6 ms·

Vitamin D slashes risk of cancers by 77 percent (2007)

49 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

rjurney 17y ago
I'm sure every hacker here with a latte/cappucino habit has plenty enough Vitamin D and Calcium in their diet to get these benefits.
- ars 17y ago
  You mean from the milk? Milk doesn't have anywhere near as much as is suspected to be necessary.
  - gwern 17y ago
    I think rjurney was being facetious; if the study was about the health benefits of cheese, he might've picked Doritoes as his example. :)
  - rjurney 17y ago
    My milk calcs show that about 7 servings of milk a day would be enough to hit 1000IU/day, enough to bring 50% of the population up to the recommended level. So maybe milk alone isn't enough, but it certainly matters. Aren't osteoporosis rates down owing to lattes? :)
drenei 17y ago
I have a close friend who has brutal hangovers when he drinks, and he claims (and I've seen this in practice) that since he started taking Vitamin D supplements his hangovers are much reduced in severity - sometimes to the point of being nonexistent. I'm not sure if its placebo or something else that hasn't been taken into account. But if was interesting to notice. Vitamin D is one of the supplements I take - not as a hangover cure, but because I don't get enough sun.
- miked 17y ago
  I wonder if his supplements also contain B vitamins. It's been known for a long time that certain B vitamins will ameliorate hangovers. My understanding is that alcoholic drink makers have been trying for years to supplement their product with B vitamins but have been blocked by the FDA or the FTC, apparently because they think getting rid of hangovers will make people drink more. This info came from Pearson and Shaw's Life Extension book years ago. The best link I could find is this: http://www.ehow.com/how_4886290_prevent-hangover-vitamin-b-complex.html http://www.ehow.com/how_4886290_prevent-hangover-vitamin-b-c...
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    WHAT THE FUCK. what's next? blocking lung cancer treatment because it encourages people to smoke? fuck the nanny state. jesus.
    - Herring 17y ago
      The nanny state doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to work most of the time, benefits outweighing drawbacks.
      - MikeCapone 17y ago
        And who decides? Exactly. It's always the (neo) puritans...
thunk 17y ago
Hi there. I'm TV's thunk. To stay healthy and happy, just follow these simple rules: 1) To prevent cancer, go have some fun in the sun. 2) But to prevent skin cancer, stay out of the sun. 3) Avoid carbs and meat and regular produce. 4) And don't waste money on that organic stuff -- it's no better than normal! 5) You may want to stop wearing shoes, since they can mess up your feet. 6) Avoid alcohol, except for a couple heart-healthy drinks a day. 7) And most of all, don't stress out over this stuff too much -- it can cause heart disease. The more you know. [star, rainbow]
- nreece 17y ago
  3) Avoid carbs and meat and regular produce. Meat is very low in carbs. In fact, meat (red and white) is high in protein, essential amino acids, zinc, vitamin B12, selenium, phosphorus, niacin, vitamin B6, iron and riboflavin. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Nutritional_benefits_and_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Nutritional_benefits_and_c...)
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    "carbs and meat and regular produce" covers almost all food, doesn't it? I thought it was supposed to be funny. :)
  - riffic 17y ago
    yeah but don't eat too much of it.
  - dejb 17y ago
    And it there is substantial evidence that it (red meat) increases the risk of cancer.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - cwan 17y ago
      There's been quite a bit of controversy over some of these studies and how they measure the level of consumption and whether what you describe as an increase is just a "link"/correlation versus causation: e.g. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1210/news_detail.asp http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1210/news_detail.asp - I think the "eat in moderation" idea applies here.
luckyland 17y ago
name three things that have risen in popularity or frequency in the past thirty years: a low fat diet, sunscreen advocacy, and autism rates. pregnant women need vitamin d awareness more than any other population segment. http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-explains-autism.shtml http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-explains-...
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  name three things that have risen in popularity or frequency in the past thirty years Rubik's Cubes, international flights and home computer repair accidents.
- chaosmachine 17y ago
  cell phones, aluminum cans, diabetes.
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  please go back up and read the wiki link on post hoc ergo propter hoc. thanks!
- maukdaddy 17y ago
  Alarmists, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination nutjobs.
jimmybot 17y ago
Sorry guys, don't get excited yet. Bad, misleading headline. What? "Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos." It's not vitamin D. It may be vitamin D or it may be vitamin D + calcium. Why didn't they have a group that was supplementing only vitamin D and not calcium? I don't know, but since they didn't test that, there's no way to know that it is just vitamin D. Who? "The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska." Given the age, male-female ratio on HN, it's not clear that vitamin D supplementation would be beneficial to the average HN reader. Also, all the women were 55 and older. Besides that, as the article mentions, skin color and other genetic heritage also matters. If you are a woman and Caucasian, this study is more likely to apply to you; if you aren't, who knows? In case someone considers going out and supplementing with both calcium and vitamin D on account of this study, I want to point out that unnecessary calcium supplementation can be detrimental, and it can contribute to things like stress, poor sleep, and prostate cancer (if you have one).
- timr 17y ago
  "It's not vitamin D. It may be vitamin D or it may be vitamin D + calcium. Why didn't they have a group that was supplementing only vitamin D and not calcium? I don't know, but since they didn't test that, there's no way to know that it is just vitamin D." The first rule of scientific criticism is: always read the paper. The classic clinical manifestation of a Vitamin D deficiency is rickets -- the direct consequence of a calcium deficiency. This is because vitamin D is a known enhancer of calcium absorption from the intestine. All other benefits are hypothetical. In light of this information, the researchers controlled for the variability of dietary calcium across participants in the study; they chose to supplement calcium for everyone up to the highest US RDA value. Does that mean that it might be the combination of calcium + vitamin D that conveys the greatest benefit? Well, yes, in fact, that turns out to be true. But since it's trivially easy to supplement calcium and vitamin D simultaneously (and nearly every vitamin D supplement that you can buy includes a calcium supplement), clinically speaking, it makes no difference. But most importantly, the title of the original paper is "Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697?ordinalpos=1&#38...), suggesting that the authors are well aware of the relationship between the substances, and are actually interested in the combined effect of calcium and vitamin D. They wanted to know if calcium + vitamin D had a greater cancer-reducing effect than calcium alone, and found that it did. As for your other critiques, the authors state right there in the abstract of the paper that the results are for postmenopausal women in Nebraska, and they don't try to overgeneralize. But since the relationship between vitamin D and calcium are the same for men and women, it's really not unreasonable to suggest that the results could apply more generally -- even if you had to adjust the nutrient levels to fit the age, sex and location of the patient.
benatkin 17y ago
It could also be said that a Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of cancer.
- jimmybot 17y ago
  Can it? What evidence is there that the placebo group or the calcium group were vitamin D deficient? One group taking vitamin D beyond their normal daily requirement does not mean the other groups were deficient.
jonsen 17y ago
For years I had a big poster on my wall showing diagrammatically the the main complex of biochemical pathways of the human metabolism. Awesome and humbling to contemplate. Daily it reminded me that cause and effect relations in this system cannot generally be simple.
- Retric 17y ago
  Where can I get a copy of that?
  - jonsen 17y ago
    I bought it at a campus bookstore. You may find one on line. See one here: http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl
antirez 17y ago
Well anyway I think a good and safe rule is: take a lot of sun, but avoid the "bad hours" (11:30-16:00 range in Italy, more or less) where it's simply too strong and will likely hurt.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
if you see A and B together it can be because C is causing both of them, not because A causes B or vice versa.
- fallentimes 17y ago
  Can you please explain?
  - nazgulnarsil 17y ago
    i'm just restating post hoc ergo propter hoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc basically falsely attributing cause when this inference isn't warranted.
tokenadult 17y ago
As usual, check Peter Norvig's article about what to look for in reports on research studies. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html
StrawberryFrog 17y ago
Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer As usual, the only thing that Vitamin supplements cure is vitamin deficiency. If you don't have a deficiency, they won't do a blind bit of good, and may even be harmful. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6399773.stm http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6399773.stm

49 points by MikeCapone 17y ago

I'm sure every hacker here with a latte/cappucino habit has plenty enough Vitamin D and Calcium in their diet to get these benefits.

ars 17y ago
You mean from the milk? Milk doesn't have anywhere near as much as is suspected to be necessary.
- gwern 17y ago
  I think rjurney was being facetious; if the study was about the health benefits of cheese, he might've picked Doritoes as his example. :)
- rjurney 17y ago
  My milk calcs show that about 7 servings of milk a day would be enough to hit 1000IU/day, enough to bring 50% of the population up to the recommended level. So maybe milk alone isn't enough, but it certainly matters. Aren't osteoporosis rates down owing to lattes? :)

drenei 17y ago

I have a close friend who has brutal hangovers when he drinks, and he claims (and I've seen this in practice) that since he started taking Vitamin D supplements his hangovers are much reduced in severity - sometimes to the point of being nonexistent. I'm not sure if its placebo or something else that hasn't been taken into account. But if was interesting to notice. Vitamin D is one of the supplements I take - not as a hangover cure, but because I don't get enough sun.

miked 17y ago
I wonder if his supplements also contain B vitamins. It's been known for a long time that certain B vitamins will ameliorate hangovers. My understanding is that alcoholic drink makers have been trying for years to supplement their product with B vitamins but have been blocked by the FDA or the FTC, apparently because they think getting rid of hangovers will make people drink more. This info came from Pearson and Shaw's Life Extension book years ago. The best link I could find is this: http://www.ehow.com/how_4886290_prevent-hangover-vitamin-b-complex.html http://www.ehow.com/how_4886290_prevent-hangover-vitamin-b-c...
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  WHAT THE FUCK. what's next? blocking lung cancer treatment because it encourages people to smoke? fuck the nanny state. jesus.
  - Herring 17y ago
    The nanny state doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to work most of the time, benefits outweighing drawbacks.
    - MikeCapone 17y ago
      And who decides? Exactly. It's always the (neo) puritans...

thunk 17y ago

Hi there. I'm TV's thunk. To stay healthy and happy, just follow these simple rules: 1) To prevent cancer, go have some fun in the sun. 2) But to prevent skin cancer, stay out of the sun. 3) Avoid carbs and meat and regular produce. 4) And don't waste money on that organic stuff -- it's no better than normal! 5) You may want to stop wearing shoes, since they can mess up your feet. 6) Avoid alcohol, except for a couple heart-healthy drinks a day. 7) And most of all, don't stress out over this stuff too much -- it can cause heart disease. The more you know. [star, rainbow]

nreece 17y ago
3) Avoid carbs and meat and regular produce. Meat is very low in carbs. In fact, meat (red and white) is high in protein, essential amino acids, zinc, vitamin B12, selenium, phosphorus, niacin, vitamin B6, iron and riboflavin. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Nutritional_benefits_and_concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Nutritional_benefits_and_c...)
- randallsquared 17y ago
  "carbs and meat and regular produce" covers almost all food, doesn't it? I thought it was supposed to be funny. :)
- riffic 17y ago
  yeah but don't eat too much of it.
- dejb 17y ago
  And it there is substantial evidence that it (red meat) increases the risk of cancer.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - cwan 17y ago
    There's been quite a bit of controversy over some of these studies and how they measure the level of consumption and whether what you describe as an increase is just a "link"/correlation versus causation: e.g. http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1210/news_detail.asp http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.1210/news_detail.asp - I think the "eat in moderation" idea applies here.

luckyland 17y ago

name three things that have risen in popularity or frequency in the past thirty years: a low fat diet, sunscreen advocacy, and autism rates. pregnant women need vitamin d awareness more than any other population segment. http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-explains-autism.shtml http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-explains-...

jodrellblank 17y ago
name three things that have risen in popularity or frequency in the past thirty years Rubik's Cubes, international flights and home computer repair accidents.
chaosmachine 17y ago
cell phones, aluminum cans, diabetes.
nazgulnarsil 17y ago
please go back up and read the wiki link on post hoc ergo propter hoc. thanks!
maukdaddy 17y ago
Alarmists, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccination nutjobs.

jimmybot 17y ago

Sorry guys, don't get excited yet. Bad, misleading headline. What? "Subjects were randomly assigned to take daily dosages of 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium, 1,400-1,500 mg supplemental calcium plus 1,100 IU of vitamin D3, or placebos." It's not vitamin D. It may be vitamin D or it may be vitamin D + calcium. Why didn't they have a group that was supplementing only vitamin D and not calcium? I don't know, but since they didn't test that, there's no way to know that it is just vitamin D. Who? "The four-year, randomized study followed 1,179 healthy, postmenopausal women from rural eastern Nebraska." Given the age, male-female ratio on HN, it's not clear that vitamin D supplementation would be beneficial to the average HN reader. Also, all the women were 55 and older. Besides that, as the article mentions, skin color and other genetic heritage also matters. If you are a woman and Caucasian, this study is more likely to apply to you; if you aren't, who knows? In case someone considers going out and supplementing with both calcium and vitamin D on account of this study, I want to point out that unnecessary calcium supplementation can be detrimental, and it can contribute to things like stress, poor sleep, and prostate cancer (if you have one).

timr 17y ago
"It's not vitamin D. It may be vitamin D or it may be vitamin D + calcium. Why didn't they have a group that was supplementing only vitamin D and not calcium? I don't know, but since they didn't test that, there's no way to know that it is just vitamin D." The first rule of scientific criticism is: always read the paper. The classic clinical manifestation of a Vitamin D deficiency is rickets -- the direct consequence of a calcium deficiency. This is because vitamin D is a known enhancer of calcium absorption from the intestine. All other benefits are hypothetical. In light of this information, the researchers controlled for the variability of dietary calcium across participants in the study; they chose to supplement calcium for everyone up to the highest US RDA value. Does that mean that it might be the combination of calcium + vitamin D that conveys the greatest benefit? Well, yes, in fact, that turns out to be true. But since it's trivially easy to supplement calcium and vitamin D simultaneously (and nearly every vitamin D supplement that you can buy includes a calcium supplement), clinically speaking, it makes no difference. But most importantly, the title of the original paper is "Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556697?ordinalpos=1&#38...), suggesting that the authors are well aware of the relationship between the substances, and are actually interested in the combined effect of calcium and vitamin D. They wanted to know if calcium + vitamin D had a greater cancer-reducing effect than calcium alone, and found that it did. As for your other critiques, the authors state right there in the abstract of the paper that the results are for postmenopausal women in Nebraska, and they don't try to overgeneralize. But since the relationship between vitamin D and calcium are the same for men and women, it's really not unreasonable to suggest that the results could apply more generally -- even if you had to adjust the nutrient levels to fit the age, sex and location of the patient.

benatkin 17y ago

It could also be said that a Vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of cancer.

jimmybot 17y ago
Can it? What evidence is there that the placebo group or the calcium group were vitamin D deficient? One group taking vitamin D beyond their normal daily requirement does not mean the other groups were deficient.

jonsen 17y ago

For years I had a big poster on my wall showing diagrammatically the the main complex of biochemical pathways of the human metabolism. Awesome and humbling to contemplate. Daily it reminded me that cause and effect relations in this system cannot generally be simple.

Retric 17y ago
Where can I get a copy of that?
- jonsen 17y ago
  I bought it at a campus bookstore. You may find one on line. See one here: http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl

antirez 17y ago

Well anyway I think a good and safe rule is: take a lot of sun, but avoid the "bad hours" (11:30-16:00 range in Italy, more or less) where it's simply too strong and will likely hurt.

nazgulnarsil 17y ago

if you see A and B together it can be because C is causing both of them, not because A causes B or vice versa.

fallentimes 17y ago
Can you please explain?
- nazgulnarsil 17y ago
  i'm just restating post hoc ergo propter hoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc basically falsely attributing cause when this inference isn't warranted.

tokenadult 17y ago

As usual, check Peter Norvig's article about what to look for in reports on research studies. http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

StrawberryFrog 17y ago

Most Americans and others are not taking enough vitamin D, a fact that may put them at significant risk for developing cancer As usual, the only thing that Vitamin supplements cure is vitamin deficiency. If you don't have a deficiency, they won't do a blind bit of good, and may even be harmful. http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6399773.stm http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6399773.stm