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.
Written by
vocalEK
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Unfortunately, that is extremely depressing for those who cannot tolerate vitamin D supplementation.
If you can just throw a capsule down your throat every day (or whatever the details of anyone's regime), then that might be encouraging. If you can't... ???
Vitamin D sprays might (and do in the case I know well) have exactly the same negative effect. Indeed, topical application has the same negative effects.
No. I meant that the person I know will suffer the same negative effects whether they take vitamin D (D2 or D3, with or without vitamin K2) in a capsule, a tablet, a spray, or topically (through the skin).
This person, according to test results, very definitely appears to need supplementation but there seems no acceptable way to achieve it. Other than sunshine.
Nothing to do with a spray having any different effect at all and certainly not that any form causes cancer.
I understand that low vitamin D is associated with prostate cancer. My young brother has prostate cancer and when I sent him the links to some papers on this he talked to his GP who confirmed that this is the case. Then why is he not telling all his male patients to take vitamin D?
I agree, bantam12. But I none of the men I know have had their vitamin D tested by their GP to see if they do need supplementation, or even had it mentioned.
PSA numbers don't often tell the whole story. My husband's PSA started rising again 10 years after successful treatment. But a whole body scan showed no cancer any where. Nevertheless, the doctor has put him back on Lupron, which has some really rotten side effects such as fatigue, weakness, and muscle wasting. Here is some recent research on Vit. D for men with prostate cancer.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Raising vitamin D levels
Vitamin D Council updates guidelines for Vitamin D intake
Vitamin D advice please.
