INSOMNIACS place to talk in the wee hours

"YAY Hootie Hoo- I was researching something else and happened upon an article that referenced research that says current recommendations re: Vita D was WRONG by a factor of ten. This is the statement made by the lead researchers

"Researchers at UC San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates the need by a factor of ten."

"Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially," said Garland. "The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health."

'Robert Heaney, M.D., of Creighton University wrote: "We call for the NAS-IOM and all public health authorities concerned with transmitting accurate nutritional information to the public to designate, as the RDA, a value of approximately 7,000 IU/day from all sources."

Full article  http://www.news-medical.net/news/20150318/Recommended-intake-of-vitamin-D-miscalculated-by-IOM-experts-say.aspx

 BTW When you check this Vitamin D link out, put the home page in your favorites. It's search mechanism is internal to the web site. The articles authors have done the literature research and done an interpretation. It's then written in almost humanspeak versus sciencespeak.

Okey dokey, I emailed Dr. Haney at Creighton University. This is what I wrote to him.

"Dr. Haney, Thank you for your work on osteoporosis and Vitamin D3. I'm s/p breast cancer(BC) 6 years. Also, one year s/p papillary thyroid cancer with a follicular variant. Still very active in the breastcancer.org(BCO) discussion community.

I just posted the article "Recommended intake of vitamin D miscalculated by IOM, experts say" from March 18th, 2015 from new-medical.net. It has raised questions re: breast cancer survivors. BCO members come from all over the world. As a consequence, we are all being told different ways to manage post breast cancer life. It ranges from "do not take vitamin D supplements to take 5000 units a day. The article referencing your research and The research in California(forgot his name)will help the BCO member's that see my post.

I was delighted to find your article. I researched dose, but was having trouble finding EBR. Looking for something else, and the article fell into my sight. YAY.

The questions? Is there a contraindication to Vitamin D3 supplementation by breast cancer survivors? What amount of Vitamin D3 should a breast cancer patient/survivor take? What amount of Vitamin D3 should a Breast cancer patient/survivor that has been previously diagnosed as deficient? ( pre BC-I was originally < 4 not detectable) Do cancer patients differ in the amount of Vitamin D3 needed versus the rest of the population? What is D2's role with cancer patients? Is there a link between Vitamin D deficiency and BC? Vitamin D3 deficiency and Thyroid cancer? Recommendation on dose of Vitamin D3 for Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC), specifically but not limited too, bone mets?

Forgive me, I got carried away with the questions. The thought of getting answers from someone so knowledgeable about Vitamin D, has my head in the clouds.

I realize osteoporosis is your schtick, but trying to get decent recommendations for cancer patients regarding supplements is not good. Most docs don't keep up on it. The research is not being done across the gamut of supplements. NCCAM isn't much help. This causes too many cancer survivors, being subject to bad information.

My volunteer role as a retired nurse in the BCO discussion group has been to seek out the most current EBR on information that impacts our care.

Thank you in advance for any insight you can give us,

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent second email

"Dr. Haney, Sorry about the big oops in directing all my statements on Vitamin D as Vitamin D3.  But it does raise the questions Re; what we should be taking as a supplement i.e. D, D3, D2. Thanks, "

-----------------------------------

We will see what happens.

HI1 my endocrine doc went on and on about toxicity, but wouldn't provide back up documentation. I couldn't find any, but didn't try hard--too busy. Until Spookie and Jazzy brought up the 5000Units/day dose, I was dosing by endocrins recommendation. Spookie's in west Florida, Jazzy's in New Mexico---they were both told the same thing by their medical docs i.e mainline orthodox docs versus alternatives. That told me there is newer information out there.

The info in this article is new. It hasn't filtered down through the medical community yet. In the medical community it can take from short to a very long time for clinicians(any field) to change their practice recommendations. There are many reasons why. It ranges from disagreement with new recommendations, to not keeping up with current info, to knowing current recs but taking a wait and see attitude. Your gal may be great, but this is brand new info. She will likely wait to change her recommendations until her professional governing body makes a change of practice publication i.e clinical practice guideline position statement. This is a usual practice for every discipline.  Has to do with licensing. Docs on the other hand have more latitude by their licensing. If that makes the mud more clear--good. If not I can give more info.

If you notice in the article, the researchers have sent recommendations to two(?) major players. Those players will now take it to their organizations. The way it works: the info is sent to the Executive or executive review board of the organization  The exec determines if their is a subcommittee that is already established that can review the info. If not the executive committee establishes a special review board. All the members review info, concur on response to the exec board. The exec board responds. It then goes before the voting body of an organization for vote as to support of a finalized position on "whatever". This can take from months to years.

What makes me really happy about this happening is Vitamin D deficiency is a big public health issue now. It has been an issue for allot longer than has been known. Widespread testing wasn't started until around 2008. It has accelerated since then as deficient numbers were being publicized. An example, it is now common practice for PCP's to test for D--D3 &D2 together equal D level. Previously, it was the practioner dealing with osteoporosis dx i.e. endocrine.

 Krips,  that brings back a memory of when Dexa scanning was introduced in the mid 90's. The scans gave info re: bone problems that the docs weren't prepared to deal with treatment or even missed that the patient needed treatment because of the way the report was written(computer generated). That was a fiasco time. It finally got straightened out. The public never knew.

Chevy. LOL NOOoooooooooo. Please, don't start popping supplements.  Unless science shows they are needed. Love you, but I'm worn out for at least a little bit on thinking. Started thinking on the Fentanyl thread and researching this morning. Thank you for thinking what I wrote to Dr Haney was impressive. I called his number listed on his page at Creighton. You could tell it was his voice----Sean Connery like--- said he only took emails. Worked out well asked lots more questions then I would have if I talked with him.

Trail mix is devine--the food of the gods.

MommieZ--------What caption would you put on the pic?

MammaRay, in Florida, Sun mostly travel within state---over to Tampa for DS and Doc. Dear cousin 1/2 hour away. Over to Disney when friends family are visiting. Dear Brother here six months of the year, but to far too visit frequently. Love having DC so close.