Vitamin D and Breast Cancer Risk

[jimh111]

Although this is slightly off topic in a thyroid forum it does has some relevance as vitamin D deficiency is common in hypothyroidism. This study journals.plos.org/plosone/a... shows that vitamin D levels below 60 ng/ml (150 nmol/L) are associated with increased breast cancer risks. The solid black line in Fig 1 clearly shows the incidence rates, the extra risk associated with low vitamin D status. I found this study via the Vitamin D Council website vitamindcouncil.org/ . Although this organisation is biased in the sense they are Vitamin D advocates they do produce reliable evidence-based information.

Low vitamin D status is also associated with risks of other cancers whilst excess vitamin D is harmful to calcium and magnesium status which can affect bone and cardiac health. Like all hormones too much or too little vitamin D seems to be harmful. It’s a case of appropriate levels rather than getting levels as high as you can.

I’m not expert in this field, it’s over twenty years since I read up on vitamin D but the increased risk of breast cancer in subjects with low vitamin D levels is quite striking and of particular interest to hypothyroid patients.

[bantam12]

Well I'm doomed then as I'm unable to raise my vitd ☹️

[helvella in reply to bantam12]

It would be good if the vitamin D advocates (by which I mean Vitamin D Council and such like) would take this issue on board. Too often it seems to be ignored, and if not totally ignored, it is then dismissed, finally even if not totally dismissed there is simply no advice or help..

[bantam12 in reply to helvella]

So true, I guess those of us with this problem are in the minority so not a problem worth investigation.

[helvella in reply to bantam12]

Proper investigation just might open the door to greater understanding. All too often the ones who are different, who suffer some disorder, provide a key to unlock the next step.

[Marz in reply to helvella]

www1.grassrootshealth.net/m...

Another of their charts showing levels required for the prevention of other conditions and cancers.

[jimh111 in reply to Marz]

A very simple chart to follow and I assume it is accurate. I will try and have more sunny holidays, purely for medical grounds of course.

[Marz in reply to jimh111]

We retired to Crete in 2004 and both hubby and I tested 'insufficient ' for VitD after several years of good sun ! We both have Hashi's 😊

[LAHs in reply to Marz]

Yes, similar story here. I am in California, I wear shorts, T-shirt, flip-flops and no hat most of the year, I take a Vit D supplement and my VitD blood tests come back quite mediocre, i.e. mid range. I brought this up with my doc the other day (when I was looking very sun tanned) and he said that many people have brought up this issue and he thinks there is a problem with the instrument! There has been a problem with this bloody instrument for 15 years! And if you don't mind a bit of a whine, it has been 106 deg F (42 deg C) for two days now, I ran out of my Vit D pills last week and I bet you that if I had a measurement taken right now I would be at the bottom of the range. I don't know what to say about this, I don't take this measurement very seriously - but I believe what you are saying Jim111, just don't know how we monitor this situation.

[Marz in reply to LAHs]

Apparently there are two types of VitD but they only test one. It is possible you have adequate stock of the other ... Check out - Fearless Parent and VitD - another point of view 😊

[vocalEK in reply to Marz]

At first I was shocked by how low my Vit D is compared to the values in the chart. But then I noticed the difference in measures being used. I had to find a converter to find out what 43 ng/mL equates to in nmol/L. 136.74 -- not bad at all, but it's not 150. Guess I have to try harder. For anyone else who needs it, here's the link I used. I had to use their Progesterone tool, because the Vitamin D one wasn't working. endmemo.com/medical/unitcon...

[Marz in reply to vocalEK]

Ng/L x 2.5 = nmo/L 😊

[vocalEK in reply to Marz]

I get my lab results expressed as ng/mL. 43 ng/mL.

[Marz in reply to vocalEK]

Me too !

[SlowDragon Administrator in reply to bantam12]

Have you tried supplementing magnesium first, before retrying vitamin D supplements?

Or a vitamin D lamp

[bantam12 in reply to SlowDragon]

I don't do well with any supplements. Past hypercalcemia has I believe reset my vitd to be low and any attempt to raise it causes issues.

[SlowDragon Administrator in reply to bantam12]

I couldn't tolerate any vitamin D, (terrible bone pain and palpitations) but it turned out to be magnesium deficiency. Magnesium stopped the palpitations.

A vitamin D lamp was the key to working it out.

[vocalEK in reply to SlowDragon]

Just started with magnesium.

[Marz]

Carol Baggerly - mentioned above in the Researcher details - does a great deal in the US and runs the website Grassrootshealth ... She is a breast cancer survivor which she attributes to discovering VitD benefits. She has good folk on board ...

grassrootshealth.net

[jimh111]

Some general comments as it is 20 years since I studied vitamin D (Westminister Library in Marylebone Road used to have a great book on vitamin D!). It's always a good idea to take some magnesium supplements as we tend to be deficient and it helps with correct PTH and vitamin D levels. Most assays measure 25 OH vitamin D whereas 1,25 OH vitamin D is the active form. I don't know if this matters. I would recommend we sort out our thyroids and supplement with magnesium and vitamin D and then not worry about it unless our vitamin D levels stay low. There's only so much you can do.

[penny]

A friend had breast cancer and lumpectomy; I mentioned Vit D and a study I had read that said that conventional treatment, chemo., with Vit D, had a much improved outcome - her oncologist had not heard of Vit D being helpful! Unfortunately I know several people who have had breast cancer and this story is repeated.

[Ladybex]

I have been taking Vit D3 for 2 months ... should I stop now ?

[vocalEK]

This just received in my email:

A paper published by GrassrootsHealth found an 80% lower incidence of breast cancer in women with vitamin D levels of at least 60 ng/ml compared to women with levels below 20 ng/ml. Average blood levels of vitamin D in the United States are approximately 24 ng/ml, well below the scientists' recommended range of 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/L).

Higher Levels of Vitamin D Associated with Reduced Risk of Breast Cancer -- Again

A meta-analysis by Song et al. (2019) looked at the data of 70 observational studies, including the GrassrootsHealth study, and performed statistical analyses to determine if a relationship exists between vitamin D status and vitamin D intake and risk of developing breast cancer. Results indicated that vitamin D status was inversely related to breast cancer risk, but vitamin D intake from the studies included was not.

The combined results of 40 studies that reported vitamin D levels suggest a 6% lower risk of developing breast cancer for every 2 ng/ml (5 nmol/L) increase in blood vitamin D levels, with an even greater risk reduction from 9 studies in Asia.

From 15 studies reporting vitamin D intake, intake in increments of 400 IU/day was not found to be associated with a reduced risk for developing breast cancer; except in Asian and pre-menopausal women. The researchers attributed this association to higher levels of reproductive hormone in pre-menopausal women and a possible genetic variation in Asian women associated with breast cancer risk.