Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-settings.php on line 399

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-settings.php on line 414

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-settings.php on line 421

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-settings.php on line 456

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-includes\cache.php on line 99

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-includes\query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in D:\Hosting\13026667\html\blog\wp-includes\theme.php on line 576
Free Radical Therapy Blog » calcification

Posts Tagged ‘calcification’

Blood Chemistry is ESSENTIAL for Safe Supplementation of Vitamin D

Wednesday, October 20th, 2010

A doctor who knows my concern with the widespread enthusiasm over supplementing with high levels of vitamin D asks “How low a reading for serum vitamin D would have to occur before we should recommend supplementing with vitamin D? And, how much would you recommend?”

As with all other health questions, it depends upon what the other chemistry data reveals. For instance, I have an editorial coming out in a major scientific journal, in which I’ve noted there are four major reasons for a serum vitamin D reading being low, other than vitamin D deficiency:

1) A low serum protein or inadequate protein status to bind calcium sufficiently will result in an increase in free, unbound calcium accompanied by a (protective) low serum vitamin D – a scenario that may affect at least 30% of the population.

2) A low to low-normal serum phosphate, causing unhealthy rise in free, unbound calcium, which may again cause a protective lower reading for serum vitamin D – a scenario that likely affects 70% of adults over age 45.

3) A negative feedback from vitamin D receptor activity, due to an elevation in active vitamin D, may result in a protectively low reading for vitamin D – a scenario that likely affects just about anyone taking an ultra megadose of vitamin D, regardless of their baseline reading.

4) A low serum reading for total serum calcium in someone who is diseased with calcium deposits will result in the body’s protective lowering-response for serum vitamin D.

In all of these circumstances, high dosages of vitamin D will run the risk of further disease and calcification, often punctuated by a rise in serum calcium to a level that could be life threatening for a variety of reasons. It is my contention that thousands of people are on dialysis today due to taking high levels of vitamin D without considering why the original reading was low. Thousands more are dying of heart disease and various atrophy states due to the same major flaw in interpretation.

Wake up, people! Don’t be misled by those who practice only in accordance to the one-size-fits-all philosophy. Health success often depends on getting a proper chemistry and a health model-based interpretation of the data.

Excess Vitamin D: The Risk Won’t Go Away

Tuesday, July 8th, 2008

Everyone seems to be getting all excited about vitamin D.  If a little does some good then a whole bunch must be better.  The problem with all this excitement has surfaced about every 10-12 years over the past 40 years, each time bringing the fad to a screeching halt as the reality of increased calcification and risk of arterial stenosis raises its ugly head.  Bare in mind, what we call vitamin D is not truly a vitamin, and what we measure in the name of vitamin D is not vitamin D, but a key metabolite.  So, how do you make your decisions as to whether to give vitamin D?  Lots to be considered.

Interestingly, the same questions were being asked back in the early 1970’s by a group of very distinguished scientists.  As the questions mounted a gathering of 100 or so of the leading experts met in Chicago to reach some consensus.  Included in the group was Fred Kummerow, Ph.D. of the University of Illinois, who argued against supplementing beyond 5,000 IU’s.  In pig studies, for instance, which serves as the best animal model of our human disease, Dr. Kummerow had shown that higher levels tended to result in changes that were consistent with what is seen in various stages of arterial disease.  Now, studies that again support his findings are beginning to resurface. [Ngo, D.T., et al., Vitamin D2 supplementation induces the development of aortic stenosis in rabbits: Interactions with endothelial function and thioredoxin-interacting protein; Eur J Pharmacol, June 12, 2008.]

So, for those of you who are as interested as I, an interview with Dr. Kummerow has been scheduled for about mid August to get his latest findings on this topic.  Yes, I know, he’s nearly 94, but he’s still kicking, still going to his research lab every day, and has just published his latest book on the trans fats….a health risk that he first reported in the early 1950’s but which took 40 years to catch on.

One interesting note on the forthcoming interview:  Dr. Kummerow was one of the 106 scientists that met that fateful day in Chicago to discuss this issue back in the early 70’s.  Several attendees were Nobel Laureates. Interestingly, of all those who attended, most of which were advocating high levels of vitamin D, he is the only one who dissented and the only one who’s still living.  Tune in later in August and I’ll report my findings.  Should prove to be interesting.

Sam