MIXING IT UP FOR GOOD HEALTH
By Dee Woods
We know vitamin D is essential to a healthy life. We also know vitamin D is not absorbed well for a number of reasons, some for which we do not understand. We know many diseases occur due to lack of vitamin D. We know multiple sclerosis is much more common in the north than in the south, where sun exposure is far more abundant — so why did a report surface showing vitamin D to most likely be ineffective in helping against preventing colds and flu?
Well, when one takes a look at the study that was conducted, one may understand why that conclusion was reached. It would be interesting to see the financial source of such studies and even perhaps the reasoning for such seemingly unusual studies.
Dr. Joseph Mercola had some interesting comments about the study. “The randomized controlled trial — led by Dr. David R. Murdock of the University of Otago in New Zealand — included 322 healthy adults,” Mercola wrote. “Half of the participants received 200,000 IUs of oral vitamin D3 at the outset of the study, followed by another mega-dose of 200,000 IUs a month later. For the next 16 months, the vitamin D group received once-monthly mega-doses of 100,000 IUs of vitamin D. The control group received a placebo throughout.”
Mercola points out that 10 percent of our genetic code is regulated by vitamin D.
The idea that mega-doses of 200,000 IU’s given once per month for 16 months were necessary to conduct a study on vitamin D may show nothing except the fact that doses even up that 200,000 IUs didn’t harm the patients. That fact alone might cause one to question the methodology used. Giving someone 200,000 IUs of vitamin D once in a month seems like feeding someone 10 pounds of beef in one day to satisfy their monthly quota for protein. Why not give smaller, regular daily doses to each member of the study?
But there is another unusual aspect of the study. It seems the placebo group chosen to compare the vitamin D supplemented group against already had higher than average vitamin D levels. That could explain why the results among those in both groups were not significantly different, according to Mercola.
So what does this one study mean when compared to the numerous studies that have been conducted around the world, and show children have fewer asthma attacks when supplemented with vitamin D? What about those upper respiratory infections?
There are experts who suggest oral vitamin D is not anywhere near as effective as natural sun-attained vitamin D because oral D is non-sulfated — only the sun supplies the necessary sulfated D. Mercola advises patients to, as much as possible, attempt to obtain vitamin D from the sun. He also recommends that if taking vitamin D as a supplement, it (just like astaxanthin) should be taken with a saturated fat in order to allow the body to process it better. Remember, elderly, overweight, dark-skinned and pregnant people need more vitamin D than others.
It is clear that the northern United States does not get adequate sun rays that we can utilize in order to cause our bodies to manufacture vitamin D. Okay, everyone, let’s pack our bags for Arizona or Florida.