Skip to main content

Vitamin D deficiency and effects on cancer

I had an appointment with my oncologist on Tuesday, and the one thing of note, besides the fact my numbers were essentially unchanged, was she made mention of the benefits discovered in cancer progression by increasing Vitamin D levels.

She researched other patients of hers, and discovered they were essentially all Vitamin D deficient, and recommended taking a Vitamin D supplement (1000 IU per day).

Considering the constant reinforcement [hype] by the dermatology lobby, and sun screen manufacturers, of the hazards of extended exposure to sunlight, the major source of Vitamin D, and me being the uber cynicist I am, I find that fact very believable.

She also knows I'm not much into taking supplements, plus I do get a lot of unprotected sun exposure when I ride my bike, but she put it out there for me to at least investigate.

So I did some research on the subject, and came across this very interesting article on the benefits of Vitamin D, performed at the Mayo Clinic, in newly diagnosed Diffuse Large B Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL) patients.

Of course it was only one study, a relatively small sample, and it wasn't even performed on Mantle Cell Lymphoma patients, so how much benefit it will be to me or others is still open to question. Heck, I'm not even sure I'm Vitamin D deficient (that will be checked next month), but none the less, the data is compelling, and IMO worth further consideration, if not for me, then at least others.

So even if you don't like taking supplements [like myself], at least have your Vitamin D levels checked, and consider spending more time outside exposed to the sun, without using any sun block. If nothing else, at least it will get you out of the house, and doing something a little more beneficial than simply sitting around the house reading some blog. :)

Who knows, they may even discover it's just one more benefit to exercising outside, beyond the obvious.

Comments

Alan Posner said…
Getting your Vit D "checked" is easy if you have health insurance that will cover it (I don't). I think there are enough studies for various ailments (specifically coronary artery disease) that it's reasonable for everyone to take a Vit D supplement. (safer than sun exposure).

I take 2000 units/day. The only downside is possible hypercalcemia. A serum Calcium is a lot cheaper than a serum Vit D level.
Marc said…
Why is hypercalcimia a problem? Do you just absorb more of the natural calcium through the food we eat? That only seems like a problem if you were taking a calcium supplement as well.

And are you taking Vitamin D or D3, and is there a difference? I have only seen D3 available.
Mark VanKirk said…
I just had blood work done and my doctor told me the same thing. He wants me to take 2000 units of Vitamin D a day. I have started yet.

My in-laws were told the same thing. Is there some new test or something?
Marc said…
No, I just think doctors and others are starting to realize, we're spending far too much time in the house [on computers], and not spending enough time outside [living] getting enough sunlight.

You'd be better off spending more time in the sun.
The skin produces approximately 10,000 IU vitamin D in response [to] 20–30 minutes [of] summer sun exposure—50 times more than the US government's recommendation of 200 IU per day!

Popular posts from this blog

The green tea phenomenon

Despite being a heavy drinker of green tea since my diagnosis, mainly for its cancer prevention, and hopefully cancer curing qualities, I recently have developed a new found enthusiasm for green tea. Now whether it has been the green tea I have been drinking for the past 6+ years, my heavy exercise routine, or just pure chance that has kept my MCL stable, or at least [very] slow progressing, for the past 7+ years is certainly open to debate, but based on past research, I have chosen to believe green tea has at least helped to some degree. So what has given me this new found enthusiasm? Well, a friend of mine, and cycling buddy, was recently diagnosed with bladder cancer, and knowing my daily regimen called to ask my advice on green tea. He had already done a lot of research on the subject, so when I told him my obsession with green tea consisted principally of drinking the least expensive, decaffeinated green tea available (Trader Joe's brand of 18 tea bags for $3, and more recentl...

Alternative treatment blowback

I received some interesting criticism the other day for my stance on alternative therapies. I ......... cannot for the life of me understand why you would not use supplementation and then use an over the counter poisonous liquid which has proven liver toxicity. Especially while taking a statin. She was referring to the use of an over the counter cough medication, I have been taking to help ease the symptoms of my upper respiratory infection. I did this once and vow to never use it again! I have gotten off Lipitor by using Nicotinic Acid and getting much better results but still use COQ10 to protect Liver as you must do while taking Statins. If you are not using CoQ10, I urge you to research this issue. MCL reduces your D3 and should be taken everyday! I use 5000mgs a day. I was sorta taken aback. She was partially correct. I'm against taking supplements, but when necessary I don't have a problem taking over the counter medication, when my ailments finally get the better of me. ...

When is enough, enough?

Today I learned, Lance Armstrong, the most drug tested athlete in the history of sport, is being accused of doping, again . This time by the US Anti Doping Agency (USADA), who claim they have collected blood samples from him in 2009 and 2010 that were “fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions.” Really! What took them so long? The French have been trying to make allegations of drug doping stick for years, ever since he won his first Tour d'France, but to no avail. And now the USADA claims to have evidence to support that claim, and they've waited almost 3 years before releasing this evidence. Needless to say, I am skeptical. Then there's this from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO): Increasing the federal excise tax on cigarettes by 50 cents per pack eventually would increase Medicare and Social Security spending, slightly. Eventually? What is the CBO suggesting here? That we should encourage smoking, because if we don't, in...