From: young@serum.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: So-Called Vitamin D (olddate) [rebuttal from August]
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:57:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: pixel.1992Nov16.205751.23866
Reply-To: young@serum.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Originator: young@sasquatch

In article <altar.721931796@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:

[...article on vitamin D, reposted for second time, deleted for brevity...]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: So-called "vitamin D"
Date: 30 Aug 92 19:20:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: spdcc.1992Aug30.192055.27622
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA

In article <altar.715169874@sfu.ca> altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>
>To help answer a poster's query about vitamin D, I am here
>re-posting this note that I posted back in March.  If you
>already have read it, then you can conveniently skip this
>message as I have not added anything new.

Whoops, Ted, there was a misspelling there.  You meant "true", not "new".

>     i) this so-called "sunshine vitamin" is better classified
>          not as a vitamin but as a potent and dangerous anabolic
>          seco-steroid hormone.

Nonsense.  This is an argument based on ignorance of the meaning of
the word "steroid".

>     ii) it is not an essential dietary component for the vast
>          majority and relatively small levels may be toxic

An intake around the RDA is not toxic.

>     iii) what we have is a toxic food additive to which the vast
>          majority of people are needlessly ingesting unnecessary
>          amounts, often even beyond RDA levels.

RDA stands for Recommended Dietary Allowance.  It's not a measure of
a minimum dose or any indication of a toxic dose.

>     iv)  there is disturbing evidence to seriously implicate
>          this synthetic steroid hormone in the etiology of
>          atherosclerosis, osteoporsis, and some other medical
>          problems.

Snort.  Nonsense.  Not in doses seen from the intake of fortified foods.

>In the last decade, it has become generally accepted that vitamin
>D's mode of action is similar to that of the steroid hormones (2)

This is a very misleading comment which can make sense only if you
understand what its context is.  The phrase "steroid hormone" is a
completely generic one.  It refers to a family of chemicals which are
derived from cholesterol and contain the characteristic 4-ring "steroid
nucleus".  However, the phrase "steroid hormone" says NOTHING
WHATSOEVER about the actions of a substance, because different steroids
can have wildly different physiological actions.  Some "steroids" don't
have any biological activity at all.  Some are female sex hormones,
some are male sex hormones, some control the balance of salt and water
in the body, some are released during times of stress, others are
produced in the liver and found in the bile, and act as "detergents" in
the gut to help absorb fats.  I'll stop here.

Vitamin D appears to extert its actions the way other unrelated
steroids exert their actions; namely, by binding to particular cytosolic
receptors which are then transported into the nucleus.  If you're studying
the pharmacology of vitamin D, this is interesting.  If you're a random
rec.food.veg reader, it really isn't.  That is, just because Vitamin D
exerts its vitamin-D activity through a mechanism similar to the way
other steroids exert their activities, doesn't mean that the steroids
are at all similar in physiological behavior.  This is a comment
designed to strike fear into the minds of people who hear the word
"steroid" and think of over-muscled athletes.  Needless to say, this
has nothing to do with Vitamin D.

>In fact, it was strongly recommended for reclassification as
>early as 1970 (ibid) as an steroid hormone rather than as a
>vitamin, but this suggestion has unfortunately been slow to
>disseminate and become adopted.

Any text which discussses vitamin D refers to its membership in
the steroid family.  There's nothing hidden here.  But at the same time,
it doesn't convey any information, not even NEGATIVE information.

>We should keep in mind that none of the known steroid hormones
>are safe for use over prolonged periods and hence all are
>restricted for use by prescription only, calciferol being the
>sole exception.

Have you had yourself castrated yet, Ted?

>This potent steroid hormone was ill-designated by Edward Mellanby
>as a "vitamin" in 1921 when he suggested that the healing action
>of animal fats in rickets is probably due to some fat-soluble
>vitamin.  Calciferol, however, consists of a group of hormones,
>one form of which is so toxic that it was appropriately called
>"toxisterol".  Animal fats are used to manufacture vitamin D and
>it is virtually impossible to manufacture a toxisterol-free form.
>Another form called "ertron", that was claimed to be toxisterol
>free, was extensively used in mega-vitamin therapy for arthritis
>in the 1940's.  After several hundred arthritis patients were
>poisoned by ertron it was withdrawn from the market.

OK, Teddy.  What does this have to do with anything?

>When 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D is now synthesized through 7-
>dehydrocholesterol being treated with UV rays, there is also
>produced a multiplicity of activation products (tachysterol,
>lumisterol and some suprasterols).  It is virtually impossible to
>remove the contaminating by-products (4)   There are real
>differences between the body's dermally produced D and this
>synthetic D.  As Moon et al.(1) noted, these contaminating
>side-products of synthetic D are readily taken up by the D
>carrier protein which has a great affinity for these
>contaminating sterols.  This is not the case with the dermally
>produced side-products.

Commercially produced vitamin D is about as pure a substance as any
substance.

>We should further keep in mind anabolic
>steroid hormones also have a probable contamination by various
>oxysterols, the potential side effects of these hormones being
>cancer and cardiovascular diseases.

WHoops, folks.  Look.  This is a sleight of hand.  What does vitamin D
have to do with "anabolic steroid hormones"?  Precisely nothing.  Zilch.
Zip.  Nada.  Tell me, would any of you trust Ted or this Moon guy after
such a falsehood?  This guy is lying to you, pure and simple.  Zealots
like to spread controversy.  This guy is a zealot, and Ted is his prophet.

>Even if "pure" `D' could be synthesized,

Which it can.

>thermal and
>photoinstability result in its decomposition into other
>oxysterols. `D' in a tablets decomposes at 40 degrees C within 3 days.

i.e., don't carry it under your armpit if you have a near-fatal fever.

>No evidence of vitamin deficiency based on serum levels of D
>metabolites have been found in N.A. populations. (15, 16)
>Indeed, no evidence for such deficiencies has been found in
>groups thought most likely to develop vitamin D-deficiency osteomalacia,
>such as East Indian immigrants to Canada (14).

This is a consequence of widespread supplementation.

>Certainly, there is no
>evidence to indicate any beneficial effect of calciferol hormones
>in non-deficient people, but there is now evidence to indicate
>harmful effects of chronic low-level consumption of this substance.

Oh, my I can't wait to read this...

>IV)  THE IMPLICATION THIS SYNTHETIC STEROID HORMONE IN THE
>     ETIOLOGY OF ATHEROSCLEROSIS AND OSTEOPORSIS.
>
>According to Moon (1):
>
>     "Ingestion of excess vitmin D can be dangerous, giving rise
>     to withdrawal of Ca and Mg from the bone, and deposition of
>     Ca, Mg, and Fe in a variety of soft tissues such as arteries
>     and kidneys"
>
>It is well known that with advancing age, levels of Ca in our
>bones decreases while the deposition of Ca in soft tissue
>increases.  Evidence for calciferol being a factor in this Ca
>problem comes from a number of different sources.  For instance,
>excess calciferol from megavitamin D therapy (6, 7), or with
>infants receiving excess amount from fortified foods (8, 9), is
>known to cause in a relatively short period of time
>cardiovascular, renal, and skeletal damage.

This is not evidence that ordinary supplementation causes these
problems; it's evidence that overdose causes problems.  This is not news.

>The larger population may also be consuming excess vitamin D (esp. compared
>to RNI recommendations of 100 IU or RDA recommendations of 200
>IU).  Multiple sources like milk (400 IU/quart in U.S.),
>margarine (660 IU/100 g. in Canada), multivitamin supplements
>(200-400 IU), some breakfast cereals (100 IU/serving), yogart,
>eggs (50 IU/yolk), fish and meat (much of the vitamin D fed to
>domestic animals as a growth hormone concentrates in their fat
>stores). These multiple sources may result in consumption as high
>as 800-1500 IU/daily.  When all these exogenous sources are added
>to the variable amount from solar exposure, it is not surprising
>that one study (10) found that 13% of infants had intakes over
>1,000 IU/d and that 4.2% of adult women were in excess of 1,000 IU/d.

US RDA is 400 IU/day.  1,000IU/day is non-toxic, except in infants.
Vitamin D is not administered as a growth hormone to animals, and
meat (other than liver) isn't even an especially rich source of the
vitamin.  Now, having said this, no one would recommend that healthy
people chronically take more than the RDA.

>Now, what about chronic "low-level" ingestion over long periods?
>It should be kept in mind that adults who are no longer growing
>may be more sensitive to calciferol toxicity and that this
>substance is not readily excreted but accumulates in our fat
>stores.  Also, cofactors like nicotine along with low dietary MG
>and high cholesterol/saturated fat intakes may also lower the
>pathogenic levels of calciferol (the last two cofactors
>characteristic of an omnivore diet).

Oh, really?  This is proof by assertion.

>Now, Dr. Moon claims that
>when taken by non-deficient people, low level ingestion of
>calciferol may still increase the aging of arteries, kidneys, and bones.

With emphasis on "claims".

>Ingesting these manufactured forms may always result in a
>calciferol substance that is readily absorbed into the blood but
>which does not properly serve to best regulate the calcium
>levels in the bone and blood.

Note the use of the word "May".

The biological effects of the various isomers of vitamin D are well
characterized.

>Hence, Moon thinks that the
>compulsory addition of calciferol in our milk (as required by
>Canada Health regulation) and its routine addition to margarine,
>baby foods, breakfast cereals, multiple vitamin supplements, and
>animal feed, has substantially increased the risk factor towards
>atherosclerosis, osteoporosis and kidney stones in the larger population.

Note the word "thinks"; there's simply no evidence for this, and
what follows here is emphatically _not_ evidence of any sort.  It's
the vaguest form of handwaving.

>     There is, for instance, a direct correlation of incidence of
>these diseases in various countries and the policy of those
>countries to add calciferol to its foodstuffs.  The recent U. S.
>and Canadian decrease, starting in the 1970's, in the death rate
>from IHD (ischemic heart disease) parallels the new regulations
>to decrease the delivery of exogenous calciferol in the foods. (1)

And this parallels a lot of other phenomena, too.

>This decline has not been explained by smoking status,
>leisure time, physical activity, alcohol consumption, body mass
>index, social support structures, education, preventive medical
>care, number of physicians or greater availability of medical care, etc.(11).

This decrease in death due to heart disease has not been completely
explained, but any of those mentioned above are a lot more likely than
a reduction in calciferol intake.

>In countries where vitamin D was routinely added
>to the food supply (U.S., Canada, Finland, Israel, Great
>Britain), osteoporosis reaches its highest levels.

>Country     vit D      Femur Fractures       heart disease
>          additives     per/100,000          per/100,000
>                        female male         female  male
>
>Canada      ++++         200   50            650   200
>USA         ++++         102   51            700   190
>Sweden         +          87   38            340   100
>UK             +          63   29            520   150
>Neth           +          51   29            370   100
>Finland        +          50   27            780   200
>Israel         +          70   43            450   200
>Yugo          no          39   38            320   200
>Singapore     no          15   27            200   100
>HongKong      no          31   27             83    37

Anyone who would read these figures and conclude anything whatsoever
about an effect of calciferol would be drawing conclusions where
none deserve to be made.

>  In addition, calciferol increases the retention of toxic metals
>and radioactive nuclides.  Hence, it may be a cofactor in
>childhood lead poisoning.

Nonsense.

>Calciferol also accentuates magnesium
>deficiency and certain hypersensitive conditions (primary
>hyperparathyroidism, sarcoidosis).

Yes, in overdose.

>Finally, the relation of
>calciferol and cancer is not a satisfactorily resolved question.

It's not a satisfactorily ASKED question.  Look at the way this guy
rumor-mongers.  WHAT relationship of calciferol and cancer?

>  The role of calciferol and atherosclerosis has been suggested by a
>number of researchers (3, 12, 13)

Suggested.  I'll get these and read them critically and get back to you.

>   Now, if I may give a personal assessment of the above
>information.  Here we have another reason to avoid meat and diary products.

Hardly.

>Keep in mind that the toxic effects of calciferol are
>aggravated by saturated fats (which also contributes to the total
>ingestion of exogenous calciferol).

There is no reason to assume this is the case.  Nor do saturated fats
per se "contribute to the total ingestion of exogenous calciferol".
Fats in general help the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins.  That includes
fat from any source.

>More importantly, we have
>again an interesting case example where the complexity of whole
>foods and our body's evolved means to handle those foods and
>produce its own needed substances, like D, should be better
>respected.  It is simply hubris at this point to suggest that the
>atomistic biochemical approach to nutrition is sufficient to give
>us adequate synthetic substitutes.

It doesn't really matter how you get your Vitamin D.  Adequate exposure
to sunlight or through the diet or through supplementation.  They all
work the same way.

>Better to get your vitamins
>from whole foods than from pills or food additives.  .

Or in this case, through sunshine.  I have no argument with this
limited claim.  (But what about skin cancer? :-))

>   While not unexpected, it is interesting to note that Moon has
>been harassed by the dairy industry for doing this research.

"Research"?  All I've seen here is really weak misinterpretation of data.
Is that what "research" is at SFU?

>For example, while serving as a professor of biochemical
>toxicology for the Bioenergetics Research Laboratory in the
>Kinesthesiology department at sfu, the dairy industry complained
>to the administration.  The sfu president, however, backed Moon
>informing this lobby that at sfu at least, the professors have
>freedom of research.  It is curious that the dairy industry
>should be so driven to contest this area of research.  You would
>think it would be in the dairy industry's interest to improve
>its product before the general public demands it, and also save
>itself the costs of adding calciferol at the factory.  Maybe
>they don't want to admit that anything whatsoever could be bad,
>or ever was bad, with drinking milk and eating cheese.  After
>all, they have been very successful in promoting these high
>cholesterol foodstuffs as "health fostering foods".

Oh, this guy is at SFU, eh?  I can't imagine that you'd have heard
of him from otherwise.  In any case, it would not surprise me
if the dairy industry felt strongly about falsehoods, distortions
and outright lies being fostered by someone.  Let it be clear here:
what this guy is saying is not only disputed by the dairy industry
but by anyone who is familiar with nutrition, calcium metabolism
and the interpretation of data.

Not all dairy foods are "high cholesterol".  Most of their problems
have to do with saturated fat, not their intrinsic cholesterol content.
Low fat dairy products like skim milk, cottage cheese and other low
fat cheeses are perfectly good foods.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer