Actos, Avandia, and vitamin D

Up until a few years ago, if a patient showed signs of the metabolic syndrome/pre-diabetes, or early diabetes, I would often prescribe one of the drugs, Actos (pioglitazone) or Avandia (rosiglitazone), known as the thiazolidinediones, or TZD's for short. Although I do not manage diabetes, I was witnessing a flood of patients with pre-diabetic patterns that inhibited correction of lipoprotein patterns. So I saw the TZD's as a means of potentially assisting with correction of these abnormalities.

My rationale back then was that many people with metabolic syndrome struggled to raise HDL cholesterol, reduce triglycerides, reduce small LDL, reduce the inflammatory measure c-reactive protein (CRP), as well as reduce blood sugars towards the normal range. The TZD's partially corrected these phenomena.

But over the last 2 1/2 years, I haven't written a single prescription for these agents since I've added vitamin D to the regimen.

Vitamin D in my experience in the Track Your Plaque approach:

--Raises HDL--far more than the TZD's ever did.

--Reduces small LDL

--Reduces triglycerides

--Reduces c-reactive protein

--Reduces blood pressure

--Reduces blood sugar

In other words, vitamin D appears to not only reproduce many of the effects of the TZD's, but exceeds the effects. The effects are often so wonderful that I've taken many people off their TZD's.

Vitamin D, of course, also provides numerous benefits for bone health, reduction of cancer risk, and other health benefits that the TZD's simply cannot compete with. Vitamin D also lacks the quite substantial side-effects of TZD's: water retention and weight gain (around 8 lbs in the first year of treatment), possible increase in risk for heart attack (Avandia), definite increased likelihood of congestive heart failure in those prone to it.

How about cost? Actos goes for about $2 per pill (30 mg tablet). Vitamin D in the gelcap form (the only form we use) costs around $0.05 per capsule--5 cents. That's a 40-fold difference in price for what I would regard as an inferior--substantially inferior--product.

Throw into the mix a dramatic reduction or elimination of wheat products and other high-glycemic index foods, and all the phenomena of the metabolic syndrome and its associated lipoprotein patterns show even more improvement or full reversal.

In fact, with this approach we are seeing record-setting magnitudes of correction of these parameters every day. Getting HDL, for instance, into the 60 mg/dl or 70 mg/dl range has never been so easy.

Comments (16) -

  • Bob

    2/22/2008 5:01:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Enjoy reading your insights as what works and what doesn't in terms of prevention. On average, what is the starting HDL value of the individuals who are raising their HDL to the 60-70 range?

    Thanks.

    Bob

  • Anonymous

    2/22/2008 6:21:00 PM |

    Wow, great timing, I was just talking with my wonderful barber about vitamin D3 and how much you have found it to help your patients that have pre-diabetes, along with heart health issues. She has a prescription for her condition and was complaining of water retention also.  

    She wrote everything down so hope she reads your blog today.

  • stephen_b

    2/22/2008 8:35:00 PM |

    Any concern about a decrease in serotonin levels with a low carb diet? Perhaps it's only an issue with people having lower serotonin to begin with. I've started taking the occasional 500 mg of l-tryptophan (with B6 and vitamin C) at night before bed.

    Stephen

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2008 12:05:00 AM |

    I saw my endocrinologist this week and told her about my addition of Vitamin D to my diet. She recently starting taking it herself and totally supported it.  But she didn't offer an opinion on the amount - and had never heard of the gel cap advantage.  
    On a positive note; she suggested adding the Vitamin D to the lab tests.

  • moblogs

    2/23/2008 12:19:00 AM |

    Does the reduction of small LDL contribute to overall LDL reduction? Just wondering. I know that more HDL trumps LDL in general anyway.

    Your admission that nature's cheap system trumps those drugs is exciting. At the same time it's not surprising. While I don't dispute all pharmaceutical products (I can think of many that I see no alternative for right now) it makes you wonder just how many other safe and cheaper, natural answers to problems exist within nature that are yet to be found.

  • Anonymous

    2/23/2008 3:32:00 AM |

    So what do you say regarding a diabetic patient who is taking a prescription level Vit. D (once a week) but has a blood sugar spike after taking the Vit. D? This has been reported to me by a family caretaker - I am baffled!

  • mike V

    2/23/2008 4:22:00 AM |

    Eggs can help!

    http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.
    com/content/5/1/6/abstract

    Eggs modulate the inflammatory response to carbohydrate restricted diets in overweight men.
    Joseph C Ratliff , Gisella Mutungi , Michael J Puglisi , Jeff S Volek  and Maria Luz Fernandez

    Nutrition & Metabolism 2008, 5:6doi:10.1186/1743-7075-5-6

    Published: 20 February 2008
    Abstract (provisional)

    Background
    Carbohydrate restricted diets (CRD) consistently lower glucose and insulin levels and improve atherogenic dyslipidemia [decreasing triglycerides and increasing HDL cholesterol (HDL-C)]. We have previously shown that male subjects following a CRD experienced significant increases in HDL-C only if they were consuming a higher intake of cholesterol provided by eggs compared to those individuals who were taking lower concentrations of dietary cholesterol. Here, as a follow up of our previous study, we examined the effects of eggs (a source of both dietary cholesterol and lutein) on adiponectin, a marker of insulin sensitivity, and on inflammatory markers in the context of a CRD.

    Methods
    Twenty eight overweight men [body mass index (BMI) 26-37 kg/m2] aged 40-70 y consumed an ad libitum CRD (% energy from CHO:fat:protein = 17:57:26) for 12 wk. Subjects were matched by age and BMI and randomly assigned to consume eggs (EGG, n=15) (640 mg additional cholesterol/day provided by eggs) or placebo (SUB, n=13) (no additional dietary cholesterol). Fasting blood samples were drawn before and after the intervention to assess plasma lipids, insulin, adiponectin and markers of inflammation including C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-I+/-), interleukin-8 (IL-8), monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1), and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1(VCAM-1).

    Results
    Body weight, percent total body fat and trunk fat were reduced for all subjects after 12 wk (P < 0.0001). Increases in adiponectin were also observed (P < 0.01). Subjects in the EGG group had a 21% increase in this adipokine compared to a 7% increase in the SUB group (P < 0.05). Plasma CRP was significantly decreased only in the EGG group (P < 0.05). MCP-1 levels were decreased for the SUB group (P< 0.001), but unchanged in the EGG group. VCAM-1, ICAM-1, TNF-alpha and IL-8 were not modified by CRD or eggs.

    Conclusions
    A CRD with daily intake of eggs decreased plasma CRP and increased plasma adiponectin compared to a CRD without eggs. These findings indicate that eggs make a significant contribution to the anti-inflammatory effects of CRD, possibly due to the presence of cholesterol, which increases HDL-C and to the antioxidant lutein which modulates certain inflammatory responses.
    ***********************************



    The amazing thing to me is that the egg's cholesterol appears to be beneficial inraising HDL ald lowering CRP!
    Sadly the fat soluble vitamins A,D,K in egg yolk were not mentioned.

    MikeV

  • Anne

    2/23/2008 7:44:00 PM |

    Mike said "Eggs can help" - I downloaded the full study as I love eggs and eat a low carbohydrate diet. However, on page 18 of the study it says “The authors wish to thank the Egg Nutrition Center for funding this study”. I would hope the study wasn’t biased but I would guess it might be - sigh - unless I'm overly cynical.

    Anne

  • TedHutchinson

    2/23/2008 10:00:00 PM |

    stephen_b said...Any concern about a decrease in serotonin levels with a low carb diet? Perhaps it's only an issue with people having lower serotonin to begin with.

    Stephen may be reassured to read Dr McCleary's blog http://www.drmccleary.com/default,month,2008-02.aspx
    where he raises the possible serotonin elevating effects of a vitamin D rich diet,
    Remember also 4000iu/daily /D3 is associated with optimal feelings of wellbeing.
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=506781

    The link between carbohydrate intake and poorer performance
    http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/feed_brain.html is also an interesting take on the issue.

  • Anonymous

    2/24/2008 11:42:00 PM |

    If your vitamine D is normal but your blood pressure is borderline and you have a small LDL and increasing calcium scores with time, is extra Vit D a good thing to try?

  • Anonymous

    2/25/2008 5:25:00 AM |

    Interestingly I have noticed over the past while my bg seem a bit higher than norm, have started 5000 units of Vit D about 3 to 4 months ago....am just thinking....hmmm... wonder if age is making me keep a higher bg as low carb diet hasn't changed.It crossed my mind if Vit D or omega 3 would contribute to this but I understood they should lower it....maybe a glitch as my body gets used to it....don't know what is happening.

  • Anonymous

    2/25/2008 7:02:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis just read an article in your local newspaper{The Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, feb. 24th} about a study of women who ate low fat milk products and high Vitamin D foods had lower blood pressure BUT vitamin D supplements didnt give the same results. Any comments?

  • Anonymous

    2/25/2008 10:46:00 PM |

    Came accross this reference to Vit D being immunosuppressive and may may disease worse.  Any comments?

    Autoimmunity Research Foundation (2008, January 27). Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements. ScienceDaily. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/01/080125223302.htm

  • Anonymous

    3/30/2008 7:09:00 PM |

    Human beings evolved in sunshine.  Go back 10,000 years and people were living outside all the time.  Even in northern Europe they were getting an enormous amount of sun.  I live in Los Angeles, tan deeply and yet got a mild sunburn on the back of my neck while on an all-day hike in northern Scotland.  I suspect that (1) our Vitamin D requirements are much, much higher than commonly recognized, (2) many of the conditions of old age (diabetes, heart disease, cancer) are linked to long-term vitamin D deficiency, (3) what throws people off is that you can go for months or even years with minimal sun exposure and apparent minimal effect, but it eventually catches up to you after 20 or 30 years.

  • Actos

    11/3/2010 10:03:17 AM |

    Yap, better take more vitamins than pills Smile

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 6:54:18 PM |

    The “Arginine Paradox” is the name that some researchers in this field have given to the unusual property of l-arginine supplementation to “overpower” the blocking effects of ASDM. This is somewhat unusual in biologic systems in that an agent that blocks a receptor cannot usually be outmuscled by providing excess material for a reaction. Kind of like hoping that your car runs faster simply by topping up the gas tank.

Loading
"Instant" reversal with fasting?

"Instant" reversal with fasting?

Here's a fascinating e-mail we received recently. It came from a man in Hawaii who dropped his heart scan score a modest amount, but did it in two months using fasting. He also has the advantage of access to the Holistica Hawaii scan center with our friend, Dr. Roger White. His experience is so fascinating that we asked for his permission to reprint his story which he did enthusiastically.

So here is Don's story:


I am a 61 year old male with a history of heart disease in my family. My maternal grandfather, for instance, died at age 39 of a
heart attack and my mother died of a stroke. There are other instances in my family as well.

I, personally, before going to Holistica had had three heart procedures; one radio catheter ablation for WPW Syndrome, and two radio catheter ablations for atrial fibrilations. After suffering with WPW for over 30 years and A-Fibs for about a year, those issues seem to be behind me fortunately.

Three or four months back, however, I was suffering from shortness of breath and slight chest pains when doing the uphill part of a 5 mile walk that I do almost every day. My wife had had a coronary heart scan several years back at Holistica so that's how I knew about it.

I had a scan done on October 4th this year. The scan did show fairly
advanced plaque build up; my total coronary plague burden was
312.9. The day following the scan I felt absolutely terrible; lightheaded, weak, much like feeling you were at death's door.

I had read a book a number of years back about therapeutic fasting
(water only) called "Fasting and Eating for Health" by Dr. Joel
Furhman.


According to his book, one on the areas where he consistently has dramatic and quick results with fasting is with reducing arterial plaque. Based on how badly I was feeling at the time, I decided to start an immediate fast. Within just the first 24 hours, the relief was dramatic and amazing. I continued the water only fast for 3 weeks.

Yesterday, December 1st I went in for another cardio scan instead of the coronary angiogram that I had previously been scheduled for. I could tell they were a little confused why I was doing that but went ahead and did another coronary EBT scan.

When I went in for the doctor consultation, Dr. McGriff said, "OK, exactly what is it you've done since last time." In less than two months, my coronary plaque burden had dropped to 296.2. That's a 6% reduction in less than 2 months. Had I gone back in for the second scan right after my 3 week fast then it probably would have a 6%
reduction in less than a month.

Frankly, based on how good I've been feeling (I'm even thinking of
getting back into jogging instead of walking), I was surprised it was
only 6%. Based on the common experience, however, that it sometimes
takes a year or two to just stabilize your plaque increase, much less
actually start losing it, the doctor was truly startled and
surprised. He said he had never seen such a sudden reduction as that
before!

We are still going to proceed with the coronary angiogram and I
intend to apply what I find in your book but I thought you might be interested in these results since I've never heard or read of anyone actually measuring the effectiveness of a fast with before and after EBT Scans.

I admire your direction and work focusing on prevention instead of catastrophic management like most doctors. Dr. Fuhrman is very much the same with the greatest attention on prevention so if you haven't heard of his book you might be interested. Especially interesting regarding this particular issue is Chapter 5 entitled, "The Road Back to a Healthy Heart-the Natural Way."

I can personally verify everything he has said about the fasting procedure itself from start to finish. I consider his book the Bible about fasting. As I mentioned, given your similar direction in medicine, I thought I would bring my personal experience on the matter to your attention for your consideration. Maybe in a future edition of your book, you might want to include some information on fasting.

Anyhow, I hope you will find this helpful. Any other questions,
don't hesitate to e-mail back. Please keep up your good work and
thanks for what your doing!

Yours truly,

Don P.
Honolulu, Hawaii



Isn't that great?

Now, in all honesty, a change of 6% could conceivably be within the margin of error for heart scanning. (Although several studies from a number of years ago suggested that variation in heart scan scoring was about 10%, sometimes more, in my experience, on EBT devices like the one Don used, variation is <5% at this score range.) Genuine regression would probably be better documented by yet another scan down the road. If the trend is consistent, then it is probably real.

Nonetheless, Don's story may support we've been saying for some time: Fasting is a rapid method to gain control over plaque--but I didn't know it might be that quick! Perhaps Don is a living example of what I've called "instant" heart disease reversal.

Don is potentially off to a good start. But, unless he can periodically repeat his fast, he will still have to engage in a program that allows continuing control over coronary plaque in between fasts. Also, fasting cannot address issues like vitamin D deficiency, lipoprotein(a), and any residual lipid/lipoprotein issues. But I am continually impressed with the power of fasting to "jump start" a program of heart disease reversal.

It would be a fascinating study to perform, with serial heart scans within brief periods of weeks or months to gauge rapid response. However, we need to keep in mind that as wonderful as heart scans are, they do involve modest radiation exposure.

It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights.


Copyright 2007 William Davis,MD

Comments (17) -

  • Stan

    12/4/2007 4:10:00 AM |

    Re: "It might be interesting in future to add a fasting "arm" to the virtual clinical trial. That might yield some great insights."

    Yes I am sure it might. Let me think, fasting = burning one's body fat (and a little bit of  muscles) = ketogenic metabolism.

    Hmm, what is that other method of inducing a ketogenic metabolism?

    Ragrds,
    Stan (Heretic)

  • chickadeenorth

    12/4/2007 4:47:00 AM |

    hmm.so if a diabetic did this after so many hrs if bg fell low wouldn't you liver start spewin some glycogen, then bg would rise,making you hungry, but only water,man would you lose weight, would this be ok for a diabetic, ????
    GoodonyaDon, did the hunger bother you or did it stop after few days???

  • jpatti

    12/4/2007 4:52:00 AM |

    How long a fast do you feel is necessary to be beneficial?  

    Do you think the whole intermittent fasting thing (fasting 24 hours on /24 hours off) is useful?  How about just a one-day a week fast?

  • Anonymous

    12/4/2007 10:18:00 AM |

    How long would a fast need to be to get results? It's rare I can go even eight waking hours without getting the shakes (I've been this way since my teens).

    S

  • Dr. Davis

    12/4/2007 12:46:00 PM |

    Interesting thought.

    But I do think that fasting provides a unique phenomenon, unlike that of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet. I can only speculate why. But the physical and emotional perceptions  experienced during fasting are a world apart from low-carb eating.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/4/2007 12:53:00 PM |

    Jpatti--

    Nobody knows. You will find discussions about length of fast and various patterns of fasting to achieve weight loss, regression of various disease states, but no real data on regression of coronary plaque by heart scans. The Track Your Plaque experience is informal and has not been subjected to formal examination. But it sure is fascinating, particularly when you hear about experiences like Don's and the stories articulated by Dr. Fuhrman. (I'm going to ask Dr. Fuhrman for an interview for Track Your Plaque.)

    Please see the Track Your Plaque in-depth Special Report, Fasting: Fast track to coronary plaque control at http://trackyourplaque.com/library/fl_04-012fasting.asp

  • Dr. Davis

    12/4/2007 12:55:00 PM |

    S-

    This is a very common phenomenon in the carbohydrate/wheat addicted. (I assume you are not diabetic.)

    I know of no way to get beyond it except to get beyond it. Also, you will need to work with your doctor if you are taking medications, particularly blood pressure meds, etc.

  • kdhartt

    12/4/2007 2:28:00 PM |

    I read in the TYP report of optionally discontinuing supplements during a fast, what about my statin?

  • wccaguy

    12/4/2007 4:30:00 PM |

    What is the best approach to supplements during a fast?

    Keep taking all supplements including TYP program supplements?  or not?

    Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    12/4/2007 11:51:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis

    I am possibly in the beginning stages of diabetes: FBS good, but a1c a bit high. I had been drinking a lot of koolaid (with sugar), and doing a lot of processed grains, and also starches when the a1c test was taken.

    I haven't gone into my new GP with the a1c results yet (my ob/gyn caught the a1c), since I have a colonoscopy scheduled next week. I'll go to the GP after I receive my colonoscopy results to see what they want to do about the a1c.

    Instead of koolaid, I now drink tea with 1 tsp of sugar in 2 quarts, the rest sweetened by stevia. I eat about 3 pieces of bread a week now, and no potatoes, rice either. I've been using cellophane/glass noodles instead of regular pasta.

    So we'll see if those changes made enough of a difference to bring the a1c down.

    Back to fasting: I wonder if reducing high glycemic carbs, especially wheat, will eventually enable me to fast longer periods? I should start a food/carb journal, makring what/how much I ate, and how long I can go before the shakes set in.

    Thanks,
    S

  • Dr. Davis

    12/5/2007 1:26:00 AM |

    Though clearly an improvement, the amount of carbohydrate intake you are describing would make me either very hyperglycemic (high blood sugar) or diabetic.

    I find completely divorcing yourself from these sugars and sugar equivalents easier than cutting back, since continued inclusion of sugars and wheats maintain a craving.

  • jpatti

    12/5/2007 4:48:00 AM |

    anonymous, it sounds like you have reactive hypoglycemia.  This means you have a slow phase 1 insulin response, so when you eat, your bg goes really high, then your pancreas overreacts and splurts out too much insulin and you go low.  Most people with reactive hypoglycemia progress to diabetes if they don't get it under control because it's a disorder of insulin production.

    You really need to get a bg meter and begin testing how specific foods effect you.  You can't rely on the glycemic index, because we're all different - the GI is an average.  The diet you described *may* be fine for you; it would massively spike my bg though.  You have to find out what really works for *you* and the only way to do that is to test.

    There's good advice about testing at these links:

    http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm
    http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2006/11/when-to-test-one-hour-or-two-hour.html
    http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/2007/04/teting-on-budget.html

    Meters are often given away by the companies for free, or free if you buy 100 strips or such.  The biggest cost is in strips, so you want a meter with cheap strips unless you can get a doctor to prescribe it and insurance to cover it.  Both Walmart and Walgreens have cheap generic meters with inexpensive strips.

    If the bg targets at the links I provided make you feel hypo, it's cause you've gotten used to high bg feeling normal.  Just aim at higher targets for a few weeks while you adjust before going lower.  

    I hope you follow this advice and find out what you need to do to avoid diabetes; I'm a member of the club and we don't want new members!    ;)

    Good luck.

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2007 9:41:00 AM |

    Thanks Dr. Davis and jpatti,

    Now that my procedure is out of the way, I'm cutting all sugar, bread/grains, and starches, and have started a food journal at http://www.myfitnesspal.com and I'm going to leave the times the meals were eaten in the food notes so I can monitor how I can go before the shakes/light-headedness sets in.

    As soon as my procedure results come back, I'll make an appointment with my new GP to see what they want to do about my a1c being 6.3 five weeks ago. Maybe they'll retest, or start me with a glucose monitor. If it's the glucose monitor, then I'll be able to do the PP tests to see which foods do me in on my blood sugars. But if I have to test, maybe they'll be better numbers with my stopping sugars, grains, and starches.

    S

  • Dr. Davis

    12/8/2007 1:28:00 PM |

    S--

    Let us know how it goes.

  • chickadeenorth

    12/11/2007 3:12:00 PM |

    STAN,in Canada an A1C over 6.1 is considered diabetic, may want to have a 2 hr GTT as well for firmer diagnosis as some docs don't treat it aggressively and it does damages minutely everytime your bg is over 140, from what I have read. I'd buy my own meter and work aggressively to stop it in your tracks as it contributes greatly to calcium score as well. If I could do it all over again and had a mentor that knew what I know now I may be healthier and as patti says this isnt a fun club.... you shouldn't even peek into the doorway of, so jump start it now .You may find it helpful to read Dr Bernstein's Diabetic Soltuion, new editon Oct 2007.Its very similar program to TYP except for few diff to keep bg low. Of course he is not the guru of calcium score etc so the 2 work well together, goodonya for paying attention to it SmileGood Luck.

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2007 12:08:00 PM |

    S's progress in stretching out hypoglycemic events by cutting out quick carbs:

    Although I haven't cut out quick carbs 100% in these last few weeks (small burger at drive through once, with a frozen hotpocket later that day -- I was run down and wasn't up to cooking, and used flavored creamer in coffee twice), I've been able to go 9 hours before feeling the beginning stages of hypoglycemia today:

    0530 Woke up
    1000 Kefir (whole milk) w/ wheat germ*
    1730 Baked chicken thigh, beans, greens, 1/2 tomato, 1/2 cucumber, 1 tbsp ranch

    *I've been using wheat germ in my kefir to increase fiber. Since cutting out most wheat products, except my puny day, my gastro problems haven't bothered me. But the day after I ate that burger and hotpocket, my gastro problems returned for most of the next day.

    I don't have other signs of gluten allergies, but I wonder if I might be sensitive to gluten or wheat. I'll bring it up to my gastro dr when I go in for my follow up. I already know there's no CA or polyps, and from my pics there doesn't seem to be any diverticulits pockets, or raw Crohns area, but I am not a gastro, and I'm basing that guess on only a few pics.

    But between battling against hypoglycemia and probable beginning diabetes, and also gastric problems, I am definitely stopping wheat (and also continuing with the slow-carbs only). I still have to make an appt with my new GP regarding my a1c of 6.3 a few months ago when I was a glutton with sugar, wheat and other starches.

    I don't know how much weight I've lost since I don't have a working scale yet, but my face has thinned and almost no double chin (now it's only noticeable when my face is towards my neck), and my waist has started to indent again.

    I'll check back in when I've found out if my dietary changes helped my a1c, or when I can fast all day.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/15/2007 2:24:00 PM |

    Have you tried ground flaxseed in place of wheat germ?

Loading
No high blood pressure

No high blood pressure

Primitive cultures that were, until recently, unexposed to the modern world, reveal some important insights into blood pressure.

The Yanomamo of South American, the Xingu Indians of Brazil, rural Kenyans, and the natives of Papua, New Guinea have average blood pressures of 103/63 mmHg. Even more incredibly, while 90% of modern Americans will develop high blood pressure as they age, the members of these primitive cultures do not develop age-related hypertension.

What's the secret? Perhaps the full "secret" of their remarkably low blood pressure has not been fully unraveled, but several observations have emerged:

--They are not exposed to modern processed foods like pretzels, crackers, and breakfast cereals.
--Low-carbohydrate foods. Carbohydrates are largely the product of the food industry, convenience foods bought in stores. No such thing in the jungle.
--Living outdoors, having to forage and hunt, walk to your destination, not drive or wait in line for food.
--Outdoor lives, wearing little more than a few strands of clothing, exposes you to plentiful vitamin D activation from sunlight exposure.
--Consuming wild game, rich in omega-3 fatty acids, enhances endothelial health and reduces blood pressure.
--Wild plants, roots, and berries, as well as wild game, along the coast, are richer in iodine.

The studies examining the habits of the Yanomamo and other primitive cultures focused principally on sodium intake. Indeed, the very low sodium intake of primitive cultures was associated with lower blood pressure--up to 6 mmHg reduction. But there's clearly more to learn than "cut your salt."

Comments (20) -

  • Mark

    10/14/2009 6:03:59 PM |

    Wonder what their life span is....

  • Barkeater

    10/14/2009 7:08:48 PM |

    Following the TYP program, my blood pressure (not bad to start - 114/72 was typical) has dropped to Yanomamo levels - 102/60 now being a typical reading.  Vit D, Vit K2, fish oil, low low wheat, krill oil, magnesium and a multi vitamin; weight loss may figure in too.

  • Jenny

    10/14/2009 8:36:13 PM |

    Don't leave out the other explanation for this: Quoting from Napoleon A. Chagnon. Yanomamo: The Fierce People (Chagnon lived with them).

    "The villages can be as small as 40 to 50 people or as large as 300 people, but in all cases there are many more children and babies than there are adults....Life expectancy is short. ...The Yanomamo are still conducting inter-village warfare, a phenomenon that affect all aspects of their social organization, settlement pattern, and daily routines. It is not simply 'ritualistic' war: at least one-fourth of all adult males die violently."

    If only the toughest babies survive and if males don't live much past their 30s you won't see all that much high blood pressure.

    The fact is American life expectancy--despite our diet--is dramatically better than that of any traditional society studied.

  • malcolm

    10/14/2009 10:42:55 PM |

    how do they do it??

  • Anonymous

    10/14/2009 11:19:54 PM |

    I'm 56.  I used to have average blood pressure of 140/95 when I was 40.  Ten years ago I dropped grains and dairy and have gradually transitioned to a carnivorous diet.  My blood pressure is now in Yanomamo territory.  

    In America it's "normal" for blood pressure to rise with age since it's "normal" to be sick here!

  • Anonymous

    10/15/2009 1:04:00 AM |

    I remember a tv documentary about salt, the sources of salt and use by humans since the early days of human civilizations. The Romans used salt as their currency to pay their soldiers. They also analyze and determined the salt intake of different ethnic groups. The question was also raised as whether salt is needed for human survival.  By this they mean, use of table salt in a shaker, added to our food during cooking. What they found is that this tribes in the Amazon, never use salt or even seen a table salt as we do in the civilized world. Their only source of salt(sodium) is whatever is present, in the game meats, plants and fruits they consume. Also the relative ratio between K and Na is 1:1 ratio or probably, a higher ratio of potassium than sodium.

    The foods being consumed in our society, especiaaly processed foods are full of salt, and most among us use a salt shaker every time we eat.

    kasing12

  • Anonymous

    10/15/2009 5:44:02 AM |

    Dr. Davis,

    Read your blog regularly and I know you dismiss the Ornish diet - however, saw that in his 2007 book, Dr. Ornish claims that he had a heart scan and his score was 0.  Do you find that at all compelling?

    Thanks,
    David

  • Peter

    10/15/2009 10:48:27 AM |

    I lived in a hunter gathering society for 2 years and I was struck by how low stress it was: except for the couple hours a daywhen people were going after food, they hung out and chatted.

  • susan allport

    10/15/2009 1:13:09 PM |

    I thought you would be interested in this new take on omega-3s in Prevention Magazine: http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100245164

  • Scott W

    10/15/2009 1:38:32 PM |

    I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that jungle diets are low-carb. Especially in New Guinea, where an island full of people have historically been very hard on the animal resources, there has been great reliance on starchy tubers and other plant-based carb sources.

  • Chris

    10/15/2009 4:26:18 PM |

    Off topic, couldn't find an e-mail address Doc, if you could address the following - maybe of interest to readers.

    I had a regular checkup and my ALT was 129 (above normal). I am on no meds. I am a non-drinker. Don't have fatty liver. I take 4000 mg of fish oil daily of house brand - warehouse food store gel tabs. I have read you saying that most fish oil is from fish not on top of the food chain - low mercury. My doc wants to repeat test in two weeks to see if lab screwed up, flukes, etc.

    My question is, do you think some cheapo brands of gel tabs could have other impurities that could cause liver problems? Thanks.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/15/2009 9:38:10 PM |

    Anon--

    Re: Dr. Dean Ornish.

    I don't believe that an experience of one can prove anything, good nor bad. The Ornish program does indeed work, however, for a small segment of the population, such as people who are apoE4 positive. For the rest of us, a low-fat diet is a destructive diet.

    Perhaps the best way to put it is: There are variations in what can be called "ideal" in different physiologic types.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/15/2009 9:39:22 PM |

    Chris--

    While we've not witnessed this effect, it doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

    The most common problem with "cheapo" fish oil capsules is breakdown products, otherwise known as rancidity. If it smells excessively fishy, I wouldn't take it.

  • Dr. William Davis

    10/15/2009 9:40:40 PM |

    Hi, Jenny--

    No doubt. And there is more infectious disease, as well, not to mention traumatic injury.

    But the lessons are drawn from those who survive into later life.

  • Mike Turco

    10/15/2009 11:10:03 PM |

    These guys are (recently were?) the last surviving cannibal tribe. Not sure if they're still cannibals or have been lead away from that due to influence from the modern world.

  • Peter

    10/16/2009 9:39:27 AM |

    Re: the comment about the Ornish diet and Ornish's 0 reading on the heart scan, it's worth noting that Ornish has been railing against sugar and flour for 30 years, even though it's his anti-fats message that grabs people's attention.

    Nathan Pritikin, who did the Ornish diet before Ornish, was said to have arteries like a baby's when he died.

    It's worth paying attention to the way Ornish agrees with TYP as well as the way he doesn't,as both diets result in low scores.

  • Peter

    10/16/2009 9:58:51 AM |

    Jimmy Moore (livinlavidalocarb.com) and Dean Ornish both scored 0 on their heart scans, even though one eats meat all day long a la Atkins, and the other eats vegetables all day long and never meat, you have to wonder what they have in common.  One thing is they don't eat Oreos (and other stuff made with flour and sugar since it violates the rules in both plans.)  I wonder what else they have in common that led to 0 heart scan scores.

  • Health Coaching

    10/18/2009 7:58:46 AM |

    So does the sodium intake actually affect the presuure to make it go to the gigher side?

  • Medical Billing Software

    3/23/2010 9:07:41 AM |

    I absolutely agree...the modern life is a jungle of bad habits.packed foods and easier lifestyle with electronic gadgets.I believe in the old school but can not keep with it all the time.

Loading
NY Times Jane Brody misses the mark

NY Times Jane Brody misses the mark



NY Times' health columnist, Jane Brody, recently wrote a bit of fluff for her paper:

"CT Scans of the Heart Come With Trade-Offs


In her report, she says:

Coronary CT scans are being sold directly to the public, and they have found a market in health-conscious people who can afford them. But screening exams can have downsides. They can cause needless worry, and they sometimes reveal other potential conditions that require invasive procedures like biopsies to diagnose.

I soon learned that among the strongest proponents of CT scans of coronary arteries were physicians with financial ties to drug companies that make statins and others connected to imaging centers that would profit directly from widespread CT screenings.



She then goes on to discuss how the Framingham scoring calculation can tell you whether or not you are at low-, intermediate-, or high-risk for heart disease. She therefore concludes that heart scans are therefore irrelevant for the majority of people. She then proceeds to take a statin agent.

This sort of nonsense continues to get published, despite the clear lack of real "digging" for the truth. She clearly fell for the conventional arguments that continue to mis-guide the majority of people, myths like:

--the Framingham scoring system is reliable--Reliable it is NOT; it is susceptible to substantial "misclassification" bias, meaning people who appear low risk can actually be high risk, and people at high risk can actually be low risk. Among the latest studies that question the scoring system is Family history of premature coronary heart disease and coronary artery calcification: Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA). This study pointed out how the Framingham scoring system, which leaves out family history, can cause people classified as low risk to actually have substantial heart scan scores. This is crucial. A heart scan gets beyond the uncertainties and shows with >95% certainty whether or not hidden coronary atherosclerotic plaque is present.

--"Coronary risk" is a dynammic phenomenon, subject to changes in a person's life. What if, for instance, a person smoked for 20 years, quit 10 years ago, lost 30 lbs, dropped their blood pressure as a result of the weight loss, then relied on the Framingham Risk Calculator to determine risk. They would likely be classified as low- risk, since risk factors now appear favorable. This person could easily have a heart scan score of 500, or 700, or 1000, levels that carry a cardiovascular event risk of 5-25% per year, hardly low-risk, because much of their risk accumulated earlier in life and is no longer revealed by an assessment of risk factors.

--There are sources of risk that have nothing to do with Framingham, such as lipoprotein(a), which is often revealed by family history; the presence of small LDL, which co-varies with HDL and triglycerides, but can behave independently also; and, my favorite, deficiency of vitamin D. This would explain part of the 60-70% of people who are typically mis-classified by Framingham.


Where did Ms. Brody get the idea that proponents of heart scans had ties to drug companies? I think she's barking up the wrong tree on that one. Of course, she ends up on a statin drug. For my part, I am a critic of statin drugs. Yes, they play a role, but they are miserably misused and abused by practicing physicians, based on the endless onslaught of drug company-sponsored trials that have served to distort their usefulness.

If I were Ms. Brody, I would be quaking in my shoes, not knowing what my true risk for heart disease was, relying on the--at best--30% reduction in heart attack risk of Lipitor or other statin drug. Ms. Brody: You are not cured, you're simply wearing a superficial Band-Aid. If you want to know your true risk for heart attack, and you want a precise value that you can track over time, the answer is simple: Reject the conventional notion and get a heart scan.

Comments (6) -

  • russb324

    10/9/2007 1:02:00 PM |

    However, John Tierney wrote an interesting column in the same issue of the NY Times in which he expressed skepticism about the AMA's recommendation of low fat diets based on what socialists called a "cascade" effect thus causing a mistaken consensus.  He also favorably cited to Gary Taubes book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" while acknowledging that Mr. Taubes' hypothesis regarding low carb, higher fat diets are only theories as there have not been rigorous scientific studies to prove or debunk these theories.  Article is definitely worth a read:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/science/09tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

  • Anonymous

    10/9/2007 7:33:00 PM |

    I've just found your website and I'm extremely interested.  My doctor said my LDL was 565.  I'm starting a study at the cooper institute next month.  But in the meantime I don't want to die of heart disease like my doctor said I would if I don't change my diet.  What diet should I follow?  Is there a site that you recommend with a diet on it that doesn't ask for payment?

  • Dr. Davis

    10/9/2007 8:04:00 PM |

    I'm afraid with hetero- or homozygous hypercholesterolemia (to account for such high LDL's), this information needs to come from your doctor.

    Also, if you are entering a clinical trial at the Coooper Clinic (an excellent facility), they may ask you to follow a specific diet program.

  • Anonymous

    10/9/2007 9:17:00 PM |

    from dan.
    The Framingham scoring system shows
    potential 'risk' (maybe), whereas the CT scan shows the "actual" condition of the heart. I think there is a huge difference between showing a risk and what is real. If you have a gun in your hand you are potentially a murder, that is a long way from murdering someone. One is a possiblity, whereas the CT scan shows was exist - right now.

  • Dr. Davis

    10/9/2007 9:37:00 PM |

    Thanks, Dan.

    I couldn't have said it better myself.

  • Anonymous

    10/20/2007 11:48:00 PM |

    Hello Dr. Davis, and anonymous

    Have you seen the article by Drs James Wright and John Abramson  published in a recent Lancet? Perhaps Dr. Davis will post a summary.





    Anon2

Loading
Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

Dr. Cannell on "How much vitamin D?"

In his most recent Vitamin D Council Newsletter (reprinted in its entirety below, minus clickable links, as Dr. Cannell apparently lost his webmaster and this issue of the newsletter is therefore not posted on the Vitamin D Council website; if you would like to either donate money to the Vitamin D Council or pitch in with help with his website, go to www.vitamindcouncil.com), Dr. John Cannell once again enlightens us with some new insights into vitamin D and its enormous role in health. In this issue, he discusses the role of vitamin D in people diagnosed with cancer (treatment, not prevention).

While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

Dr. Cannell cites a recent study from vitamin D research expert, Dr. Bruce Hollis:

In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it: would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. (I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-634.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

In answer to the question, "How much vitamin D should someone with cancer take?," Dr. Cannell advises:
"Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight.

Dr. Cannell, no stranger to the resisitance among many practicing physicians unaware of the expanding and robust literature on vitamin D, advises people with cancer that:
In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.



For readers wishing to read the entire text of Dr. Cannell's newsletter, it is reprinted below:

The Vitamin D Newsletter
January, 2008


The January newsletter is coming early as I will be out of touch for awhile. If you remember, the last newsletter was on preventing cancer, not treating it. Below is a sampling of the tragic emails the last newsletter generated:


"Dr. Cannell, I was just diagnosed with breast cancer, how much vitamin D should I take?"

"My mother has colon cancer, how much vitamin D should she take?"

"I've had prostate cancer for four years, is there any reason to think vitamin D would help?"

"Dr. Cannell, my son has leukemia, should I give him vitamin D?"


It's one thing to talk about evidence vitamin D may prevent cancer but something quite different to discuss evidence vitamin D might help treat cancer. I used to think the answers to all the above questions were the same. Like anyone else, people with cancer should be screened for vitamin D deficiency and be treated if deficiency is present. Simple. However, it's not that simple. The real questions are, What are reasonable 25-hydroxy-vitamin D [25(OH)D] levels for someone with a life-threatening cancer? How much vitamin D do they need to take to obtain such levels? Is there any evidence, of any kind, that vitamin D will help treat cancer? The risk/benefit analysis of taking vitamin D is quite different if you are in perfect health than if your life, or your child's life, is on the line.

Remember, unlike cancer prevention, not one human randomized controlled trial exists showing vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer. By treatment effect, I mean prolongs the lives of cancer patients. However, as I cited in my last newsletter, Dr. Philippe Autier of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Dr. Sara Gandini of the European Institute of Oncology, performed a meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials showing even low doses of vitamin D extend life but they looked at all-cause mortality, not just cancer (Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(16):1730-1737). However, some epidemiological studies indirectly address the treatment issue and are quite remarkable. The first are a series of discoveries by Professor Johan Moan, Department of Physics at the University of Oslo, with Dr. Alina Porojnicu as the lead author on most of the papers.

Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19

Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.

Porojnicu A, et al. Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.

Porojnicu AC, et al. Seasonal and geographical variations in lung cancer prognosis in Norway. Does Vitamin D from the sun play a role? Lung Cancer. 2007 Mar;55(3):263-70.

What Professor Moan's group discovered, repeatedly, is quite simple, whether it be cancer of the breast, colon, prostate, lung, or a lymphoma. You live longer if your cancer is diagnosed in the summer. And it is not just Moan's group who has found this. A huge English study recently confirmed Moan's discovery.

Lim HS, et al. Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.

What do these studies mean? Something about summer has a treatment effect on cancer. Whatever it is, you live longer if you are diagnosed in the summer but die sooner if you are diagnosed in the winter. What could it be about summer? Exercise? Fresh air? Melatonin? Sunlight? Pretty girls? Remember, these patients already had cancer. Whatever it is about summer, it is not a preventative effect that Professor Moan discovered, it is a treatment effect. Something about summer prolongs the life of cancer patients.

Dr. Ying Zhou, a research fellow, working with Professor David Christiani at the Harvard School of Public Health, went one step further. The stuffy Harvard researchers assumed summer worked its magic, not by pretty girls, but by summer sunlight making vitamin D. So they looked at total vitamin D input, from both sun and diet, to see if high vitamin D input improved the survival of cancer patients. Yes, indeed, remarkably. They found that early stage lung cancer patients with the highest vitamin D input (from summer season and high intake from diet) lived almost three times longer than patients with the lowest input (winter season and low intake from diet). Three times longer is a huge treatment effect, a treatment effect that most conventional cancer treatment methods would die for.

Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):2303-9.

And that's not all, Marianne Berwick and her colleagues, at the New Mexico Cancer Institute, found malignant melanoma patients with evidence of continued sun exposure had a 60% mortality reduction compared to patients who did not. That implies a robust treatment effect from sunlight.

Berwick M, et al. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.

I will not list the thousands of animal studies that indicate vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer as almost all of them studied activated vitamin D or its analogs, drugs that bypass normal regulatory mechanisms, cannot get autocrine quantities of the hormone into the cell, and that often cause hypercalcemia. However, Michael Holick's group found that simple vitamin D deficiency made cancers grow faster in mice. That is, vitamin D has a cancer treatment effect in vitamin D deficient mice. Professor Gary Schwartz, at Wake Forest, recently reviewed the reasons to think that vitamin D may have a treatment effect in cancer.

Tangpricha V, et al. Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.

Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.

Finally, one human interventional study exists. In 2005, in an open trial, Professor Reinhold Vieth and his colleagues found just 2,000 IU of vitamin D per day had a positive effect on PSA levels in men with prostate cancer.

Woo TC, et al. Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.

So we come back to the crucial question. If you have cancer, how much vitamin D should you take, or, more precisely, what 25(OH)D level should you maintain? We don't know. You can correctly say that definitive studies have not been done and, incorrectly, conclude physicians treating cancer patients should do nothing. I say incorrectly because standards of medical practice have always demanded that doctors make reasonable decisions based on what is currently known, doing a risk/benefit analysis along the way to decide what is best for their patients based on what is known today. If a patient has a potentially fatal cancer, the doctor cannot dismiss a relatively benign potential treatment modality just because definitive studies have not been done, and passively watch his patient die. Standards of care require doctors consider what is known now, using information currently available, perform a risk/benefit analysis, and then act in the best interest of their patient.

Luckily, such doctors recently obtained some guidance. In the first study of its kind, Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina gave all of us something to think about. He asked and answered a simple question: How much vitamin D do you have to take to normalize the metabolism of vitamin D?

Remember, unlike other steroid hormones, vitamin D has very unusual metabolism in most modern humans, called first-order, mass action, kinetics. All this means is that the more vitamin D you take, the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, and the higher the 25(OH)D level in your blood, the higher the levels of activated vitamin D in your tissues. No other steroid hormone in the body behaves like this. Think about it, would you like your estrogen level to be dependent on how much cholesterol you ate? Or your cortisol level? (I'd ask the same about testosterone levels but I know men well enough not to ask.) No, the body must tightly regulate powerful steroid hormones through substrate inhibition, that is, if an enzyme turns A into B, when the body has enough B, B inhibits the enzyme and so limits its own production.

Not so with vitamin D, at least at modern human vitamin D levels. Professor Reinhold Vieth was the first to write about this and Vieth's Chapter 61 in Feldman, Pike, and Glorieux's wonderful textbook, Vitamin D (Elsevier, 2005, second edition), is a great reason to buy the textbook or have your library do so. [ I'm glad to see Amazon is out of stock of the new ones (someone must be reading about vitamin D) but you can still buy used editions.)

Why would the kinetics of vitamin D be different from all other steroids? Maybe they are not, Hollis reasoned, like Vieth before him. Maybe vitamin D levels are so low in modern humans that its metabolic system is on full blast all the time in an attempt to give the body all the vitamin D metabolites it craves. So Hollis asked, Is vitamin D's metabolism different in populations in the upper end of 25(OH)D levels (a population of sun-exposed people and a group of women prescribed 7,000 IU per day)? Note, the Hollis study is free on Medline, you can download the entire paper on the right hand of the PubMed page below.

Hollis BW, et al. Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4.

If you look at the two graphs, Figures 1 and 2 of Hollis' paper, you find vitamin D's kinetics can be normalized, made just like all other steroid hormones in the body, but you have to get enough sunshine or take enough vitamin D to get your 25(OH)D level above 50 ng/ml, and 60 ng/ml would be better. Then your body starts to store cholecalciferol in the body without much further increase in 25(OH)D levels. The reaction becomes saturable. This is a remarkable discovery and it implies levels of 30 and 40 ng/ml are usually not sufficient. It also implies actual vitamin D levels (cholecalciferol levels), not just 25(OH)D levels, may be useful in diagnosing and treating deficiency. Note, that not all of the sun-exposed individuals or women prescribed 7,000 IU/day achieved such levels. That's because the sun-exposed individuals were tested after an Hawaiian winter and because prescribing and taking are two different things.

So my answer to "How much should I take if I have cancer?" is "Take enough to get your 25(OH)D level above 60 ng/ml, summer and winter." In doing so, you will have normalized the kinetics of vitamin D and stored the parent compound, cholecalciferol, in your tissues. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000 IU/day per 30 pounds of body weight to do this. A 150 pound cancer patient may need to take 5,000 IU per day, a 210 pound cancer patient about 7,000 IU per day, all this in the absence of sunlight. And this may not be enough; cancer patients may use it up faster (increased metabolic clearance) and children may do the same due to their young and vital enzymes. Or you may need less, because you get more sun than you think, more from your diet, or because you are taking a modern medicine that interferes with the metabolism of vitamin D. An even easier way to do it is go to a sun tanning booth every day and obtain and keep a dark, full-body, tan. Then you don't have to worry about blood levels but I'd get one anyway, just to be sure it was above 60 ng/ml.

Given what Hollis discovered, given the well-known potent anti-cancer properties of activated vitamin D, given epidemiological evidence that summer extends the life of cancer patients, given a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that vitamin D prolongs life, given animal data that simple vitamin D has a treatment effect on cancer, and given a patient with a life-threatening cancer, what would a reasonable physician do? Simply let their patient die while muttering something about the lack of randomized controlled trials?

No, they would simply check a 25(OH)D level every month and advise cancer patients to take enough vitamin D or frequent sun tanning parlors enough to keep their level above 60 ng/ml. Toxicity does not start until levels reach 150 ng/ml but if you take more than 2,000 IU per day have your doctor order a blood calcium every month or two along with the 25(OH)D. Both you and he will feel better and because if you have cancer, you are probably taking lots of other drugs and little is known about how modern drugs interact with vitamin D metabolism. By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your level to where most lifeguards' levels are at the end of summer, to levels our ancestors had when they lived in the sun, to levels regular users of sun-tan parlors levels achieve, and most importantly, to levels where vitamin D's pharmacokinetics are normalized.

In the end, if you have cancer and your physician won't do a risk/benefit analysis, do it yourself. The risk side of that equation is easy. Both Quest Diagnostics and Lab-Corp, the two largest reference labs in the USA, report the upper limit of 25(OH)D normal is 100 ng/ml and toxic is above 150 ng/ml, so 60 ng/ml is well below both. The reason levels up to 100 ng/ml are published normals is because there is no credible evidence in the literature that levels of 100 ng/ml do any harm and because sun worshipers often have such levels. (If you don't believe me, go to the beach in the summer for one month, sunbath every day for 30 minutes on each side in your bathing suit, and go home and have a 25(OH)D level.) By getting your level above 60 ng/ml, all you are doing is getting your levels into the mid to upper range of laboratory reference normals. Little or no risk.

What are the potential benefits? It probably depends on a number of things. Did your cancer cells retain the enzyme that activates vitamin D? Many do. Did your cancer cells retain the vitamin D receptor? Many do. If your cancer cells get more substrate [25(OH)D], will that substrate induce the cancer cells to make more vitamin D receptors or more of the activating enzyme? Some cancer cells do both. In practical terms, vitamin D is theoretically more likely to help your cancer the earlier you start taking it. However, no one knows. Certainly there is no reason, other than bad medicine, for cancer patients to die vitamin D deficient. Unfortunately, most do.

Tangpricha V, et al. Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.

Plant AS, Tisman G. Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-8.

It is very important that readers understand I am not suggesting vitamin D cures cancer or that it replace standard cancer treatment. Oncologists perform miracles every day. Do what they say. The only exception is vitamin D. If your oncologist tells you not to take vitamin D, ask him three questions. 1) How do you convert ng/mls to nmol/Ls? How many IU in a nonogram? 3) How do you spell "cholecalciferol?" If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it.

All of the epidemiological and animal studies in the literature suggest cancer patients will prolong their lives if they take vitamin D. I can't find any studies that indicate otherwise. However, none of the suggestive studies are randomized controlled interventional trials; they are all epidemiological or animal studies, or, in the case of Vieth's, an open human study. However, if you have cancer, or your child does, do you want to wait the decades it will take for the American Cancer Society to fund randomized controlled trials using the proper dose of vitamin D? Chances are you, or your child, will not be around to see the results.


John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422


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. This newsletter is not copyrighted. Please reproduce it and post it on Internet sites. Remember, we are a non-profit and rely on donations to publish our newsletter and maintain our website. Send your tax-deductible contributions to:

The Vitamin D Council
9100 San Gregorio Road
Atascadero, CA 93422



PS: The Vitamin D Council lost our webmaster. If you want to donate your time to a good cause, know all about maintaining websites, are interesting in keeping up with the latest press about vitamin D, and are willing to do so for free, please hit reply and let me know. We currently have $405.52 in our bank account so we cannot pay you now but may be able to pay you in the future.

Comments (14) -

  • Neelesh

    12/6/2007 3:25:00 PM |

    Dr Davis,
      I'm unable to get Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) in India. What is being sold is calcium + Vitamin D3 or Alfacalciferol or Calcitriol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcitriol).
    While I couldn't find much about alfacalciferol, Calcitriol's composition looks very similar to what you describe.  
    I wonder if they are the same.
    -Neelesh

  • Anonymous

    12/6/2007 5:02:00 PM |

    Dr. Cannell's arguments make a lot of sense, but his statement that "If he doesn't know how to measure it, weigh it, or spell it, chances are he doesn't know much about it." would carry more weight if he hadn't misspelled nanogram in the immediately preceeding sentence.

  • g

    12/6/2007 9:48:00 PM |

    I like the Feng Shui or symmetry of 60-60-60-60....

    Actually it's 60-60-60-60-60 if you include Apolipoprotein B...
    (although I know you are achieveing TGs<45!)

    This is great!  Thank you, g

  • TedHutchinson

    12/7/2007 12:21:00 AM |

    Those readers who want to check what the research papers actually said may find the NUMBERS that I have emboldened useful. If you just cut and paste the darker number into the search-box at pubmed it should bring up the right paper.
    Moan J, et al. Colon cancer: Prognosis for different latitudes, age groups and seasons in Norway. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2007 Sep 19 18029190
    Lagunova Z, et al. Prostate cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis. Prostate. 2007 Sep 1;67(12):1362-70 17624920
    Porojnicu AC, et al.  Changes in risk of death from breast cancer with season and latitude: sun exposure and breast cancer survival in Norway. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007 May;102(3):323-8.17028983

    Porojnicu A, et al.  Season of diagnosis is a predictor of cancer survival. Sun-induced vitamin D may be involved: a possible role of sun-induced Vitamin D. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):675-8. 17229569

    Porojnicu AC, et al.  Season of diagnosis is a prognostic factor in Hodgkin's lymphoma: a possible role of sun-induced vitamin D. Br J Cancer. 2005 Sep 5;93(5):571-4.17229569

    Lim HS, et al.  Cancer survival is dependent on season of diagnosis and sunlight exposure. Int J Cancer. 2006 Oct 1;119(7):1530-6.16671100

    Zhou W, Vitamin D is associated with improved survival in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer patients. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005 Oct;14(10):16214909
    Berwick M, et al.  Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Feb 2;97(3):195-9.15687362
    Tangpricha V, et al.  Vitamin D deficiency enhances the growth of MC-26 colon cancer xenografts in Balb/c mice. J Nutr. 2005 Oct;135(10):2350-4.16177194

    Schwartz GG, Skinner HG. Vitamin D status and cancer: new insights. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Jan;10(1):6-11.17143048

    Woo TC, et al.  Pilot study: potential role of vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) in patients with PSA relapse after definitive therapy. Nutr Cancer. 2005;51(1):32-6.15749627

    Hollis BW, et al.  Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2007 Mar;103(3-5):631-4. 17218096

    Tangpricha V, et al.  Prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in patients attending an outpatient cancer care clinic in Boston. Endocr Pract. 2004 May-Jun;10(3):292-3.15310552

    Plant AS, Tisman G.  Frequency of combined deficiencies of vitamin D and holotranscobalamin in cancer patients. Nutr Cancer. 2006;56(2):143-817474859

    I just feel so upset that I have been misinterpreting Hollis's paper Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans and been telling people that 100nmol/l was a reasonably safe minimum. Looking again at those figures 1 and 2 I take Cannell's point that it may be better, safe rather than just stopping at 40ng 100nmol/l it may be safer, allow a bigger margin for error, to consider 50-60ng/ml 125nmo/l- 150nmol/l as the range for optimal health.
    It's bad enough taking the flax and suggesting 4000iu/d is safe and reasonable where no sun exposure is possible.
    I suspect I'm going to be even more unpopular suggesting 7000iu may be necessary in some/many cases.

  • Anonymous

    12/7/2007 4:47:00 AM |

    Is there any danger from Vitamin D levels that are close to the upper ends of the 'safe' spectrum?

    A study in India once linked high D levels (89 ng/mL) to  higher incidents of cardiac disease, but that study was a bit iffy.

    Info can be found here: http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamin-d-safety.html

    Although the reference to the Indian study is buried a bit deep in that page. A lot of info there though.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/7/2007 11:46:00 AM |

    What an excellent summary!

    You can see that data probing the health effects, or detrimental effects of higher levels of vitamin D3 (as 25-OH-vitamin D3) are poorly explored. We aim for a blood level of 50-60 ng/ml and have observed no toxic effects whatsoever. In fact, we've observed positive effects well beyond our expectations.

    Nonetheless, I think that going above 60 or 70 ng/ml is relatively uncharted territory.

  • TedHutchinson

    12/7/2007 5:34:00 PM |

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/worst_science.shtml This summary of the Indian research mentioned earlier may help those who are unfamiliar with what is being discussed here.

    The problems associated with standardisation of scores between different assessment records is complex and discussed in this paper. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin d measurement in a large population survey with statistical harmonization of assay variation to an international standard.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17726070 There was pre-publication full text pdf version online, with some nice charts of UK vitamin d status through the year at the back, but I cannot find it now.

    There is still a problem between different assay methods and lab accuracy as some of the presentations at this conference make clear.
    http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204/servlet/tc?cn=asbmr&c=10169&s=20343&e=6950&&
    The http://www.deqas.org/ system for ensuring a world standard.

    While of course we must not totally turn our back on past research we do have to consider whether the levels reported would stand comparision with current standards of assessment.

    While I am not suggesting that anyone should try this at home.
    Safety of vitamin D3 in adults with multiple sclerosis used progressively increasing doses of vitamin D3: from 700 to 7000 microg/wk (from 28000 to 280000 IU/wk). I personally believe Vieth to be an honourable man who would, should adverse events have been record would have  reported them.
    Such very high dose levels are outside of the scope of "NORMAL" vitamin D supplementation but the very fact that when tested, the results have been predictable, does give us confidence thatRisk Assessment for Vitamin D
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6 does stand up to scrutiny when tested.

    In order to reach the levels detailed by Hollis in Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: those particularly living above latitude 37 are going to have to use more Vitamin D than Krispin Sullivan suggests during the winter months when sunlight is unavailable. It's my view that the risks associated with low vitamin d status are higher than the alleged, unproven risks of supplementing with up to 10,000iu/daily though in practice a total intake of 4000 -7000iu appear to be required during the winter when sun/uvb is not an option.

  • Vaughny

    12/8/2007 1:23:00 AM |

    Good material on Vit D.  He mentions monthylu blood calcium tests - how critical is this test if one were supplementing in the 4000IU - 6000IU / day range?  Would Vit K2 help prevent higher blood calcium?

  • Dr. Davis

    12/8/2007 1:26:00 AM |

    Monthly calcium tests are silly. There is absolutely no need for this in 99.9% of people.

    No, vitamin k2 will not prevent a rise in calcium. The worry that vitamin D will raise calcium is, for the extreme majority, unfounded.

  • Mo

    12/8/2007 11:33:00 PM |

    Isn't it actually possible that from a certain level of D upwards, that D keeps calcium from not only getting too low but also too high?

    If your D is low I'd imagine your blood calcium would at first be high or within the upper limits of normal before going on a possible plummet route if your D drops more.

    I guess once D has satisfied your bones, it doesn't over do it and distributes to other needy areas.

  • Thomas

    12/9/2007 9:48:00 PM |

    Will any fat (nuts) have similar results compaired to olive oil?

    How often should blood tests be necessary to test vitamin-d absorption ?

    Coulden't find answers to these questions using Google or Dr. Cannell's web site.

  • Dr. Davis

    12/9/2007 11:07:00 PM |

    I don't know. I suspect they have some effect, but I've not examined it specifically.

    We check our patients every 6 months.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 10:31:11 PM |

    While cancer is not our focus on the Heart Scan Blog, Dr. Cannell's always insightful comments provide some helpful thoughts for our management of vitamin D doses and blood levels.

  • John F Ocel JR

    10/13/2011 5:38:58 AM |

    DR Carnell im a huge fan of you and i know ur very smart and good at what u do and love to help educate people about there health expecially about vitamin d i am 28 years old 290 pounds 5 foot 10 vitamin d defient and have severe hypertention i take tribenzor 40-10-25 mg's in the am and monopril 20mg's in the pm, and b12 sublingual which works wonders for me mentally well anyways since iveb been taking bob barefoots coral calcium and vitamin d 3 my blood pressure went from 125 70 to 88/37 i felt like crap i stopped the tribenzor 40-10-25mg pill and increaded the monopril to 30 mg;s my pressure has been 126/60 im feeling a feverish warm feeling i wonder if its the vitamin d 3 or coral calcium or too much b12 or could it be the withdrawals of tribenzor is a cobination drug 3 pills in one for hypertention i took alil less then half a pill of the tribenzor and the fever hot flashes went away my doctor already told me that vitamin d doesnt lower bloodpressure so what should i do and what should i say to him i have an appointment the 25th of october for a bloodpressure check up.  Please help me fit the batlle of hypertention and give me ur honesy opinion thanks doc god bless u were put on this earth to help people like me thnak you.  Just wanted to let u know im taking about 5,800 ius a day thank you.and also when i stop the monopril ive had heart fluttering ive done it before, been on it since i was 16 years old.

Loading