One's cancer could just be bad luck

[Fedup]

I need to take a lot more Vitamin D. I'm lower than pretty low. But I'm surprised because I garden a lot. This thread has been helpful.

 

[audreyh1]

Doctor had me on 10,000 IU daily until my Vitamin D got up above 60, then had me back off to 10,000 IU 4 days a week which appears to be my maintenance level.

 

[Fedup]

My doctor just told me to take Vitamin D, so I bought D 1000 IU, and I only take them occasionally. Now I need to take them daily. I'm really bad with vitamins. Now I must do it.

 

[nativenewenglander]

My father had fair skin and when I was in high school was diagnosed with solar keratosis, he was able to get rid of it but is came back again. two years ago he found a lump above his right knee, it turned out to be merkel cell carinoma and aggressive small cell cancer. He died this past august at 86. The doctor never mentioned anything about vitamin D, the only thing he used to ask was about alcohol use(dad didn't drink) he did however hide from the sun and wore lots of sunscreen.

 

[simple girl]

I've been on 4000 IU daily ever since recommended by my oncologist. However, if you take higher Vit D, you should have your levels checked regularly to make sure your levels don't go too high, as that can cause problems as well.

 

[UtahSkier]

I'm blonde and fair skinned and have always lived in the southwest. Many childhood sunburns. I've been aware of the benefits of vitamin D for a long time and get regular sun exposure. I also supplement with D3 to keep my blood level in the 80s.

I see the dermatologist twice a year and am having my first basal cell carcinoma removed tomorrow.

I plan to continue getting regular sun exposure and seeing the dermatologist twice a year.

 

[audreyh1]

I've been on 4000 IU daily ever since recommended by my oncologist. However, if you take higher Vit D, you should have your levels checked regularly to make sure your levels don't go too high, as that can cause problems as well.

Mine are checked about every six months as part of a broader panel.

 

[mystang52]

+1000

Many cancer types are treatable if detected early enough. A healthy person facing cancer can go through surgery, chemo, and radiation a lot better than a frail person.

+1001 I believe genetics and/or bad luck is at least 80% of the cause of cancer and other unfortunate diseases. Healthy living can help only in he remaining percentage.
To the point raised in quotes, FWIW I'm a double cancer survivor. My doctor was pleasantly shocked at my quick recovery from prostate cancer surgery. And, I live with a form of leukemia. No treatment, but I do have a compromised immune system and can get quite sick roughly once a year. I am convinced my overall good health is why I have bounced back each time. Last year especially, I got VERY ill and don't think I would have made it had I not had a base of good health.

 

[NW-Bound]

Higher vitamin D status (>40 ng/ml vs <10 ng/ml) is associated with 65% reduction in general cancer risk, 80% reduction in breast cancer risk, and 50% reduction in colorectal cancer risk.

I have fair skin and sunbathe regularly in the spring and summer, at solar noon, wearing as little as modesty allows. 60 minutes a week is just enough to keep my D level at 38. I think it's unlikely that you can get enough sun exposure walking to/from the supermarket or going to get the mail, unless you shop in the nude . It might save you from rickets, though.

For more info: http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/download/daction_cancer.pdf

Shop in the nude? Ugh! If people start doing it, I may be afraid to go to the grocery stores too.

Seriously, we do not intentionally sunbathe, but spend plenty of time outdoors walking and gardening. I wear shorts and T-shirt, and get my arms and legs reasonably tanned, but this is just coincidental and not intentional.

This talk makes me curious, and I pulled out recent blood tests to see. Mine showed no vitamin D test, but my wife's was at 46, which is in the good range.

Hmmm... Wonder why our doctor ordered the test on my wife and not on myself? Perhaps because he was treating her for osteoporosis?

 

[Fedup]

What is too high? My Vitamin D level is 19, IIRC. This morning I took 2 Vitamin Ds 1000 IU. I also read the bottle says it's good for your immune.

 

[msieweke]

What is too high? My Vitamin D level is 19, IIRC. This morning I took 2 Vitamin Ds 1000 IU. I also read the bottle says it's good for your immune.

There seems to be a sweet spot in the 40-60 ng/ml range of D level. If your level goes too high, you may absorb too much calcium from your diet. OTOH, it appears that taking vitamin A and/or K protects you from any problem with high D level.

I take 5000 IU D3 per day, which is enough to maintain my level above 55 through the winter. But response to supplementation varies a lot from person to person. D is fat-soluble, and it won't be well absorbed on a low-fat diet. It should be taken with a meal that contains some fat/oil.

To balance the D3 I take 25000 IU vitamin A (not beta-carotene), which is almost certainly more than I need. I also take over 15 mg vitamin K.

Vitamins A and K may have anti-cancer properties. So far the evidence is mostly associative, but it's plausible. Vitamin A is also important for the immune system. Besides its other benefits, vitamin K has been shown to reduce the appearance of wrinkles and prevent/reverse osteoporosis.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

A person could get medaphorical whiplash from reading this thread, heh heh.

 

[NW-Bound]

I never cared about medical info until I got to 50. Then, same as what I observed with my parents, when meeting friends we started to compare notes about our health.

Sad, but it is a fact of life when people realize that they are not immortal.

 

[Fedup]

There seems to be a sweet spot in the 40-60 ng/ml range of D level. If your level goes too high, you may absorb too much calcium from your diet. OTOH, it appears that taking vitamin A and/or K protects you from any problem with high D level.

I take 5000 IU D3 per day, which is enough to maintain my level above 55 through the winter. But response to supplementation varies a lot from person to person. D is fat-soluble, and it won't be well absorbed on a low-fat diet. It should be taken with a meal that contains some fat/oil.

To balance the D3 I take 25000 IU vitamin A (not beta-carotene), which is almost certainly more than I need. I also take over 15 mg vitamin K.

Vitamins A and K may have anti-cancer properties. So far the evidence is mostly associative, but it's plausible. Vitamin A is also important for the immune system. Besides its other benefits, vitamin K has been shown to reduce the appearance of wrinkles and prevent/reverse osteoporosis.

Thank you. I took it with steel oat for breakfast. Maybe when I have an egg with breakfast is when I should take it.
Is there anything wrong with taking too much A? I thought I did read something about it. But I will get some of these vitamins today.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Counterpoint to the work cited in the OP -

Recent research has highlighted a strong correlation between tissue-specific cancer risk and the
lifetime number of tissue-specific stem cell divisions. Whether such correlation implies a high
unavoidable intrinsic cancer risk has become a key public health debate with dissemination of the
‘bad luck’ hypothesis. Here we provide evidence that intrinsic risk factors contribute only
modestly (<10~30%) to cancer development.

Reader friendly article in the Times -

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

NIH access to the full Nature study cited in the article -

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836858/pdf/nihms733229.pdf

 

[Lsbcal]

....

Reader friendly article in the Times -

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
...

In this article it cited an estimate of "bad luck" cancers as significantly lower then the 66% in the article I mentioned in the OP.

Using sophisticated modeling techniques, the researchers argued that less than 30 percent of the lifetime risk of getting many common cancers was because of intrinsic risk factors, or the “bad luck.” The rest were things you can change.

 

[razztazz]

In this article it cited an estimate of "bad luck" cancers as significantly lower then the 66% in the article I mentioned in the OP.

Using sophisticated modeling techniques, the researchers argued that less than 30 percent of the lifetime risk of getting many common cancers was because of intrinsic risk factors, or the “bad luck.” The rest were things you can change.

Clearly their modeling technique fail. No provable conclusion. Just "How we see it." Same useless medical "data"

And weasel wording. "less than" 30%. .0001%? 29.999999% "many common cancers" So they cherry picked whatever they had to to make their non-conclusion conclusion look good or at least fool people.

And nobody can know their risk of anything based on studies including the specimens in the studies. Doing the most risk reducing thing could in your case be the worst thing to do. Or totally useless at least.

Believing these people is the biggest risk

 

[msieweke]

Thank you. I took it with steel oat for breakfast. Maybe when I have an egg with breakfast is when I should take it.
Is there anything wrong with taking too much A? I thought I did read something about it. But I will get some of these vitamins today.

There is a slight risk in taking too much A. You would need to take 25,000 IU/day for a long time to run a risk of vitamin A toxicity. Vitamin D protects against vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. Vitamin K protects against both vitamin D and A toxicity. Or to put it another way: vitamins A, D, and K work together, and you should take all three to gain the most benefit. Taking all three makes it unlikely you'll run into problems.

Zinc is necessary for proper utilization of A. White spots on your fingernails are a symptom of zinc deficiency and a sign you might benefit from supplementation. Zinc has been shown to reduce the duration and severity of the common cold, so that's another possible reason to take it.

 

[Fedup]

There is a slight risk in taking too much A. You would need to take 25,000 IU/day for a long time to run a risk of vitamin A toxicity. Vitamin D protects against vitamin A toxicity and vice versa. Vitamin K protects against both vitamin D and A toxicity. Or to put it another way: vitamins A, D, and K work together, and you should take all three to gain the most benefit. Taking all three makes it unlikely you'll run into problems.

Zinc is necessary for proper utilization of A. White spots on your fingernails are a symptom of zinc deficiency and a sign you might benefit from supplementation. Zinc has been shown to reduce the duration and severity of the common cold, so that's another possible reason to take it.

I just went to the local drug store and there was no A nor K. I might just take Vitamin D3 by itself.

 

[UtahSkier]

I take k2 (from life extension) with my vitamin D. D facilitates calcium absorption and then k2 directs the calcium into the bones and away from soft tissue like arteries. Vitamin D toxicity is really vitamin k2 deficiency with respect to calcium.

 

[audreyh1]

My doctor targets >60 ng/ml for Vitamin D. Upper limit 80.

 

[harley]

I was a little freaked out that so many of you were talking about taking vitamin K. I didn't even know there was a real vitamin K. Last I knew that was a street name for Ketamine. Great stuff, but as far as I know it doesn't do anything to help with vitamin D absorption.

 

[6miths]

I wouldn't be taking Vitamin K of either variety. I thought it was Special K.

 

[UtahSkier]

Be aware of the different vitamin k varieties. Vitamin k1 is important for blood clotting. Vitamin k2-mk4 is slow acting while vitamin k2-mk7 is fast acting. There isn't just a vitamin K.

 

[Fedup]

There was nothing under K nor A.