Comments on: Five for Fridays – Nov 13, 2009 http://www.littlestomaks.com/2009/11/five-for-fridays-nov-13-2009/ Science Driven Real Life Toddler Nutrition Sun, 22 Jan 2012 17:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: richard http://www.littlestomaks.com/2009/11/five-for-fridays-nov-13-2009/#comment-1153 richard Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:49:38 +0000 http://www.littlestomaks.com/?p=3239#comment-1153 Vitamin D requirements (actually any sort of nutritional requirement) is hard to pin down. You have to find a low end where it causes health problems and then a high end that causes toxocity and then recommend something in between. The RDA is established to meet the nutrient requirements of <a href="http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp" rel="nofollow">97-98% of healthy people</a> (assuming no sun exposure). Remeber, the primary reason for setting a minimum vitamin D level is to ensure adequate bone development - not cancer or other health issues. Toxicity of vitamin D is poorly studied and documented. The claim that 97% of breast cancer could be eliminated with elevated vitamin D levels sounds very sensationalist and highly unbelieveable. I suspect a larger factor in breast cancer is The Pill, which increases the incidence of breast cancer by 1-2 per 10,000. It sounds pretty inocuous, yet, teh incidence of breast cancer is (region / country) typically between 9 to 13 per 10,000. Consquently, use of the Pill increases the incidence of breast cancer by 10-20% in women (yes, it is true that it reduces other cancers, such as ovarian, however, <a href="http://www.wdxcyber.com/ncontr03.htm" rel="nofollow">the net result is that more cancers are caused by it than prevented by it</a>) Vitamin D requirements (actually any sort of nutritional requirement) is hard to pin down. You have to find a low end where it causes health problems and then a high end that causes toxocity and then recommend something in between. The RDA is established to meet the nutrient requirements of 97-98% of healthy people (assuming no sun exposure). Remeber, the primary reason for setting a minimum vitamin D level is to ensure adequate bone development – not cancer or other health issues.

Toxicity of vitamin D is poorly studied and documented.

The claim that 97% of breast cancer could be eliminated with elevated vitamin D levels sounds very sensationalist and highly unbelieveable.

I suspect a larger factor in breast cancer is The Pill, which increases the incidence of breast cancer by 1-2 per 10,000. It sounds pretty inocuous, yet, teh incidence of breast cancer is (region / country) typically between 9 to 13 per 10,000. Consquently, use of the Pill increases the incidence of breast cancer by 10-20% in women (yes, it is true that it reduces other cancers, such as ovarian, however, the net result is that more cancers are caused by it than prevented by it)

]]> By: richard http://www.littlestomaks.com/2009/11/five-for-fridays-nov-13-2009/#comment-3783 richard Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:49:00 +0000 http://www.littlestomaks.com/?p=3239#comment-3783 Vitamin D requirements (actually any sort of nutritional requirement) is hard to pin down. You have to find a low end where it causes health problems and then a high end that causes toxocity and then recommend something in between. The RDA is established to meet the nutrient requirements of <a href="http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp" rel="nofollow">97-98% of healthy people</a> (assuming no sun exposure). Remeber, the primary reason for setting a minimum vitamin D level is to ensure adequate bone development - not cancer or other health issues. Toxicity of vitamin D is poorly studied and documented. The claim that 97% of breast cancer could be eliminated with elevated vitamin D levels sounds very sensationalist and highly unbelieveable. I suspect a larger factor in breast cancer is The Pill, which increases the incidence of breast cancer by 1-2 per 10,000. It sounds pretty inocuous, yet, teh incidence of breast cancer is (region / country) typically between 9 to 13 per 10,000. Consquently, use of the Pill increases the incidence of breast cancer by 10-20% in women (yes, it is true that it reduces other cancers, such as ovarian, however, <a href="http://www.wdxcyber.com/ncontr03.htm" rel="nofollow">the net result is that more cancers are caused by it than prevented by it</a>) Vitamin D requirements (actually any sort of nutritional requirement) is hard to pin down. You have to find a low end where it causes health problems and then a high end that causes toxocity and then recommend something in between. The RDA is established to meet the nutrient requirements of 97-98% of healthy people (assuming no sun exposure). Remeber, the primary reason for setting a minimum vitamin D level is to ensure adequate bone development – not cancer or other health issues.

Toxicity of vitamin D is poorly studied and documented.

The claim that 97% of breast cancer could be eliminated with elevated vitamin D levels sounds very sensationalist and highly unbelieveable.

I suspect a larger factor in breast cancer is The Pill, which increases the incidence of breast cancer by 1-2 per 10,000. It sounds pretty inocuous, yet, teh incidence of breast cancer is (region / country) typically between 9 to 13 per 10,000. Consquently, use of the Pill increases the incidence of breast cancer by 10-20% in women (yes, it is true that it reduces other cancers, such as ovarian, however, the net result is that more cancers are caused by it than prevented by it)

]]> By: Janet Helm http://www.littlestomaks.com/2009/11/five-for-fridays-nov-13-2009/#comment-1134 Janet Helm Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:03:00 +0000 http://www.littlestomaks.com/?p=3239#comment-1134 Hello, Once again, you've done a great job with your Five For Fridays! I love your idea to summarize the nutrition news of the week. Thanks for including my recap of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines committee meeting. Appreciate! Keep up the good work. Janet Hello,
Once again, you’ve done a great job with your Five For Fridays! I love your idea to summarize the nutrition news of the week. Thanks for including my recap of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines committee meeting. Appreciate!
Keep up the good work.
Janet

]]> By: Janet Helm http://www.littlestomaks.com/2009/11/five-for-fridays-nov-13-2009/#comment-3782 Janet Helm Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:03:00 +0000 http://www.littlestomaks.com/?p=3239#comment-3782 Hello, Once again, you've done a great job with your Five For Fridays! I love your idea to summarize the nutrition news of the week. Thanks for including my recap of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines committee meeting. Appreciate! Keep up the good work. Janet Hello,
Once again, you’ve done a great job with your Five For Fridays! I love your idea to summarize the nutrition news of the week. Thanks for including my recap of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines committee meeting. Appreciate!
Keep up the good work.
Janet

]]>