Physical aging appearance
Comments
-
Here's the latest information from the National Cancer Institute regarding Vitamin
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D
0 -
Is there a role for vitamin D in reducing
cancer risk?A large number of scientific studies have investigated a possible role for
vitamin D in cancer prevention.- The first results came from epidemiologic studies known as geographic
correlation studies. In these studies, an inverse relationship was found between
sunlight exposure levels in a given geographic area and the rates of incidence
and death for certain cancers in that area. Individuals living in southern
latitudes were found to have lower rates of incidence and death for these
cancers than those living at northern latitudes. Because sunlight/UV exposure is
necessary for the production of vitamin D3, researchers hypothesized
that variation in vitamin D levels accounted for the observed
relationships. - Evidence of a possible cancer-protective role for vitamin D has also been
found in laboratory
studies of the effect of vitamin D treatment on cancer cells in culture. In
these studies, vitamin D promoted the differentiation and death (apoptosis)
of cancer cells, and it slowed their proliferation. - Randomized
clinical trials designed to investigate the effects of vitamin D intake on
bone health have suggested that higher vitamin D intakes may reduce the risk of
cancer. One study involved nearly 1,200 healthy postmenopausal
women who took daily supplements of calcium (1,400 mg or 1,500 mg) and vitamin D
(25 μg vitamin D, or 1,100 IU-a relatively large dose) or a placebo
for 4 years. The women who took the supplements had a 60 percent lower overall
incidence of cancer (6); however, the study did not include a
vitamin D-only group. Moreover, the primary outcome of the study was fracture
incidence; it was not designed to measure cancer incidence. This limits the
ability to draw conclusions about the effect of vitamin D intake on cancer
risk. - A number of observational
studies have investigated whether people with higher vitamin D levels or
intake have lower risks of specific cancers, particularly colorectal cancer and
breast cancer. Associations of vitamin D with risks of prostate, pancreatic, and
other, rarer cancers have also been examined. These studies have yielded
inconsistent results, most likely because of the challenges of conducting
observational studies of diet (7). Information about dietary
intakes is obtained from the participants through the use of food frequency
questionnaires, diet records, or interviews in which the participants are asked
to recall information about their dietary intakes. Information collected in this
manner can be inaccurate. In addition, only recently has a comprehensive food
composition database with vitamin D values for the U.S. food supply become
available. Other dietary components or energy
balance may also modify vitamin D metabolism (8).Measuring blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D to determine vitamin D status
avoids some of the limitations of assessing dietary intake. However, vitamin D
levels in the blood vary by race, with the season, and possibly with the
activity of genes
whose products are involved in vitamin D transport and metabolism. These
variations complicate the interpretation of studies that measure the
concentration of vitamin D in serum at a single point in time.Finally, it is difficult to separate the effects of vitamin D and calcium
because of the complicated biological interactions between these substances. To
fully understand the effect of vitamin D on cancer and other health outcomes,
new randomized trials will need to be carried out (9).
However, the appropriate dose of vitamin D to use in such trials is still not
clear (10).
Is there evidence that vitamin D can help reduce breast cancer
risk?Epidemiologic studies of the association between vitamin D and breast cancer
risk have had conflicting results. Although several studies have suggested an
inverse association between vitamin D intake and the risk of breast cancer,
others have shown no association or even a positive association (that is,
individuals with higher intakes had higher risks). A meta-analysis of six
studies that investigated the relationship between vitamin D intake and breast
cancer risk found no association (19). However, most women in
these studies had relatively low vitamin D intakes, and, when the analysis was
restricted to women with the highest vitamin D intakes (>10 μg, or 400 IU,
per day), their breast cancer risks were lower than those of women with the
lowest intakes (typically <1.25 μg, or 50 IU, per day) (19).In the Women's Health Initiative, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation for
Is it safe to take vitamin D
an average of 7 years did not reduce the incidence of invasive breast cancer
compared with placebo (20).
The association
between blood levels of vitamin D and breast cancer risk was examined in a
cohort of postmenopausal women who were enrolled in NCI's Prostate, Lung,
Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening
Trial and from whom blood was drawn at study entry. During the subsequent
follow-up period, 1,005 of these women developed breast cancer. When researchers
compared the blood vitamin D levels of these women with those of 1,005 similar
control women who did not develop breast cancer, they found no association
between vitamin D status and risk of breast cancer (21).
supplements?
Vitamin D toxicity is more likely to occur from
high intakes of dietary supplements than from high intakes of vitamin
D-fortified foods. For most children and adults, the tolerable upper intake
level (UL) of vitamin D intake from foods and supplements is 25 μg (1,000 IU)
per day for those less than 1 year of age and 50 μg (2,000 IU) per day for older
individuals (1, 2). The UL is the highest
level of daily intake (from all sources combined) that is likely to pose no risk
of adverse
effects for almost all people.
Excessive vitamin D intake is toxic
because it increases calcium levels. Increased calcium levels can lead to
calcinosis (the deposit of calcium salts in soft
tissues of the body, such as the kidneys, heart, and lungs)
and hypercalcemia
(high blood levels of calcium). Symptoms
of excessive vitamin D intake may include heart rhythm abnormalities; mental
status changes, such as confusion; pain; conjunctivitis;
anorexia;
fever;
chills; thirst; vomiting;
and weight loss (1, 2, 4).
0 - The first results came from epidemiologic studies known as geographic
-
Luna, please don't insult me. With over 11,000 posts, I am most certainly not new to the boards. We were only concerned about YOUR health sweetie. But thanks for taking that load off, because now I don't care! When you grow up you'll learn how to integrate yourself into an ongoing conversation without being so rude. (But I'm not counting on it!)
0 -
Animosity creates wrinkles and grey hair.
That is something that we certainly don't need on this thread.
0 -
I tried the Finesse Silver Brights yesterday. LOVE the smell of it! I do believe that it is good so far.... I did have to soap up three times. I have very short hair and am used to just using a little, bitty dot of shampoo, but not here! Maybe they "assume" anyone using it would have short hair and want us to use it up quicker. So the first dose of shampoo holds out on sudsing...hehehehehehhe... (like, how would it know it was the first dose?)
{{{{{{{{{{ Marybe }}}}}}}}}}}}}}
0 -
Marybe, sorry about the hair, but the most important thing is that the meds work. Wear bright red lipstick, long dangling earrings; you will look exotic and fabulous!
Wish me luck girls; I am having company all weekend, and of all things; hernia surgery on Monday. Always something, I guess.
Have a Happy Easter All! Eating chocolate bunnies keeps you young at heart!
0 -
Good luck on Monday Ruth! I know you'll have a blast all weekend....
0 -
Marybe, so sorry about your hair. Good luck with your cataract surgery today!
Ruth, hugs and good thoughts coming your way!
0 -
It really bothers me we are arguing on this forum/topic, what is going on lately?? This is supposed to be a totally safe space for people to talk about something relatively benign. The threads on these boards really get mean, and it makes me sad because I feel like the individual women are part of my posse.
50,000 IU is D2 from the doc, it is intended for short-term use (and it worked just fine for me, I get a little weary of the "don't do D2 it'll never work!" camp). There is speculation that too much D has consequences. No one has the answer to what, if any, those consequences are, but I'd be wary of anyone--naturopath, oncologist or otherwise--who says they "know" what the right amount is. It's up for debate, pending more study.
0 -
I went to a very interesting speaker a month ago. She is a doctor, nutrition specialist, and an eleven year survivor of an advanced breast cancer diagnosis (she had a bone marrow transplant as part of her treatment). So her interest in getting the facts right is not for academic reasons only. I put this as a post under the title of 'Vitamins' but thought some of you guys would also find it interesting. Here are some of her tips for staying healthy:
1. We all know we should eat more fruits & veggies, whole grains, less red meat, processed food etc. so I am not going to go into any of that.
2. EVERYONE should be taking a multi-vitamin. Make sure it says ‘Complete' on the label. Make sure it contains iodine, Vitamin K, selenium and folic acid along with all the other good stuff. Interesting facts about why multi-vitamins are important:
* older women with the lowest levels of vitamin B-12 were at the greatest risk for breast cancer
* taking acid-blocking medications make you less able to absorb B-12
* she recommends 400 mcg of folic acid a day. It works with the B-12 (studies have found that folates may help to make chemo more effective and decrease side effects)
* B 6 is important in lowering the risk of breast and colon cancer
* she recommends 90 mg of vitamin C
* 30 iu of E
3. Omega 3.....either eat oily fish twice a week or use fish-oil supplements (make sure it says EPA and DHA approved) 1000 mg a day. It's associated with decreased risk of cancer, heart disease, inflammatory disease, depression and more.
4. Vitamin D....a big deal.....she recommends getting it tested (should be between 40-50 ng/dL). She recommends 2000 iu a day to maintain a good level. Many, many conditions are associated with low vitamin D; heart attack, cancers, rheumatoid arthritis, muscle weakness, asthma, diabetics, multiple sclerosis etc. etc. etc. There are over 200 different body tissues that have been identified so far that have receptors for the vitamin D hormone and they need it to work properly.
* adequate Vitamin D levels has been shown to reduce the side effects of taxol based chemotherapy
* Adequate Vitamin D has shown to reduce the side effects of aromatase inhibitors
* start with a multi-vitamin, drink milk, eat yogurt (check and make sure it has vitamin D added), and most people will also need a supplement to keep that high of levels
5. Vitamin K, should get 100 mcg a day. Check your multi-vitamin, not all of them have it added. Inadequacy leads to an increased risk of various cancers, heart disease, osteoporosis and kidney problems.
0 -
Speaking about controversy...Has any one read the latest regarding calcium...coming out of the Women's Health Initiative? Yikes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm just going to continue taking my two walks a day and make sure I look both ways when I cross the street! If I'm doing the driving, I'm going to live life in the fast lane...but always wear my seat belt and hope for the best!
Happy Holidays!
0 -
Oh, Ruth...It would be so nice if there were clinical recommendations based on evidence to recommend those vitamin D levels of 40 to 50. Unfortunately, they just don't know yet. I just remember, not too long ago how my husband and everyone I knew was taking Vitamin E. And my doctor told me that as long as I was eating a balanced diet, I didn't need a multi vitamin...AND, if you've read the latest about multi vitamins...the evidence that does exisit says, that more people who take multi vitamins live shorter lives. They haven't figured out why...but they think that the sickest people are taking them and unfortunately, living shorter. Sooooo....stay tuned.
0 -
Voraciousreader, what's the contraversy you know of?? Sounds like there is evidence on both sides: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/blog/dailydose/2011/04/making_sense_of.html
Which leaves those of us who are susceptible to thinning from our dumb drugs out in the cold--what do you gals recommend? I know naturopaths have different ways of handling the osteo. And of course, you all know the studies about bone-builders: they build really weird, brittle bone supposedly.
That is pretty weird about multis. Is it just that sicker people rely on them, thus show as a group living shorter lives?
Well, I knew from the beginning, there's no clear winning at this game...
0 -
There are multivitamins (One-A-Day, etc.) that are made in test tubes and full of synthetic fillers. Then there are higher quality multivitamins (mostly sold in natural markets) that are made at low temp processes from real food. IMO, there's a world of difference, and if you qualify study participants simply by asking them if they take a multivitamin, you're not comparing apples to apples.
Then there's the whole issue of other lifestyle factors. Were those study participants at an ideal weight or were some obese? Do they eat fruits & vegetables, or consume more high fat & processed foods? Do they smoke? Drink in excess? Exercise? Drink enough water? Sorry, but no multivitamin in the world will make up for other health-deteriorating habits.
In other words, from my experience, I think that bit of "research" is worthless. Deanna
0 -
The more I read these studies... The more flummoxed I become. You have to give me tons of evidence before I "digest" the significance.
0 -
Yes, forgot to mention that the whole foods supplements are supposed to be much better. And yes, there are so many variables.
The bottom line is, our bodies degrade with age. It's a race against the clock no matter how old. And I've known for a long time: there is no magic bullet. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction--whether supplement, Tamoxifen, or whatever.
Which is why I'm always suspicious of naturopathy and allopathy alike--they just don't really know for sure!!
Guess we should get back to worrying our pretty heads about our looks ; )
0 -
Deanna.. you raise an important point. Not all supplements and vitamins are created equal. My husband has a very rare genetic metabolic muscular dystrophy. We work very closely with a medical geneticist, endocrinologist and dietician. His supplements, such as glutamine, you can't buy in a traditional store. It is made by prescription, in its purest form and is delivered to us by the keg. Really. Don't ask what kind of dirty looks we get from the UPS guy when he delivers it!
0 -
It was just this week in the news they were saying that a multi was a waste of money if you eat a balanced diet... Several years ago I was at a health related conference at which a biochemist was speaking about how everyone needed folic acid supplements. She also said that if you drink alcohol that you need to take even more, like double the amount. My oncologist saw folic acid on my list of vitamins and supplements and told me that I shouldn't be taking it since it increases the risk for colon cancer. We are dammed if we do and dammed if we don't. For me it's all about moderation because I don't think anyone really knows or ever will.
0 -
Good heavens ladies,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is going on here.......I'm not even going to venture to get into this vitamin crap........considering I got in trouble on another thread for telling someone to "put on their big girl panties"....................but when I was at the M/O the other day she said, make sure you take 800 iu of vitamin D everyday...........Checked my vitamin, and it had 1,000, called and she said "that's fine", after reading on this thread I thought, "I'll take more", now I have people saying "don't take more", yet I have read articles that say "more is good", and ones that say "too much is toxic"...................So now I'm really confused.............I swear sometimes I think what i said is true..........................Toss the damn coin, and call heads or tails......................
0 -
Ducky...that's my point. So ladies anyone find a nice sheer lipstick for Spring? Or better yet, we haven't spoken about perfumes. Anyone care to chime in?
0 -
Voraciousreader, glad you brought that up - I was just going to ask about make-up tips. I need an over 40-past-chemo makeover. I was going through all my old makeup and skincare in my bathroom and I want to toss it all. It's all dark, drab colors and skin care is full of chemicals and old.
Ladies, what items can you not be without right now to look more vibrant and youthful? I was thinking of replacing my powder blushes with a pink cream one? And tossing my dark lipsticks for a softer one?
0 -
Fearless... I have been using sheer everything lately. If you go back in this thread you can read about some good tips. You can start experimenting at your local rite aid, cvs and target. Look for lipsticks that are sheer and lipstains. For your face , look for stuff that says luminescent and/ or sheer. And remember, less is more. Good luck.
0 -
okay...I think I would even prefer a tinted moisturizer. But I will see what they have. I will def stick to drugstore, as I can't afford dept store brands and think they are overrated, anyways....
0 -
Sephora is fun too!
0 -
My two cents: focusing on eyes rather than mouth is a smart way to go. I'm always amazed at older women who do punchy lipsticks--it looks old to me. The eyes, and eyebrows have it.
Anastasia is in this humble opinion the best line of eyebrow makeup.
I am thinking about trying the Olay face brush, which is a cheaper rendition of the Clarisonic.
0 -
The place where I buy my makeup started using a new line called 'Mirabella'. The interesting thing about it is that you get 'paint' brushes and use them them to apply the foundation, eyebrow liner etc. It gives you a nice smooth look.
0 -
Yeah, I love Sephora. But it does carry the higher end brands. I really do need to stick to the drugstore. My list:
1) tinted moisturizer (or ultra sheer foundation)
2) summery lipstick (or gloss) in peach or pink
3) cream blush
4) eyeshadow in pale, sheer hues (pinks, peaches)
5) bronzing powder in a light shade
Am I missing anything?
0 -
I'm a BareMinerals fan. It has great coverage and is very light. You don't look made-up at all! For lipstick, I personally like sheer, very neutral colors with a little shimmer. I am more inclined to play up my eyes than my lips. I also think applicator brushes make all the difference when it comes to eyes. The crappy sponge applicators that some eye shadows come with don't make for easy application. I don't use eyeliner pencil, but I have black powder shadow that I put on my upper lids near the lashes with a brush designed for this purpose. Much more natural looking than a harsh eye pencil. BTW- I'm 18 months out from finishing chemo and my eyelashes are FINALLY back to normal! No more thinning out in cycles.
0 -
Make sure the lipstick is sheer. Mho.... Dump the gloss. Gloss is for my 27 year old daughter. Meanwhile, my neighbor gave me People Magazine with Jennifer Lopez on the cover. Breath taking! She glows!
0 -
I'm not convinced gloss looks good on anyone, IMO!
0
