T Nation

LOW Level of Vitamin D Now

â??We found that familial longevity was associated with lower levels of vitamin D and a lower frequency of allelic variation in the CYP2R1 gene, which was associated with higher levels of vitamin D,â?? Dr van Heemst and her team said in a paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Previous works have shown that low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased rates of death, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, allergies, mental illness and other afflictions. However, it is not known whether low levels are the cause of these diseases or if they are a consequence.

The team looked at data from 380 white families with at least 2 siblings over age 90 in the Leiden Longevity Study to determine whether there was an association between vitamin D levels and longevity. The study involved the siblings, their offspring and their offspringsâ?? partners for a total of 1038 offspring and 461 controls. The children of the nonagenarians were included because it is difficult to include controls for the older age group.

The researchers measured levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a prehormone that is produced in the liver by hydroxylation of vitamin D, and categorized levels by month as they varied according to season. The researchers controlled for age, sex, body mass index, time of year, vitamin supplementation and kidney function, all factors that can influence vitamin D levels. They also looked at the influence of genetic variation in 3 genes associated with vitamin D levels.

â??We found that the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least 1 nonagenarian sibling had lower levels of vitamin D than controls, independent of possible confounding factors and single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with vitamin D levels,â?? the team said. â??We also found that the offspring had a lower frequency of common genetic variants in the CYP2R1 gene; a common genetic variant of this gene predisposes people to high vitamin D levels.â??

â??The findings support an association between low vitamin D levels and familial longevity,â?? the researchers concluded.

Seriously? I fucking give up. Any supplement you take shortens your life, but not taking them…leads to diseases which shorten your life. What the fuck?

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

â??We found that familial longevity was associated with lower levels of vitamin D and a lower frequency of allelic variation in the CYP2R1 gene, which was associated with higher levels of vitamin D,â?? Dr van Heemst and her team said in a paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Previous works have shown that low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased rates of death, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, allergies, mental illness and other afflictions. However, it is not known whether low levels are the cause of these diseases or if they are a consequence.

The team looked at data from 380 white families with at least 2 siblings over age 90 in the Leiden Longevity Study to determine whether there was an association between vitamin D levels and longevity. The study involved the siblings, their offspring and their offspringsâ?? partners for a total of 1038 offspring and 461 controls. The children of the nonagenarians were included because it is difficult to include controls for the older age group.

The researchers measured levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a prehormone that is produced in the liver by hydroxylation of vitamin D, and categorized levels by month as they varied according to season. The researchers controlled for age, sex, body mass index, time of year, vitamin supplementation and kidney function, all factors that can influence vitamin D levels. They also looked at the influence of genetic variation in 3 genes associated with vitamin D levels.

â??We found that the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least 1 nonagenarian sibling had lower levels of vitamin D than controls, independent of possible confounding factors and single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with vitamin D levels,â?? the team said. â??We also found that the offspring had a lower frequency of common genetic variants in the CYP2R1 gene; a common genetic variant of this gene predisposes people to high vitamin D levels.â??

â??The findings support an association between low vitamin D levels and familial longevity,â?? the researchers concluded.

Seriously? I fucking give up. Any supplement you take shortens your life, but not taking them…leads to diseases which shorten your life. What the fuck? [/quote]

Depending on what side of the fence you’re on you can make stats/data look whatever way you want IMO. “The Wire” called it juking the stats.

[quote]Eazy wrote:

[quote]AccipiterQ wrote:

�¢??We found that familial longevity was associated with lower levels of vitamin D and a lower frequency of allelic variation in the CYP2R1 gene, which was associated with higher levels of vitamin D,�¢?? Dr van Heemst and her team said in a paper published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Previous works have shown that low levels of vitamin D are associated with increased rates of death, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, allergies, mental illness and other afflictions. However, it is not known whether low levels are the cause of these diseases or if they are a consequence.

The team looked at data from 380 white families with at least 2 siblings over age 90 in the Leiden Longevity Study to determine whether there was an association between vitamin D levels and longevity. The study involved the siblings, their offspring and their offsprings�¢?? partners for a total of 1038 offspring and 461 controls. The children of the nonagenarians were included because it is difficult to include controls for the older age group.

The researchers measured levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, a prehormone that is produced in the liver by hydroxylation of vitamin D, and categorized levels by month as they varied according to season. The researchers controlled for age, sex, body mass index, time of year, vitamin supplementation and kidney function, all factors that can influence vitamin D levels. They also looked at the influence of genetic variation in 3 genes associated with vitamin D levels.

�¢??We found that the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least 1 nonagenarian sibling had lower levels of vitamin D than controls, independent of possible confounding factors and single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with vitamin D levels,�¢?? the team said. �¢??We also found that the offspring had a lower frequency of common genetic variants in the CYP2R1 gene; a common genetic variant of this gene predisposes people to high vitamin D levels.�¢??

�¢??The findings support an association between low vitamin D levels and familial longevity,�¢?? the researchers concluded.

Seriously? I fucking give up. Any supplement you take shortens your life, but not taking them…leads to diseases which shorten your life. What the fuck? [/quote]

Depending on what side of the fence you’re on you can make stats/data look whatever way you want IMO. “The Wire” called it juking the stats.
[/quote]

Great show and great quote.

When in doubt, I tend to fall back on what human hunter-gatherers would do/done or currently have, and in this instance a study done on HGs showed avg levels in the upper 40s ng/ml, with as low as the 30s to low 60s.

If I dont supp with vit. D fall winter and spring my inner thighs and the soft skin under my arms get SO SO itchy that I scratch it in my sleep till I bleed! Its crazy. When I first started getting this I thought I was allergic to something.
Within a few days of taking extra D it completely goes away. I have been able to keep it away for 3 years now!
Imagine what else goes on in my body with a lack of D?

This research looks like complete bunk to me. Just because somebody in a white coat publishes a paper, doesn’t mean the study was well thought out, well executed, or well documented. This already smells funky from the excerpt. Take everything with a grain of salt, especially when it is a study based upon checking the vitamin D levels of people who happen to be related to people who live a long life… Maybe they live a long life despite low vitamin D due to the curative powers of Moose meat. That wasn’t tested for, eh?

–Me

[quote]kravi wrote:
This already smells funky from the excerpt.[/quote]

What, specifically, smells funky about it?

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]kravi wrote:
This already smells funky from the excerpt.[/quote]

What, specifically, smells funky about it?[/quote]

I thought I listed the reasons. The short version is that there can be no causality when you look at vitamin D levels of people related to those who live a long time. There may be correlation, but how can you measure an intangible. What else do the family members of those who lived a long time have in common? Were all of those criteria tested for? What if the 90somethings lived to be 90something for reasons which don’t show up in their family? Like in their generation they ate more grass fed moose or goose, which was healthy and provided for good hormonal balances due to the yummy fats. I completely made that up, but the point is that I think it is impossible to test family members successfully for causes of long life.

So while the family members of those were long lived seemed, in general, to have low vitamin D levels, couldn’t that be because they are Canadian and don’t get much vitamin D causing sun much of the year? Up north, sun will not cause your body to produce vitamin D between September and May (or something like that). So maybe that was just coincidence.

–Me

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to clarify.

Secondly, what I was driving at was that it makes little sense to make judgments on a newspaper article alone, as it by necessity is an incomplete synopsis of what the entire paper is about and is typically more about generating buzz that disseminating accurate information.

For example, regarding your moose meet: they actually include a reference that seemingly indicates that in these sorts of cases, the offspring have an increased likelihood of reaching old age compared to controls. In this case, these folks don’t happen to just be related to the old timers, but also enjoy a statistically significant chance of living a longer life, as well. It might make sense to assess that study (though I largely agree with what you are saying).

For those interested, here is the paper:

So, just sticking to the abstract (I’m sick and don’t want to think too hard but I’ll read the entire thing later), we can see right off the bat that there is actually little difference between the Vit D measurements of the individuals: 64.3 nmol/L for the offspring and 68.4 nmol/L for the controls (25.7 ng/ml vs 27.4 ng/ml, for those who prefer it that way). Is it statistically significant? Yes. Clinically (pragmatically) significant? Doubtful.

Also, note that there is no difference in PTH… what do you think this tells us? (hint: what is the relationship?)

I wonder why they included the genetic testing, as well. This seems to suggest they feel Vit D levels are largely genetic rather than environmental (while they controlled for diet and supplementation, there is no mention of direct UV exposure – sunlight, tanning beds, lamps or whatever). The article states that there is an association between a lower frequency of allelic variation in the CYP2R1 gene and Vit D levels, but I wonder how well that holds up considering their inability to completely control for external influences.

Why wouldn’t they have tested the D levels in the nonagenarians, as well? What is the comparison to other geriatrics who aren’t sick (because that tends to screw with levels of numerous things)? Could it be that they have levels that run low without being clinically significant their entire lives, but happen to stay stable throughout their golden years while others with healthier D levels in their youths see their levels tank upon getting older? This would allow the former to obviate all of the shit old people go through while the latter group would fall victim to all of those diseases despite being measured as having higher D levels in their youth/middle ages. Their might be a case for a genetic component there.

So I am reading through the study now. The first thing that leaps to mind is:

“The prevalence of type 2 diabetes
and hypertension, as well as use of the corresponding
medications, were lower in the offspring
group than in the control group.”

This was after they mention that vitamin D intake through food was the same.

I think this right here shows that there is likely a significant difference in diet between the control group and the family members of the geezers being tested. What else is not being tracked our accounted for.

While I recognize that the fundamental point of the study, which is that the people who were related to the old folks had an average vitamin d level of 64.3 nmol/L as compared to the control group’s 68.4 nmol/L, I don’t see anything at all to show any sort of causality. It doesn’t mean anything about vitamin D as far as I can tell. That just happened to be a statistical number they tested for and saw.

–Me

[quote]kravi wrote:
So I am reading through the study now. The first thing that leaps to mind is:

“The prevalence of type 2 diabetes
and hypertension, as well as use of the corresponding
medications, were lower in the offspring
group than in the control group.”

This was after they mention that vitamin D intake through food was the same.

I think this right here shows that there is likely a significant difference in diet between the control group and the family members of the geezers being tested. What else is not being tracked our accounted for.[/quote]

Good point, but keep in mind that they do reference levels of D3 being unrelated to disease state (Appendix 1). Nonetheless, I’d have liked it if they included values strictly for couples just to see if the diabeetus and hypertension discrepancy still existed. 1,038 subjects and 461 controls is a good number, but there’s still room to throw off the percentages with ~600 spouses not being accounted for (though BMI still matched up nicely).

[quote]kravi wrote:
While I recognize that the fundamental point of the study, which is that the people who were related to the old folks had an average vitamin d level of 64.3 nmol/L as compared to the control group’s 68.4 nmol/L, I don’t see anything at all to show any sort of causality. It doesn’t mean anything about vitamin D as far as I can tell. That just happened to be a statistical number they tested for and saw.[/quote]

Showing causality wasn’t the aim; finding if an association existed was (and found, so they say). Of course, I doubt that will stop news sources from suggesting causation.

I agree with the take home point, though: this doesn’t mean anything as far as D3 status goes. The values between groups, while “statistically significant”, are really so close that it makes little sense to take any sort of action based on this data. Is a 1.7 ng/ml difference in serum D3 REALLY going to make a difference? No clue, but if you REALLY want to jump down that rabbit hole, my money is on the stress of trying to maintain precisely that level (never mind figuring out what the “ideal” range, itself, actually is) giving you a stroke well before you hit 90.

Oh, and does anyone actually know the relationship between calcidiol and calcitriol levels? To what extent do subtle changes in the precursor hormone impact the active hormone?

I think we came at it from completely different sides, but ended up at the same place :slight_smile:

–Me

[quote]kravi wrote:
I think we came at it from completely different sides, but ended up at the same place :slight_smile:

–Me[/quote]

This isn’t how the interweb works. You’re supposed to call me a dumbass, then I correct your grammar and say YOU’RE the dumbass, then you ask me if I even lift, then I say I do but I won’t post pics 'cause I have conspicuous tats that I don’t want to show off since I post in the steroids section, then you say you have a dozen PMs from people agreeing that I’m an asshole… it eventually spirals into a “you wouldn’t say that to my face/this is how I act in real life” sort of thing, followed by one of us challenging the other to a fight since we’re geographically close, then one of us pulls the “I’ll let YOU get the last word in, since it CLEARLY means SOOOO much to you” card and hits rock bottom when we carry the grudge to other threads for the next six months.

I don’t know if what I’m feeling right now is satisfaction from a productive discussion… or my first menstrual cycle kicking in. Either way, this was more fun.

this was an interesting thread. Kudos to both of you for such an informative discussion.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]kravi wrote:
I think we came at it from completely different sides, but ended up at the same place :slight_smile:

–Me[/quote]

This isn’t how the interweb works. You’re supposed to call me a dumbass, then I correct your grammar and say YOU’RE the dumbass, then you ask me if I even lift, then I say I do but I won’t post pics 'cause I have conspicuous tats that I don’t want to show off since I post in the steroids section, then you say you have a dozen PMs from people agreeing that I’m an asshole… it eventually spirals into a “you wouldn’t say that to my face/this is how I act in real life” sort of thing, followed by one of us challenging the other to a fight since we’re geographically close, then one of us pulls the “I’ll let YOU get the last word in, since it CLEARLY means SOOOO much to you” card and hits rock bottom when we carry the grudge to other threads for the next six months.

I don’t know if what I’m feeling right now is satisfaction from a productive discussion… or my first menstrual cycle kicking in. Either way, this was more fun.[/quote]

you forgot the cheeseburger

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]kravi wrote:
I think we came at it from completely different sides, but ended up at the same place :slight_smile:

–Me[/quote]

This isn’t how the interweb works. You’re supposed to call me a dumbass, then I correct your grammar and say YOU’RE the dumbass, then you ask me if I even lift, then I say I do but I won’t post pics 'cause I have conspicuous tats that I don’t want to show off since I post in the steroids section, then you say you have a dozen PMs from people agreeing that I’m an asshole… it eventually spirals into a “you wouldn’t say that to my face/this is how I act in real life” sort of thing, followed by one of us challenging the other to a fight since we’re geographically close, then one of us pulls the “I’ll let YOU get the last word in, since it CLEARLY means SOOOO much to you” card and hits rock bottom when we carry the grudge to other threads for the next six months.

I don’t know if what I’m feeling right now is satisfaction from a productive discussion… or my first menstrual cycle kicking in. Either way, this was more fun.[/quote]

This should be a sticky.

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]kravi wrote:
I think we came at it from completely different sides, but ended up at the same place :slight_smile:

–Me[/quote]

This isn’t how the interweb works. You’re supposed to call me a dumbass, then I correct your grammar and say YOU’RE the dumbass, then you ask me if I even lift, then I say I do but I won’t post pics 'cause I have conspicuous tats that I don’t want to show off since I post in the steroids section, then you say you have a dozen PMs from people agreeing that I’m an asshole… it eventually spirals into a “you wouldn’t say that to my face/this is how I act in real life” sort of thing, followed by one of us challenging the other to a fight since we’re geographically close, then one of us pulls the “I’ll let YOU get the last word in, since it CLEARLY means SOOOO much to you” card and hits rock bottom when we carry the grudge to other threads for the next six months.

I don’t know if what I’m feeling right now is satisfaction from a productive discussion… or my first menstrual cycle kicking in. Either way, this was more fun.[/quote]

Crap, I knew I was doing something wrong. I think I need to re-read “Bulletin Board Flamewars for Dummies”, as I’ve forgotten, apparently, many of the basics.

Actually, when I wrote in the first place I was worried that you would see me as confrontational rather than thinking out load. It is very difficult to get tone of voice and attitude across these intertubes, and I was not looking for a flamewar. :slight_smile: So thank you for humouring me.

Besides, I’m too much of a weight training noob to ever engage in a discussion elsewhere on the site (seriously, who would want to listen to me), but I feel I know enough about diet and bio-chem to at least attempt to contribute in this section. Diet, nutrition, etc has always been something I’ve needed to study due to the diabetes.

And, my body cannot utilize 48 grams of protein in one shake :wink:

–Me

I was speaking with one of my professors earlier today (while running D3 assays, coincidentally) and brought up this study. He said he would rather “turn in his scientific credentials” than even consider publishing something like this.

FWIW