski and Binkley, found the association after controlling for outdoor activities, raising the possibility that the association of vitamin D levels with cognitive abilities is casual. Both the vitamin D receptor and the enzyme necessary to activate vitamin D are present in a wide-variety of human brain tissue. If vitamin D deficiency impairs cognitive abilities, it is likely that such deficiencies will also impair the brain's ability to process the complex circuits needed for peak athletic performance.

Dhesi JK, Bearne LM, Moniz C, Hurley MV, Jackson SH, Swift CG, Allain TJ. Neuromuscular and psychomotor function in elderly subjects who fall and the relationship with vitamin D status. J Bone Miner Res. 2002 May;17(5):891-7.

Kenny AM, Biskup B, Robbins B, Marcella G, Burleson JA. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on strength, physical function, and health perception in older, community-dwelling men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Dec;51(12):1762-7.

Flicker L, Mead K, MacInnis RJ, Nowson C, Scherer S, Stein MS, Thomasx J, Hopper JL, Wark JD. Serum vitamin D and falls in older women in residential care in Australia. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Nov;51(11):1533-8.

Przybelski RJ, Binkley NC. Is vitamin D important for preserving cognition? A positive correlation of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration with cognitive function. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2007 Jan 8;

There can be no doubt that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved athletic performance in the elderly. From what we know of physiology and pharmacology, the same associations should hold true in young people, including young athletes.

5. Numerous studies have found that vitamin D improves physical performance.

A. True
B. False.

True, but, again, most all the studies are in old persons, not young ones, and none of the studies are in world-class athletes. However, there is no medical reason why vitamin D would improve the athletic performance of vitamin D deficient old people but not vitamin D deficient young ones. Eleven studies found vitamin D improved physical performance, mainly on measures of balance and reaction time. The one study of younger subjects showed dramatic physical performance effects in 55 severely vitamin D deficient women.

Sorensen OH, Lund B, Saltin B, Lund B, Andersen RB, Hjorth L, Melsen F, Mosekilde L. Myopathy in bone loss of ageing: improvement by treatment with 1 alpha-hydroxycholecalciferol and calcium. Clin Sci (Lond). 1979 Feb;56(2):157-61.

Gloth FM 3rd, Smith CE, Hollis BW, Tobin JD. Functional improvement with vitamin D replenishment in a cohort of frail, vitamin D-deficient older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1995 Nov;43(11):1269-71.

Glerup H, Mikkelsen K, Poulsen L, Hass E, Overbeck S, Andersen H, Charles P, Eriksen EF. Hypovitaminosis D myopathy without biochemical signs of osteomalacic bone involvement. Calcif Tissue Int. 2000 Jun;66(6):419-24.

Prabhala A, Garg R, Dandona P. Severe myopathy associated with vitamin D deficiency in western New York. Arch Intern Med. 2000 Apr 24;160(8):1199-203.

Verhaar HJ, Samson MM, Jansen PA, de Vreede PL, Manten JW, Duursma SA. Muscle strength, functional mobility and vitamin D in older women. Aging (Milano). 2000 Dec;12(6):455-60.

Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Minne HW, Abrams C, Nachtigall D, Hansen C. Effects of a short-term vitamin D and calcium supplementation on body sway and secondary hyperparathyroidism in elderly women. J Bone Miner Res. 2000 Jun;15(6):1113-8.

Bischoff HA, Stahelin HB, Dick W, Akos R, Knecht M, Salis C, Nebiker M, Theiler R, Pfeifer M, Begerow B, Lew RA, Conzelmann M. Effects of vitamin D and calcium supplementation on falls: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Miner Res. 2003 Feb;18(2):343-51.

Dhesi JK, Jackson SH, Bearne LM, Moniz C, Hurley MV, Swift CG, Allain TJ. Vitamin D supplementation improves neuromuscular function in older people who fall. Age Ageing. 2004 Nov;33(6):589-95.

Sato Y, Iwamoto J, Kanoko T, Satoh K. Low-Dose Vitamin D Prevents Muscular Atrophy and Reduces Falls and Hip Fractures in Women after Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2005 Jul 27;20(3):187-192 [Epub ahead of print]

In summary, five converging - but totally separate - lines of scientific evidence leave little doubt that vitamin D improves athletic performance. (I actually left out a sixth line of evidence, something a little more complicated, studies of muscle strength and vitamin D receptor polymorphisms; the two studies I could find were both positive.) Anyway, the scientific evidence that UVB radiation, either from the sun or from sunbeds, will improve athletic performance is overwhelming and the mechanism is almost certainly vitamin D production. Peak athletic performance will probably occur with 25(OH)D levels of about 50 ng/ml, whether from sun, sunbeds, or supplements.

All that is missing is a big-time professional or college team identifying and then treating their elite athletes who are vitamin D deficient. Can you imagine what such performance-enhancing effects would do for basketball players, most of who are African American and who practice and play indoors all winter? Or gymnasts? Or weight lifters?

However, a word of caution. The above studies suggest that taking too much vitamin D (more than 5,000 IU per day) may actually worsen athletic performance. Take the right amount, not all you can swallow. Take enough to keep your 25(OH)D levels around 50 ng/ml, year round. Easier yet, regularly use the sun in the summer and sunbeds in the winter - with care not to burn. Once a week should be about right.

When you think about it, none of this should surprise anyone. Every body builder knows that steroid hormones can improve athletic performance, certainly increase muscle mass. Barry Bonds knows they increase timing and power. Moreover, activated vitamin D is as potent a steroid hormone as exists in the human body. However, unlike other steroids, levels of activated vitamin D in muscle and nerve tissue are primarily regulated by sun exposure. That's right, the rate-limiting step for the cellular function (autocrine) of activated vitamin D is under your control. It depends on how much you put in your both or go into the sun. It's ironic that many athletes now avoid the sun, organized baseball is even promoting sun avoidance and sunblocks. The ancient Greeks knew better; they had there elite athletes train on the beach and in the nude.

The medical literature indicates vitamin D levels of about 50 ng/ml are associated with peak athletic performance. Of course, recent studies show such levels are ideal for preventing cancer, diabetes, hypertension, influenza, multiple sclerosis, major depression, cognitive impairments, etc. But who cares about all that disease stuff old people get, we're talking about something really important: speed, balance, reaction time, muscle mass, muscle strength, squats, reps, etc. And guess who's now taking 4,000 IU/day? Yes he is, and he tells me his timing is better, he can jump a little higher, run a little faster, and the ball feels "sweeter," whatever that means.

John Cannell, MD

This is a periodic newsletter from the Vitamin D Council, a non-profit trying to end the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency. If you don't want to get the newsletter, please hit reply and let us know. We don't copyright this newsletter. Please feel free to reproduce it and post it on Internet sites and blogs. Remember, we are a non-profit educational organization. Our pathetic finances are available for public inspection. We rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.com)
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422

The reason why I've been blogging lightly these past few days is because, as a favor, I'm covering the practice for some colleagues who I'm (very) loosely affiliated with. The time demands have been great.

Nonetheless, it is a good reminder to me just how far wrong conventional cardiology remains. Judging by what I see around me, there is a startling lack of restraint in proceeding to the catheterization laboratory. Curiously, the internists and family practitioners have been brainwashed into accepting this path. I suppose that all it takes is an occasional real "save" for these physicians to develop a fear of ever missing real disease.

What I'm seeing is just how many people presenting with chest pain or similar symptoms end up going to the cath lab. I would crudely estimate 80%. That is, once you make it past the emergency room, there's a four out of five chance that you'll end up with a heart catheterization to "be sure your heart is okay", "make certain you're not going to die of heart disease", "see if there's a ticking time bomb in your chest". You've heard all the clever, scary phrases that get tossed around to scare the pants off you and justify putting catheters in your groin.

Despite the fact that tools for heart disease prevention have improved dramatically, the volume of heart catheterizations continues to grow nationwide.

I find it shocking and unacceptable. We're currently working behind the scenes to help change this situation through education of the public. Persuade a $1 million a year cardiologist that he is overdoing procedures? Unlikely in my experience. Educate the public about the shocking over-reliance on high-revenue procedures? Perhaps more practical.

Garlic May Not Lower Cholesterol
Study Shows No Improvement in Cholesterol Levels From Raw Garlic or Garlic Supplements

Lots of reports continue to hit the press about a small study that hoped to determine whether garlic as whole cloves (4 to 6), an aqueous extract of garlic called Kyolic, or an oil extract called Garlicin (high in allicin), or placebo. No differences in lipid numbers including LDL cholesterol were observed.

(Full text at WebMD at http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20070226/garlic-may-not-lower-cholesterol?ecd=wnl_chl_030507. You may be required to log in or register.)

I believe that the researchers were sincere in their effort to follow an honest, scientfically sound clinical trial design. I'm personally not that surprised. The effect in prior studies has been modest, sometimes none. Does that mean that we should ignore the other studies that suggest there may be modest blood-thinning, anti-inflammatory, blood pressure-reducing, and cancer-preventing properties? No, it does not. Dr. Matt Budoff at UCLA even published a very small study in about 20 people that suggested a slowing of plaque growth by using Kyolic in persons tracked by CT heart scans.

Nonetheless, garlic is, at best, probably no more than a source of small benefits. The biggest fallout from this kind of report, however, is not the neutral results from garlic, but from the open door the drug companies sense when this happens.

If you read the WebMD report, you'll notice all sorts of advertisements from drug companies for statin cholesterol drugs ("Cholesterol health center"; "Understanding Cholesterol Numbers"; "There are two sources of cholesterol: food and family"), Niaspan (which I used to support but have been discouraged by the Kos companies excessively profiteering methods and recent big Wall Street sellout).

It doesn't follow. The failure of one nutritional strategy to reduce LDL does nothave to trigger a run to the drugs. Don't fall for it. Drugs have their place. So do supplements and food choices, which can be very powerful. Drug manufacturers and their marketing people salivate when something like this comes along, an open invitation to say, "If garlic doesn't work, _____ sure does."

Jason came to the office because of chest pain. At 34 years old, he works as manager of a (non-fast food) restaurant, but indulges in lots of the odds and ends. Among his indulgences: Diet Coke.

Every time he'd have a diet Coke, he'd have chest pain. Not drinking diet Coke--no chest pain. If Jason drank coffee, no chest pain. Other foods, no chest pain. Anyway, just eliminating the diet Coke seemed to do the trick. (Aspartame?)

Anyway, that's not why I tell you Jason's story. In the midst of his evaluation, an echocardiogram showed a mildly enlarged aorta, measuring 4.0 cm in diameter. So we obtained lipoproteins. Jason showed lipoprotein(a) and small LDL particles, the dreaded duo. We talked about how to correct this pattern. Among the strategies we discussed was niacin.

But what bothered me was that neither of Jason's parents had a diagnosis of heart disease. Jason had to have gotten Lp(a) from either his mother or father, since you obtain the gene from one or the other parent. You cannot acquire Lp(a). So one of Jason's parents was sitting on a genetic time bomb of unrecognized Lp(a) and hidden heart disease.

Because Jason's paternal grandfather had a heart attack at age 62, only Jason's Dad had the heart scan (though I urged both to get one). Score: 1483. Recall that heart scan scores >1000 carry a risk of death or heart attack of 25% per year if no preventive action is taken. Now, of course, we have to persuade Jason's Dad that a program of prevention--intensive prevention is in order, including a measure of Lp(a).

So that's the curious story of how Diet Coke probably saved Jason's Dad's life. The lesson is that if you or someone you know has Lp(a), think about their children as well as their parents, each of whom carry a 50% chance of having the pattern.

There's a widely-known (among cardiologists) problem with nuclear stress tests. It's called the "false positive." (Nuclear stress tests are known as stress Cardiolites, stress thalliums, stress Myoviews, persantine stress tests, adenosine stress tests)

Stress tests, nuclear and otherwise, are helpful for identifying areas of poor blood flow. If an area of poor blood flow is detected and the area is substantial, then there may be greater risk of heart attack and other undesirable events in the relatively near future.

What "false positive" means is a stress test that shows an abnormality but it's not true--it is falsely abnormal. There are a number of reasons why this can happen. The problem is that this phenomenon is very common. Up to 20% of nuclear stress tests are false positives.

There are indeed situations where there may an abnormality and it is not clear whether it is true or false. This may lead to a justifiable heart catheterization or CT coronary angiogram. But, given the extraordinary number of false positives, there's a lot of gray in interpreting these tests. Hospital staff, in fact, call nuclear medicine "unclear" medicine. It's common knowledge that you can often see just about anything you want to see on a nuclear image of the heart. Abnormalities in the bottom of the heart, the "inferior" wall, are especially common due to the overlap of the diaphragm with the heart muscle, yielding the appearance of reduced blood flow. Defects in the front of the heart heart are common in females with large breasts for the same reasons.

The problem: The uncertainty inherent in nuclear stress tests opens the door to the unscrupulous or lazy practitioner. Any blip, tick, or imperfection on the nuclear images serve as carte blanche to drag you into the hospital for procedures.

This abusive practice is, in my experience, shockingly common for two reasons: 1) It pays better to do heart catheterizations, and 2) Defensive medicine.

What's the disincentive? Only doing the right thing and maintaining a clear conscience. Slim reasons for many of my colleagues--and a lot less money.

If you are without symptoms and feel fine, and a nuclear stress test is advised by your doctor, followed by a discussion of an abnormality, insist on a discussion of exactly what is abnormal, just how abnormal, and what the alternatives might be. If you receive unsatisfactory or incomplete answers despite your best effort, it's time for another opinion.

Magnesium is kind of boring. So most people don't pay too much attention to it.

Magnesium can be important, however. I saw an interesting phenomenon recently. A type I diabetic patient of mine (that is, an adult who developed diabetes as a child), Mitch, was experiencing wide swings in blood sugar: low low's and very high high's (300-400 mg/dl). Mitch's magnesium was only marginally low at 2.0 mEq/L. (Ranges for normal magnesium blood levels are usually 1.3–2.1 mEq/L or 0.65–1.05 mmol/L.) Note that Mitch's blood levels fall within "normal." I do not agree with these "normal" ranges. I shoot for 2.1 to 2.4 mEq/L, which I think is the truly normal range.

In addition to eating plenty of raw nuts and green vegetables, Mitch began supplementing magnesium with magnesium citrate, 200 mg twice a day (our preferred supplement form). He reported that the wide swings in blood sugar were nearly eliminated.

Mitch's dramatic benefit is just a great illustration of how magnesium can help control blood sugar metabolism. A type I diabetic is more sensitive to the effects, but anyone with type II (adult) diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or just a slightly high blood sugar could benefit from magnesium supplementation.

There's a number of ways to accomplish getting sufficient magnesium in your daily regimen. Track Your Plaque members, Be sure to read:

Your water may be killing you at
http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-002magnesium.asp

Magnesium: Water to the rescue! at http://www.cureality.com/library/fl_03-010magnesium2.asp

It struck me recently that, for many people, it's not the second but the third heart scan that more commonly shows a reduction in score.

I think this is because many people's reaction to their first heart scan is "This can't be. There's no way my arteries have that much plaque." They then follow a half-hearted program to correct their patterns.

When the second heart scan shows a significantly higher score, that really catches their attention. This is when they finally buckle down and give it their all.

Only the occasional person will, after the first heart scan, seize full control and take their program very seriously. These tend to be highly motivated people.

Don't feel too bad if your second heart scan score shows an increase. Look at it for what it represents: feedback on the adequacy of your program.

Peter started out at age 59 at 248 lbs, standing 6 ft tall (BMI = 33.6!).

Along with his weight, Peter had the entire panel of phenemena of the so-called "metabolic syndrome", or pre-diabetes:

--Triglycerides 238 mg/dl and associated with extremes of excess VLDL and IDL
--High blood pressure
--Blood sugar 115 mg/dl
--High c-reactive protein
--Small LDL particles 99% of total LDL

Interestingly, Peter's HDL was a surprisingly favorable 58 mg/dl (HDL is usually low in this syndrome). However, when broken down by size, he had nearly zero large, healthy HDL (sometimes called HDL2b). Though total HDL was favorable, most of it was simply ineffective.

Peter eliminated snacks and processed foods, particularly bread; increased his reliance on healthy oils and lean proteins; incorporated soy protein; increased vegetables. He added 30 minutes of a rapid walk on a treadmill every day. He added vitamin D to achieve a blood level of 50 ng/dml. He added a magnesium supplement.

Peter has lost 31 lbs. in the last year. Weight 207 lbs., BMI 28.1 (desirable <25). Blood sugar: 96 mg/dl; triglycerides: 56 mg/dl; HDL 71 mg/dl with 35% in the large fraction; small LDL 45% of total. Not perfect, but a damn site better.

Control of metabolic syndrome is an achievable goal for over 90% of people, just with these simple efforts. We haven't yet had a chance to assess the effect on the progression or regression of Peter's heart scan score, but he has, at the very least, spared himself a future of diabetes and all its complications.

This is a "slice" from a normal heart scan in a 58 year old woman. Heart scan score zero. Look at the lungs, the dark areas left and right of the heart in the center. The lungs are also normal. Black represents normal density, healthy lung tissue. The white streaking is just normal lung blood vessels. This person doesn't smoke.

This woman smokes a pack of cigarettes a day and has done so for 45 years ("45 pack-years"). She had a surprisingly low heart scan score (at age 64) of only 71, despite the smoking. However, look at this woman's lungs. It's a little tough to make out, since the computer graphics loses some of the resolution. But you can see the near absence of lung tissue on both sides. This is an advanced phase of the destructive lung disease, emphysema, from smoking. Even if she quit smoking today, the destroyed lung tissue never grows back. She literally has huge gaps or holes in her lungs where lung tissue used to be.

Smoking is among the most destructive, terrible things you can do to your body, short of swallowing strychnine or jumping off a building. Stay as far the heck away from cigarettes as you possibly can. If you are exposed to "secondary" smoke, insist that the person never smoke in your presence. It's not the smell that destroys your lungs or causes coronary plaque (though it is indeed foul), it's the actual smoke.

Do you need to become a vegetarian in order to reduce your heart scan score?

No. Plain and simple. We’ve had many non-vegetarians drop their scores.

That said, are there still advantages to following a vegetarian diet, or some variation on the vegetarian theme?

Yes, there are. Let’s put aside the moral or religious arguments in favor of not eating animals—the need to eliminate killing animals for food, elimination of suffering common in modern livestock practices, Kosher considerations, etc. (Not that there aren’t real arguments here. Our focus for this conversation is not, however, the moral dilemma, but the health argument.)

Some of the most unhealthy people I’ve ever met, mostly males, are proud carnivores who boast of their prodigious capacities to eat meat. Unfortunately, it’s hard to tease out the ill-effects of excessive meat eating, since these same men also tend to be substantially overweight, smoke, drink excessively, and fail to get exercise unless their job is physically demanding. You know the type.

What advantages does a vegetarian obtain? A number of studies have suggested that the reduced saturated fat, reduced exposure to parasites, as well as reduced exposure to the antibiotics and hormones now used routinely in livestock-raising practices, do indeed provide benefits to the vegetarian. Thus, vegetarians tend to be substantially thinner, experience less bowel cancer, have less diabetes and heart disease, and live longer.

(If you are interested in reading or seeing more about just how inhumane modern livestock practices are, take a look at the video, "Meet Your Meat" at meat.org. Be sure not to view this after dinner.)

Of course, some of the disadvantages of eating animal products diminish when free-range livestock are eaten, i.e., livestock not raised in the inhumane cramped, filthy conditions of livestock factories, but in the open, grazing or rooting freely. These animals tend to have different fat compositions and taste different.

The advantages of vegetarianism, however, have blurred in recent years, since many so-called vegetarians have failed to maintain the distinction between naturally-occurring foods and processed foods. So, Ritz Crackers, Oreo cookies, whole wheat bread, and Raisin Bran fit into a vegetarian program, but they’re awful for your health. I’ll occasionally meet a self-proclaimed vegetarian who looks every bit as unhealthy as a conventionally eating American, that is, overweight, pre-diabetic person with a developing heart scan score.

So it is not necessary to be vegetarian to reduce your score. You might consider vegetarianism for other reasons, such as moral considerations, or to reduce your risk for cancer. But it is not necessary to drop your heart scan score. A non-processed food diet? Now that's is worth giving serious consideration.

Why an RDA for vitamin D?

Bargains for Armour Thyroid

Heart scan mis-information on WebMD

Heart disease prevention for the helpless, ignorant, or non-compliant

Dangerous mis-information on vitamin D

A Tale of Two LDL's

Niacin scams

Deja vu all over again?

Lead to Gold: The alchemy of transforming nutritional-supplement-to-medication

Irvingia and Leptin Resistance: Fact or fiction?

John Cannell on Vitamin D

Watch your groin

Garlic and cholesterol--Does everyone now need Lipitor?

Diet Coke saves father's life

Beware the "false positive" stress test

Don't neglect your magnesium

Third heart scan a charm

Metabolic syndrome--cured

Heart Scan Curiosities #6

Should you become a vegetarian?