I had a follow up with my endo today. My cholesterol is better but my vitamin d levels are severely low. I started searching on google and found some interesting inf. Vitamin D Deficiency Linked to Type 1 Diabetes:
http://health.ucsd.edu/news/releases/Pages/2012-11-15-vitamin-D-and-type-1-diabetes-link.aspx
Hi Khurt,
I have been reading on this for a while. There is an alternative hypothesis by dr Marchal who think the deficiency is acually a consequence of tge body trying to fight the intruder (bacteria) the actually caused the disease. See Marchal’s protocol. I am molecular biologist and both hypotheses make sense so figureit out. Sorry
Here is an interesting speech by an epidemeologist about this topic. He is also mentioning that studies in the military are showing that the vitamin D production in T1 patients is declining over the years.
It is a huge leap for the researcher to claim that vit D supplementation could prevent T1. This is something I call bad science. He found "a correlation between vitamin D3 serum levels and subsequent incidence of Type 1 diabetes." We have lots of studies that show vit D deficiency and diabetes are related, how do we know that the low vit D "caused" T1. We don't, and this study didn't show that. In order to show causality, you need an intervention trial.
Despite that, I take 6,000 IUs/day because I have chronically low vitamin D, probably as a result of having diabetes.
But epidemeologist often work like political economists. Much of their work is correlation on the scale of countries. On this scale they have found that the recommendations for supplementation of vitamin D do change the incidence rate of countries. Seen from this political perspective the word "prevention" is justified in my opinion. The big picture is important here: the vitamin D smile (the correlation of lightning conditions to incidence rate), the historical data due to changes for the recommended dosage and so forth. The importance of vitamin D is widely recognized although the cause for the development is unknown. In fact I am convinced that newer data will show that supplementation will not overcome the increase in the T1 incidence rate we see globally for the last 10 years. Important pieces of the puzzle are still not found.
Epidemiologists should be trained as scientists and we should not perform world wide scale experiments like this. I would be interested in what vitamin D intervention trials at the scale of countries you are talking about. Dan Hurley in "Diabetes Rising" talks about the research in this area and there are a number of others in our community who have looked closely at this. I think it is certainly worthy of intervention trials to try to establish causality, but I wouldn't leap to worldwide medication with vitamin D.
But leaping to national and world wide medical interventions without evidence is dangerous. My problem is that we confuse correlation and time ordering for causality, this is wrong. Just because things happen together, it does mean that one causes the other and even if one always precedes the other, it does show causality.
Diabetes and high blood sugars are highly correlated. And diabetes diagnosis is basically always preceded by elevated blood sugar. Should we conclude that high blood sugars "cause" diabetes? I don't think so. There is a third factor, whether it is T1 or whatever leads to T2 that causes both high blood sugars and what we call diabetes. I always read these studies with an eye towards this and I am often disappointed by the interpretations and conclusions drawn with this "bad science."
Countries like Finland need vitamin D supplementation for their young children. They have experienced first hand the effect of adjustments in the supplemented dosage. Please watch Dr. Frank Garland's speech about the conclusions from an epidemeologists view.
I did watch the video and stand by my comments. This Finish study was an observational study not an intervention study. This doesn't prove causality. Think about it, is there a possibility that parents that would go to the trouble to supplement an infant with vitamin D would do other stuff different than the rest of the population? Isn't it possible that there is some other causal factor?
I certainly agree that this is compelling data that should generate a strong hypothesis, but that hypothesis has to be tested with an intervention study in order to prove that it works.
I see your point but I disagree that people are troubled by supplementing their infant with vitamin D. In Germany and other northern countries this is a standard procedure for infants and recommended by our Pediatrists and Federal Office of Health. The rise in Finland has alerted many experts due to its epidemic nature. Of course they have investigated many other factors and see connections too. The speech is just a short summary of their findings. The claim is just that Vitamin D has the potential to reduce the risk to develop T1 diabetes on a broader scale. There is no claim that low levels of vitamin D are the cause of T1. Despite of the inconclusive data the advisory board in Finland recommended to increase the dosage again and to raise awareness and the effect can be seen in the declining incidence rates. Should they have waited for absolute proof of causality?
Worldwide medication wouldn't be necessary. It could actually be dangerous. There's such a thing as too much, too, and it's not a good idea to start increasing vitamin D levels without first checking to see if you're actually deficient in it. That said, in the extreme northern and (to a lesser extent) southern latitudes, vitamin D synthesis is curtailed by the lack of adequate UV exposure. In Maine, where I live, it's estimated that something like 80% of the populace is deficient. I'm not a proponent of the "Vitamin D cures everything" mindset, but it is pretty clear that immune function is not optimal if you're too low in the vitamin D department. And since T1 is an immune dysfunction at its heart (or maybe I should say at its pancreas?), if you want to prevent it, you need to keep the immune system healthy, and vitamin D adequacy is a key factor in that.
I'm defincient in Vit D too, and I totally didn't get it that there was a link with deficiency in Vit D and diabetes. I also have gastroparesis, and found out gastroparesis can cause a multitude of deficiencies including Vit D. Kinda made since to me, that gastroparesis is common with Diabetics and the connection to Vit D deficiency.
Hi Oggy. Can you provide some "easy" reading references?
Thanks Holger.
I'd like to see the actual paper.
Researchers are allowed to have opinions as long as those opinions do not influence the study in a manner that skews the results or analysis. So, if his study was sound and found a correlation, as you suggest, then there is nothing wrong with the science. That should be very clearly reflected in the experimental design, results, and data analysis.
If in his discussion, or subsequent discussions, he suggests the possibilty that there causative relationship, that does not invalidate the science or make it "bad science". If anything, it's drawing bad conclusions based on good science. There should, however, be discussion along those lines to further the research and encourage an experimental design that can uncover a causative relationship, or not, if at all possible.
As far as research goes, from what I have read so far, the fact that he does show low levels of vitamin D precursors pre-diabetes diagnosis and subsequent development of diabetes in those with low levels of vitamin D precursors is compelling, though not causative. That's certainly more compelling than a lot of reasons I've read for doing a lot of things that are claimed to be "researched-based" in the control of diabetes.
When I was diagnosed I was extremely Vitamin D deficient. My vitamin D levels are now normal due to taking supplements (I've been supplementing since being diagnosed).
Interesting to find out that it is common!
I am defincient in Vitamin D also,doctors tried 3 rounds of the mega doses and no movement in my levels. I am currently taking 10,000ui/daily and my level stays between 11-19. I definately feel better when taking it AND famiy will notice if I forget a couple days.
Wow, that’s ALOT of Vitamin D.
It may have been covered elsewhere- I’m concerned about overdosing on Vitamin D because it is fat soluble.
Because it is fat soluble it can take a while to reach stable normal levels as it is absorbed into your bodyfat. You get Vitamin D deficient over years, not suddenly. I took 10,000 IUs/day for 9 months before I was able to normalize my levels. I was able to taper off after that. Toxicity studies have found that even up to levels of 40,000 IUs/day there isn’t an issue.