VITAMIN D and NATURE

IT IS ONLY NATURAL

Often natural functions are not as selective as we might want them to be. They just function the same in all situations, counter to those with triage actions. 

One of the main functions of VITAMIN D is to increase calcium and phosphorus absorption when needed. But it also increases the absorption of other minerals too. Some of these minerals may not be desirable for body functions, like heavy metals such as Lead, Cadmium, and radioactive isotopes of strontium and cesium. ref

 This is another reason science should be researching to find the most optimal vitamin D levels with the least adverse effects. And why reaching for the new higher Vitamin D dosages might not always be the prudent choice. Why do you think this aspect is seldom mentioned by "vitamin experts"? Do they consider it of little significance? Or are they simply not aware of this aspect?

Interestingly, the healthier the diet and greater quantities of organic foods, the greater the chance for heavy metal contamination.  Whole and organic foods with natural fertilizers have a higher possibility of contamination. And if they are concentrated, this contamination percentage is often increased.

While this in probably not the intention of Nature's design for vitamin D, it is an unfortunate consequence.

Remember this! Mother Nature seldom if ever lets sunshine generate a toxic vitamin D level, while supplements bypass this protective mechanism and can reach toxic levels. While Vitamin D toxicity needs very large amounts, it is often missed by many Scientists that it is the over activity influence of high but still lower than toxic levels that are responsible for some of the adverse effects of vitamin D. It is just the way it functions that gets it into trouble at higher levels. This reference from Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences gives a great simple overview. ref

VITAMIN D2 VERSUS VITAMIN D3

Vitamin D is available in 2 forms. Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3. The D2 is a vegetarian source and vitamin D3 sources include Fish oil, Lanolin, and Lichen, an algae and fungal combination. Vitamin D2 is not as effective as vitamin D3. PLus, higher D2 intake may. lower both D3 and the hormone form of D3. ref ref

A new "plant" source of vitamin D3, generally thought of as an animal source vitamin, is now available from lichen. The lichen plants do not produce the vitamin D, but associated fungi and algae really do the work as they are attached to the lichen. Lichen contain both vitamin D2 and vitamin D3. Some species have more D2 while the one used for supplements has more D3. The analysis is about 65% D3 and 35% D2.The extraction method uses ethanol (molecular disstillation planned in future to eliminate ethanol alcohol) and involves other unknown steps to purify and concentrate. The finished produce probably still contains some vitamin D2. UV-B light is needed for this vitamin D building process in the lichen. ref and vitamin D2 from mushrooms ref

SKIN CANCER AND SUN INDUCED VITAMIN D

CRITICAL IMPORTANCE: The medical recommendation is to have people use vitamin D fortified foods or take Vitamin D supplements and avoid sunlight due to future skin cancer considerations. BUT, It was discovered that UVB sunlight on skin stimulates the innate immune system of LL-37 possibly through a vitamin D pathway. Would increasing vitamin D blood levels using supplements bypass this immune system set up without some UVB exposure? Since the innate immune system protects the skin against bacterial infections as well as many other adverse skin conditions, possibly even cancer, is it wise to completely avoid sunlight? ref ref Shouldn't Scientists be finding out how much sunlight each skin type needs to provide this innate skin protection without future skin damage?  ref   

Yes, you can get skin cancers in areas never exposed to sunlight. There are other causes for cancer. What the reference above reports is that some UVB sunlight exposure might help protect against the development of skin cancer. This discovery is apparently in direct contrast to the views expressed by the Skin Cancer Foundation. ref

BUT, maybe this is just another case of some is beneficial but too much is detrimental. The sun must be able to both stimulate the innate immune system in small doses plus it can also damage skin at higher doses and become immunosuppressive. There are some researchers that even say this damage is caused by the sun producing higher amounts of vitamin D.

You can see why this is such a complex issue that needs some common sense scientific study to arrive at the safest and most effective use of nature's healing tool, sunshine. It is obvious that some skin types were designed for more sun exposure while others for less due to the differing amount of pigmentation. The adaptive skin process of tanning is a response to protect skin cells against excess sun exposure. BUT, you never want to damage skin cells by overexposure. Where that point occurs varies for the different skin types.  What is the right amount of vitamin D?

Also continue down to the next sections below. This next linked article has copied reference studies that explain some of the issues involved. article

Here is another view. According to information summerized on Consumerlab.com, the amount with the lowest mortality associated with it is just under 39 ng/ml. Scroll down to "How much is too much?">   ref

While there are some professionals who recommend higher vitamin D amounts, over 5,000 IUs, this may not be optimal.  It may very well be that there are different levels for certain subsets of the population, especially those with gene mutations. Remember, only about 10% of Hawaiian surfers were able to get their vitamin D levels over 50 ng/mL from many hours of sunlight a day.