Optimal Dose Of Vitamin D For Breast Cancer Prevention Explained

If everyone took 2,000 units of vitamin D a day, it could shift the curve from average blood levels in the mid-50s to about 110 [nanomoles per liter], which some estimate could add years to our life expectancy. Data derived from randomized clinical trials have convinced some influential experts, such as Harvard’s Chair of Nutrition, that we should shoot for this kind of range—levels that about nine out of ten people fail to reach, because it may necessitate taking between 1,800 and 4,000 units a day.

The Institute of Medicine, however, considered blood levels of 50 to be sufficient, and, therefore, only recommended 600 to 800 units a day for those with little or no sun exposure, because they were only considering bone health. But even if you just cared about your bones, and not your lifespan, you’d still probably want to shoot for the 75 threshold, because there’s evidence like this— from hundreds of autopsies of people that like died in car accidents showing osteomalacia (softening of the bones) in between 18 and 39 percent of people that reach the Institute of Medicine target, but fail to make it to 75.

There’s even been a charge that the Institute of Medicine simply just made a mistake in their calculations, and, using their own criteria, they should be recommending thousands of units a day as well. But the mere absence of soft bones can hardly be considered an adequate definition either of health or of vitamin D sufficiency. It’s like saying you only need 10 milligrams of vitamin C to avoid scurvy—yeah, but we need way more than that for optimal health.

The Institute of Medicine took the position that the burden of proof fell on anyone who claimed benefits for intake higher than their minimal recommendations—which is a good approach for drugs. For unnatural substances, less is more, until proven otherwise. But for nutrients, shouldn’t the starting point, at least, be the natural levels to which our bodies have become finely tuned for millions of years?

The target level of 75 only sounds high compared to average levels today. But in modern times, we practice unnatural activities, like working at a desk job, or, sometimes, even wearing clothes. We evolved running around naked in equatorial Africa, getting sun all day long.

If you measure vitamin D levels in those living traditional lives in the cradle of humanity, a normal vitamin D level would be over 100. So, maybe that should be the starting point, until proven otherwise; a concept, regrettably, many guidelines committees seem to have ignored.

Now look, the natural level isn’t necessarily the optimal level. Maybe the body would have thrived with less. So, you still have to look at what levels correspond to the lowest disease rates. And when you do, the highest levels do indeed seem to correlate with less disease.

You know, it always struck me when I was doing pediatrics, that breastfed babies required vitamin D drops. I mean, shouldn’t human breast milk be a perfect food? Of course, for the medical profession, the solution is simple, right? Provide the baby supplements: the drops. But it seems like we shouldn’t have to. It should be perfect. But look, you measure human breast milk these days, and it has virtually no vitamin D, and would cause rickets, unless the mom has vitamin D levels up around, you guessed it, the level natural for our species, which, of course, makes total sense.

So, it’s just like an environmental mismatch, the way we live in our modern world. It helps to think of vitamin D as what is truly is—a hormone, not a vitamin. So, if you think of it like that, then it would be reasonable to have normal levels. We physicians try to maintain blood pressure, and all sorts of parameters, within normal limits, “but why is so little attention paid to the status of the hormone ‘vitamin D’?”

In health,
Michael Greger, M.D.

Michael Greger, M.D., is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous “meat defamation” trial. Currently Dr. Greger proudly serves as the Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United

Multivitamin Supplements and Breast Cancer

Multivitamin Supplements and Breast CancerBy: Michael Greger, M.D., a physician, author, and internationally recognized professional speaker.

A Harvard study of what tens of thousands of women ate in high school found that “dietary intake of fiber and nuts during adolescence influences subsequent risk of breast disease and may suggest a viable means for breast cancer prevention.” And the protection from nuts was independent of fiber:

Results for nuts were essentially the same with additional adjustment for fiber, suggesting that in addition to fiber, the inverse associations between nut intake and proliferative benign breast disease risk may also be attributable to nutrients other than fiber in nuts.” Nuts, after all, are packed with vitamins and minerals, but wouldn’t it be easier just to take a multivitamin than eating all that PB&J?

Last year a study of 35,000 women was published on the association between multivitamin use and breast cancer rates. “

Many women use multivitamins in the belief that these supplements will prevent chronic diseases such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, whether the use of multivitamins affects the risk of breast cancer is unclear.” Well, it just got clearer: what do you think they found?

Multivitamins for breast cancer prevention: Harmful, harmless, or helpful? 40% of women in the United States take a multivitamin, spending $4 billion dollars to do so. Is this money well spent, is it just a waste of money? No, it is worse. They are in fact paying to increase their risk of breast cancer. “These results suggest that multivitamin use is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.”

The researchers suggest it may be the folic acid that’s the culprit, something I talked about in a previous video, whereas the doubling of prostate cancer risk tied to multivitamin use is thought due to the zinc content.

From the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine last year. Should healthy people take a multivitamin? No.

 “At least it won’t hurt,” may not be true”

Michael Greger M.D.About Michael Greger M.D.
Michael Greger, M.D., is a physician, author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous “meat defamation” trial. Currently Dr. Greger proudly serves as the Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States.

Video Sources

Caballero B. Should healthy people take a multivitamin? Cleve Clin J Med. 2010 Oct;77(10):656-7.

Su X, Tamimi RM, Collins LC, Baer HJ, Cho E, Sampson L, Willett WC, Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Rosner BA, Colditz GA. Intake of fiber and nuts during adolescence and incidence of proliferative benign breast disease. Cancer Causes Control. 2010 Jul;21(7):1033-46

Park SY, Murphy SP, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN. Multivitamin use and the risk of mortality and cancer incidence: the multiethnic cohort study. Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Apr 15;173(8):906-14.

Zhang Y, Coogan P, Palmer JR, Strom BL, Rosenberg L. Vitamin and mineral use and risk of prostate cancer: the case-control surveillance study. Cancer Causes Control. 2009 Jul;20(5):691-8.

Larsson SC, Akesson A, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Multivitamin use and breast cancer incidence in a prospective cohort of Swedish women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1268-72.

%d bloggers like this: