Oh, lordy, here we go.
Oh, lordy, here we go. I can't read anything but the study abstract, so I can't give you a fun amateur evaluation of the statistics and data pooling that got published. It's possible, but unlikely, that the magic preventive for colon cancer is taking lots of vitamin D.
The whole vitamin D thing is kind of out of control, right now, anyway. Some doctors test every woman, at least, if not everyone for vitamin D, which is a pricey lab test, btw, and then tell everybody below the lab cutoff to start popping lots of vitamin D pills. Whether or not they have a specific issue that suggests it would be helpful. Without us being sure about potential side effects and long term effects. Why? Because we have limited or conflicting literature on this.
There are even doctors who are still arguing whether or not vitamin D is a hormone. If you are really bored, have fun looking up all the arguments on that one. tl;dr a case can be made for both arguments. Vitamin D refers to a number of compounds with a number of actions and is a complicated little subject all its very own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/06/14/higher-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-lower-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f4bb068064d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/06/14/higher-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-lower-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f4bb068064d
The whole vitamin D thing is kind of out of control, right now, anyway. Some doctors test every woman, at least, if not everyone for vitamin D, which is a pricey lab test, btw, and then tell everybody below the lab cutoff to start popping lots of vitamin D pills. Whether or not they have a specific issue that suggests it would be helpful. Without us being sure about potential side effects and long term effects. Why? Because we have limited or conflicting literature on this.
There are even doctors who are still arguing whether or not vitamin D is a hormone. If you are really bored, have fun looking up all the arguments on that one. tl;dr a case can be made for both arguments. Vitamin D refers to a number of compounds with a number of actions and is a complicated little subject all its very own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/06/14/higher-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-lower-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f4bb068064d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2018/06/14/higher-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-lower-colorectal-cancer-risk-study-finds/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f4bb068064d
I've been told by doctors that I have an extreme Vitamin D deficiency. I'm theoretically supposed to be taking supplements for it, but (a) I'm incredibly bad at taking pills of any kind, and (b) I'm very suspicious of the entire vitamin supplement industry anyway, which, once you start learning anything about it and its total lack of regulation or accountability, sounds more like the modern day equivalent of snake oil than something I should actually be wasting money on.
ReplyDeleteOur science and recommendations on this are extremely messy. I am conflicted about the whole thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm eating quite a bit of vitamin D pills, since I get violently sick if I eat normal quantities of fat. I'm sticking to large, long-lasting Nordic brands though. None of the MLM stuff. Life is short enough as is.
ReplyDelete