A Vitamin D “Denier” Emerges
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:05PM 
Reader Alex writes in, a bit off topic on the last post. He is concerned that the idea that Vitamin D deficiency is common and clinically significant may be a made-up problem. I’ve put his claims in italics and my responses to them follow.
The "natural" and "ideal" values of Vitamin D is a controversial topic. I am aware that the fans of the "Vitamin D Deficiency" theory are pushing this very hard and recommending to everybody to take large doses of Vitamin D.
Not large, just adequate. If a healthy young Caucasian can get 20,000 iu/day or more from the sun in an hour or two, then supplementing at 8,000 iu/day can hardly be considered “large”.
However, if you see the "evidence" on the table, there much less as they claim. There are no large, long term Cancer Studies showing any benefit of Vitamin D Supplementation. The most prominent study is from Lappe which consider only 37 (!) cancer cases and from this poor data he tries to extract some information (if you look to his original paper you will see that original data points are missing, just calculations)
I think you are being a little hard on the Lappe study. This was a study of 1179 women. The cancer cases were 6/400 in those taking both D3 and calcium and three times that rate or more in the other two groups, including 16/266 (!) in those getting only placebo. It takes a pretty large effect size to get a statistically significant difference with a 4 year study of this few subjects. I would not be so dismissive. This is not just an observational study
Fair enough about the lack of a definitive RCT, though. Each person may choose to wait until a billion dollar trial has been funded, launched, analyzed and published. Or they might choose to supplement in the intervening 20 years. It might also be worthwhile to point out that there are as yet no randomized trials proving the harm of cigarette smoking or the survival benefit to wearing motorcycle helmets, either.
The link between innate immunity and Vitamin D (1,25D to be accurate) is without any doubt, however this does not mean that "the more the better" these is true. Experiments trying to prove that have been executed " in vitro" and not "in vivo". Nobody knows exactly how higher doses interact with innate immunity.
I don’t know anyone who says “the more the better”. I advocate supplementation to the 50-60 ng/dl level of serum 25 (OH) D (labs tend to err on the high side) which is less than half that achievable with sunlight. I haven’t seen anyone go Linus Pauling on Vitamin D, even among the most enthusiastic lay bloggers.
As commentators from north Europe stated here, there are enough populations living in northerm latitudes with no serious problems on innate immunity response, infections etc.
That makes little sense and I have seen no such evidence offerred by you or any other commenters. What about the variation in cancers and MS with latitude?
What is quite evident and supported by large experimental evidence, is the *correlation* between low vitamin D (25D) and a large numbers of diseases. However the simplistic approach, that supplementation may help to *prevent* such disease is nothing else as a wish. Large scale studies (i.e. double blind, random) are missing or had failed to prove such hypothesis (i.e. Womans Health Initiative)
WHI only gave 400 iu/day to women whose baseline D levels started at about 15 ng/dl. If doses an order of magnitude higher are necessary for an effect, as we D advocates claim, we would indeed be shocked if 400 iu/day had achieved anything. That WHI failed therefore not only says nothing about the efficacy of higher levels, it supports the idea of higher supplementation. As far as a definitive RCT, see my comments on that above.
The correlation between low levels of vitamin D and disease could be simply explained by the alternative hypothesis, that the low vitamin D values are the consequence of the disease itself, and not the causation.
Yes, the cause/effect inversion must always considered when an association is observed. That is why we look at other lines of evidence before even proposing causal relationships - other types of epidemiology (latitude variation, not just D levels) and laboratory and animal model evidence.
Considering the significant changes in other metabolism (i.e. Iron, B12, ) it would not be a wonder, that pathogenic changes on the Vitamin D metabolism are responsible for the measured low levels. If supplementation may help, it is not proven.
Again, I’d like to see the evidence for this speculation. It could be that every one of the associated disease processes depletes 25 (OH) D and at the same time, the fact that variation in latitude and D levels both track many of the same diseases is just a coincidence. Maybe MS and some cancers cause low D levels, which in turn cause people to migrate to northern latitudes. Do you think that sounds plausible? I sure don’t.
Furthermore, looking to the great example of the nature, there are complete species that lives in the darkness, hunting at night with very little sun exposure. There is little evidence that they Vitamin D metabolism is completely different as ours.
Naked mole rats seem to regulate their blood glucose pretty well with no insulin, too, having lost that need during their evolution. Maybe you can emulate the Naked Mole Rats, try a dose of streptozotocin and see how long you survive without your B cells producing insulin. That makes about as much sense. Humans may well evolve away from D essentiality in another few 10s of millennia of clothed indoor existence. In the meantime, I prefer to supplement to levels I would get with sunshine
Do not forget that Vitamin D production on the skin is *limited* by the body´s own response, external supplementation not.
As you are admonishing me to remember something I write quite a lot about, I am starting to wonder if you have read any of the Vitamin D posts I wrote for this blog.
This might be an argument for preferring to get D from the sun when possible, but otherwise tells me little. If the optimal D levels were lower than what I have recommended supplementing to, and D production shut-off is designed by evolution to protect us from too high 25 (OH) D levels, wouldn’t it shut off at low levels before I get to 90 ng/dl from the sun alone? This does not sound plausible to me.
And last but (not -ed) least, it is an open question if long term consumption on large quantities are not detrimental for health.
Although I’ve used a bit of sarcasm in responding to your claims, what you say with this last sentence is technically true. Matters of health, like all scientific claims, should always be skeptically examined and re-evaluated as new evidence arrives. Anything is possible, but as that fraud JM Keynes supposedly observed, “in the long run we are all dead”. In the mean time, if we want to actually get anything done, we choose to act or not act as pragmatists, making tough decisions with the best information we have available to us.
Thanks for your thoughts, Alex
To sum up and reiterate my position:
1) I find the idea that there are epidemic negative health effects to having vitamin D deficiency, defined as levels seen in those who typically get little sun, a plausible idea.
2) I find it plausible that supplementation to a level much higher than the average person currently has, but well within the range observed physiologically in those getting significant sun exposure, may decrease the risk of immune dysfunction and some cancers, in addition to ensuring bone health. Lifeguards can get up to 120 ng/dl or more with sun alone. I advocate 50-60 ng/dl.
3) I have seen no evidence for harm in maintaining levels higher than what I recommend, but lower than the 150 ng/dl level. Conversely, I have seen no evidence in favor of going any higher, nor can I think of a plausible mechanism that would favor doing so.
Reader Comments (30)
This seems to be a line of argument presented by supporters of the Marshall Protocol:
"The Marshall Protocol is based on the hypothesis that chronic diseases (termed Th1 illnesses), are the result of infection by an intraphagocytic, metagenomic microbiota of chronic bacterial forms that are often referred to as the Th1 pathogens. The term intraphagocytic refers to the fact that these bacteria have developed the ability to remain alive and proliferate undetected inside the cytoplasm of the cells they infect. These cells include macrophages, the very cells of the immune system that the body uses to kill invading pathogens. Once inside these cells, they cause our own cells to release inflammatory cytokines (proteins that often generate pain and/or fatigue)."
http://bacteriality.com is one web site that follows this route. They seem to be anti-Vitamin D and claim that it is immunosuppressive. Many of the arguments that Alex lists can be found here.
KGH:
He listed a URL that led to a website in german. I seem to recall seeing the word " Marshall" on it. He was the third commenter expressing doubts about Vitamin D. Maybe they were all from the same group. Sounds a bit like the nutritional version of scientology the way you describe it (TH1 = thetans?).
Seems like I encounter a new crackpot theory every day.
This piece by Dr David Grimes about vitamin D and fish on Dr William Davis Heart Scan Blog may answer some questions about how people without much sun exposure may get a good supply of vitamin D: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/dr-david-grimes-reminds-us-of-vitamin-d.html
Anne
Alex's claim that "Vitamin D production on the skin is *limited* by the body´s own response, " is not, strictly speaking, true. It is limited by the photochemical reaction that produces it in the skin. UV light triggers conversion of cholesterol in the skin to a D-precursor which is then converted further by warmth into D3 (I think- working from memory here) which the body then takes away. However, after about 20 mins (for Caucasians in sufficient intensity UV) additional photochemical reactions cause the build-up of other by-products which inhibit the initial conversion. This is a property of the photo-chemistry itself.
If there is an epidemiological argument against the necessity of Vit. D supplementation, it would be Stefansson's writings about the Inuit. Surely, if low levels of Vit. D lead to cancer and whatnot, people essentially spending 6 months in the dark would have lots of cancer. But they apparently didn't.
I grant that this does not invalidate your position due to the lack of actual data on Vit. D and the traditional Inuit beyond the anecdotes. Maybe they consumed a huge amount of liver (though where they would get it seems to be problematic). Maybe they're genetically different (although that strikes me as a cop-out along the lines of the Maasai "paradox"). Or maybe Stefansson is just wrong and they all got cancer.
But it does create an argument for the possibility that Vit. D supplementation is not very relevant once one's diet has shifted from neolithic to paleolithic. Most epidemiological data in favor of supplementation is going to be skewed by the diet factor and we're left debating plausibilities rather than certainties. I'm personally not doing Vit. D at the moment, due to my one year zc/no supplement self-experiment, but I admit I'll probably jump on the Vit. D train once my year is up, just to be safe.
KGH:
The Inuit were not perfectly healthy. Osteoporosis may have been one issue. What D they did get was from copious fish and organ meats of marine mammals.
There is certainly no proof, from Stefannsson or otherwise, that they would not have been healthier with D supplementation.
I like the calm style of your answers.
I'm from the Mediterranean and now living in central European Union.
I just think it's logic that I need to supplement with vitamin D during at least 3 seasons a year.
...and I really miss my blue & white paradise...
There's no evidence of long-term harm from Vitamin D supplementation.
There's at least some evidence of benefit, both short and long-term.
Application of rudimentary decision-theory indicates one should supplement until evidence that potential harm outweighs potential benefit is unearthed.
I do take supplements every day I don't get much sun exposure. But my preferred method is through sun exposure. I often work out in my back yard close to noon in order to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, so to speak. I wonder though, how long should I wait before taking my post-workout shower? That is, how much time does the D3 made in the skin need to be absorbed so that a shower won't wash it all away? Before anyone says I should just skip the shower, let me stop you by saying my wife would not take too kindly to that!
KGH
The vitamin D is not on the skin surface - it's in the basal layers. No way you can wash it off - that is a myth/
K,
interesting post, thank you.
At the outset let me make it clear, I am not a sunshine denier. Living on the coast in Australia rules this out.
Actually I am constantly being admonished by peers and some family members for my 'foolish, reckless behaviour' lying around in the sun. Skin cancer is nigh on health risk bugaboo number one in Oz, with all media plastered with 'nothing healthy about any tan' messages.
But stripping down and getting sun doesn't necessarily equate with sunburn.
I rely on skin sensitivity which indicates when it is geting too warm/hot, rather than plastering the body with sundry sunscreen lotions, or not going outdoors in the sun in the first place.
Sun strength varies from day to day, somedays one can stay out for several hours, others for just 10 or 20 minutes.
Granted Australia does have extreme temperatures.
Supplementing food with any supplement seems quite odd, but I guess folk living in less sunny places, or wth less time to get outdoors, supplementing with D may well be beneficial.
But I cant help thinking that for other folk, it becomes yet another STP ingredient to chug-a-lug down with other goodies, with the hope that a bit of this and bit of extra that, will concoct the perfect dietary intake that will lead just a little closer to immortality.
kind wishes, j
KGH:
I am only thinking of normalization to compensate for clothing and indoor life. No magic claimed.
As proof, my D levels are at 65 ng/dl and I currently have a URI with cough. I seem to have these less frequently and less severely than before, but nothing makes you invulnerable.
Just to clarify, I'm not claiming that the Inuit had "perfect health", merely that the pattern of disease predicted by their latitude did not appear to hold true under their traditional VLC diet. The difficulties in assessing actual traditional Inuit health and diet make it impossible to claim anything beyond that. I'm somewhat skeptical of the "organ meats for vitamins" theory, simply because if you're hunting caribou or whatever there's only one liver to go around, but I grant that my suspicion is essentially groundless; I can't know how many organs anyone ate, and accounts from the time are sketchy.
Anyway, just wanted to poke that into the debate. Maybe I'll give a month or two of Vit D supplementation a shot at the end of December (month 5 of zc) just to see what happens.
Kurt, I'm thinking along the same lines and it's probably the next post after the final one of the current NAFLD set.
Peter
KGH:
Hello Peter
Will look forward to your post. I read the Vieth paper discussed on your blog with interest. Having a stable D level as a variable independent of average level would explain a lot. I have only supplemented myself for the past few months, but usually got 5 or six months of daily sun for a many years before that. I still prefer real sunshine for the mental health effects. Drops in the coffee don't seem the same.
I forgot to mention on your blog that I had a surgery professor (nearly emeritus at the time) who was chief at the VA hospital I rotated through in medical school. It was an open secret that he might be a high functioning alcoholic. He used to lecture us that cirrhosis was not caused by drink, but rather by poor diet while drinking and we would roll our eyes, of course. I recall looking up some archaic papers later that supported what he said (in humans) - I suppose I should try to find them again.
I was diagnosed with a really, really low level of Vit D a couple of years ago. Due to more pressing medical matters at the time I put off supplementation until a Jungian explosion of VitD stuff lately in my life, including blogs that I follow like this one.
So about 10 days ago I went to my local CVS and picked up some D3. Do we really know how many IUs to take to achieve a given serum level? Assume I get little sunshine; I live in Michigan and won't be getting a lot outdoors during the daytime until its time to coach baseball next spring.
KGH:
Quite a few posts about dosing here - assuming you have read them.
Increasingly I tend to pay more attention to short, direct blog posts. Please don't take that as a shot - I have a folder dedicated to Evolutionary Fitness(I'm a deVany acolyte) in my Google Reader and this is one of the blogs in it.
Only one blog post here contains the word "dosage". At the bottom of a post from late September you state:
"I continue to recommend, at minimum, supplementation to above 50 ng/ml and preferably above 60 ng/ml. Per my previous article, this will usually take sunlight or at least 4000 iu/day for adults"
Unfortunately I cannot locate the other post you refer to.
I do have some need to be cautious; it might be several months before I can get my D level tested again. But the number that caused my doc's heart to palpitate was..... cue drum roll...... 8. Though I'm sure its somewhat better than that now.
KGH:
I was indeed suggesting reading the main vitamin D posts, including the first and most comprehensive, listed as "Vitamin D" on the sidebar on the right, that contains this:
"Here are some approaches to Vitamin D replaclement I think are reasonable:
If you can get adequate sunlight at midday, say, sitting outside at lunchtime with 25% of your skin exposed for an hour, and your latitude and the season allow enough UV, you can use that as your source. Am I concerned about skin cancer or wrinkles? I’ll cover that in an upcoming post but basically I think sunning without burning is fine. I suspect what really trashes your skin are PUFAs and cigarettes, not the sun. If you really worry about wrinkling, wear a broad-brimmed hat and get the sun on your arms and shoulders. As an aside, my MED is now more than twice what it used to be since I eliminated plant oils- others have reported less burning (inflammation) with less O-6 PUFAs in the diet as well.
If you are like most people most of the time, UV as your sole source will not be practical. Ideally, get your 25(OH)D level and ionized calcium measured, and if it is less than 40 ng/ml, take 8000 iu/day for two months and measure it again. If 40-50, take 6000 iu/day. Any day you get full-dose sun, skip the oral dose. If still below 50 ng/ml, add 2000 iu/day with each two month increment until your interval two month reading is above 50 ng/ml. Once you are stabilized above 50ng/ml, check your levels annually
If you don’t want to medicalize your diet this much, you could take 4000 iu/day every day. You could skip the pills on days with sun, or not. You will not get hypercalcemic on this unless you already have primary hyperparathyroidism or some other confounding disease. I would recommend 25 (OH)D levels at least yearly, though."
Full post here: http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009/8/9/vitamin-d.html
You may have to read more, including the next 4 or so vitamin D posts, and some of the comments, to get the best idea what to do.
As far as blog post length, like my thoughts, some are "tie it all together" monographs, some Haiku.
Ok, that post is a good one, though it takes a while to get to the practical stuff. Something to remember here I guess. The bit about the non-linear dose-response curve is very helpful.
I guess now I've just got to focus on finding the cheapest source on a per IU basis and figure out if I'm going to have to take the stuff with a meal - the pills - or with my morning coffee - the oil-based gelcaps. I'll bet Costco has oil drum-sized containers of the stuff.
My big worry with the gelcaps is rancidity. Before I started really knuckling down on my paleo eating I did supplement with fish oil(Carlson's), and depending on which distribution channel I used this was a problem. I can't imagine a rancid oil improves D absorption rates.
KGH:
You said "Ok, that post is a good one, though it takes a while to get to the practical stuff. Something to remember here I guess."
Maybe a post-it note on fridge with "Avoid PaNu site when only looking to be told what to do and I have no time for science" ; )
Although I supplement because I live in northern New England, I can't help but have a concern about the effect over the long term.
For years prior to the CARET study, it was common to read recommendations to supplement with beta carotene to reduce cancer risk, among other things. This was due to the observation and measurement of higher intake and blood levels of beta carotene in healthier groups. When the interventional study was done, not only was there no benefit, but the risk of lung cancer among smokers went up from supplementing. If these results are valid AND the earlier observations are also true, then intake and blood levels of beta carotene in the earlier studies clearly are a marker for some other healthful behavior.
My concern about Vit D is similar. Could the benefits attributed to Vit D actually be due to some unknown effect of sun exposure (or a related behavior), rather than the actual Vit D in the body? In that case, where higher Vit D levels that are naturally attained might be a marker for some other factor, could the actual Vit D in isolation be harmful?
KGH:
This is kind of skepticism is healthy and reasonable. I think one difference to keep in mind is the difference between supplementing to levels seen in normal physiology and supplementing with amounts that are "supplemental' i.e., supraphysiologic and only found with extraordinary food intakes. Those of us who are skeptical of ant-oxidant vitamins believe the mythology extends from a the "fruit and vegetables are healthy" meme, which is in turn just a modern superstition. So the failure or even danger of other vitamins doesn't tell us anything cautionary about D any more that it tells us about Insulin or thyroid hormones, as D is after all a hormone and not a vitamin.
Regarding the arguments against the Lappe et al Study, please compare the following Vitamin D + Cancer study, with more then 700 cancer cases.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/100/11/796
The study found out that higher Vitamin D Values correlated with an increased agressivity of prostata cancer.
You may explain this better.
Regards,
Rookie
Jeff,
The CARET trial used a synthetically-derived beta-carotene called Lurotin produced by BASF in Germany. This molecule has been associated with neutral or severely adverse effects in clinically trials including the CARET... more death, more cancer specifically lung CA in those with prior smoking histories. Vitamin A and carotenoids have vital roles in immunoprotection in the first line of defense betw the body and the environment, e.g. mucosal membranes and the respiratory tract and GI/intestinal tract.
All synthetic hormones are bad is what the ATBC and CARET trials tell me.
The HATS trial small but noteworthy used Lurotin also and basically the 'antioxidant' arm with Lurotin negated some of the benefits with the niacin arm which showed a 90% reduction in mortality and heart revasc surgery and events.
Again, synthetic is clearly awful IMHO.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/62/6/1377S.pdf
Natural vitamins on the other hand are generally associated with neutral or improved outcomes, depending on the study (and I'd ignore all Pharma funded 'vitamin' studies -- they are not desiged to show that vitamins are good, in fact, quite the opposite. Can u tell? No b/c sources of funding are often hidden).
-G
Off topic, but I read somewhere on here that you "could drink heavy cream all day" (or, something to that effect). I've never cared much either way for heavy cream, but lately I started adding copious amounts to my coffee- wow! It makes coffee a wonder drink =). I've been downing a pint or more of heavy cream per day... have trouble finding the "good stuff" in Orlando though. Whole foods has a pasteurized grass fed heavy cream, but they are always out of stock. My second (most common) option if organic valley's ultra pasteurized heavy cream, which is not as good =(, but still tastes great.
-Anthony
I find your site absolutely amazing!
You constantly inspire me to dig more, and study more, and learn more. This then translates into better health for me and my loved ones. They can't escape. I'm so excited about what I am learning, that I can't resist spreading the wealth (health) :-)
I don't think you've mentioned this yet, but I wonder what you think/know/advise about getting Vitamin D from UV lamps. I remember that in the good old days, they were popular for tanning. Is it possible to absorb vitamin D from them? If so, how should we go about choosing a suitable lamp/bulb?
Thank you
Ajdrakie
Rookie said...
"Regarding the arguments against the Lappe et al Study, please compare the following Vitamin D + Cancer study, with more then 700 cancer cases.
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/100/11/796
The study found out that higher Vitamin D Values correlated with an increased agressivity of prostata cancer."
I have three points::
1: Vit D may raise testosterone levels. High testosterone has been linked to more aggressive prostate cancer.
2: Seasonal fluctuations of 25(OH)D may explain some differing results. (Vieth 2009)
3: The result meets opposition of many studies that arrived at opposite conclusion.
WHOA! I'm interested in your calling John Maynard Keynes a fraud. That was a bit of a bomb for me. Please elaborate. Not saying I disagree, but "we're all keynesians now" as dick nixon said. What is strange is there seems to be an overlap between health/longevity and economic interests. I have noticed it in many people like myself. Perhaps you have read this James Grant piece? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574575761660481996.html#printMode
KGH: Anyone who is an austrian would say the same. Hayek was Keynes' main opponent.
I can get on board with some of what Austrain Economics has to say, but positions like this frighten me. It is clearly idiotic:
http://mises.org/daily/2343
KGH:
If you spend any time at the site, you will see that it is a compendium of essays by a variety of authors. Neither I nor all those whose work you find on the site endorse everything written there.
Coming from a state where it is already illegal to drive drunk, and everyone does it anyway, I do see some of the author's points. Cultural pressure is more preventive than difficult to enforce or intrusive laws. I no more desire government to mandate high saturated fat consumption than to prohibit it. Another problem not mentioned is the gross inaccuracy of breathalizer tests. The author points out that behavior like erratic driving should be punished rather than an inaccurately measured physiologic parameter whose effect may vary be the individual is not "clearly idiotic" even if I don't completely agree in practice.
Of course, if you love the state, nothing is too intimate to be beyond regulation.
Note: I rarely drink and never drive after do.
Did you have a question about nutrition?
First, my sincere apology if anything I said came across as disrespectful. I intended no such thing. I found your site recently via art devany's and have been perusing. When I saw your comments about iTulip, I was intrigued, and wanted to engage an obviously informed person on the subject simply because I do not get to do so often. I have looked over mises.org as well, but the reason I asked about that article was I suspected it may have been indicative of a greater weltanschauung (in keeping with the austrian theme). I assume that the author is pro "free markets" and against regulation. Is that the basic position of Austrian economics (plus gold standard, business cycle, etc.)? Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" is on hold at my library, so I will be digging in shortly. The reason I said it was idiotic was that I feel that in many cases, a market that is free can also become idiotic. Here is something Charlie Munger said that I felt was intelligent: some people believed that "if there were no rules at all restraining financial conduct the economy would work better. And that's not so, the economy works worse if you allow unrestrained sin and folly in finance." I'd just like your input. I'm really new to the austrian thing and am just curious. If this isnt the place to be asking these questions, I apologize.
More on topic, I used to supplement with 2,000-6,000 IU of Vitamin D but my eyes began to hurt and I saw dark spots occasionally. Any clue what this might be? I bought the supplement at walmart, so I figured that may have something to do with it. Thanks for your concern, and again, sorry if i pissed you off.
KGH:
Not disrespectful, just OT on this essay. I recommend other sites but that does not mean I endorse everything you'll find there.
Sorry, I've never heard of that symptom with regard to Vit D supplements.
Patiently waiting for a post on fresh venison brother. I'm jealous as hell.
a link fro The Vitamin D Council newsletter:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/jan2009_Millions-of-Needless-Deaths_01.htm
Please consider membership in the Nutrition & Metabolic Society. After reading your presentation, I believe you would find our organization favorably enlightening.
Hey Kurt,
I similarly wrote a post on Erkki Tuohimaa's new Vitamin D discoveries presented in Brugge, Belgium and I did not see it here, but I'm afraid I don't have the (rather lenghty) text anymore for re-post. Can you please clarify if you got it ?
I can provide you the exact presentation papers though for commentary. I'm sure they are of interest to all who are interested in Vitamin D.
Hi Kurt,
Regarding your reply to Ryan Koch in the Kitvan post comments about gluten reduction, here are some papers that discuss gluten reduction via fermentation and possible application to celiac patients:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14766592
KGH:
Short term study - no idea of long term effects. Note phrase "hydrolyzed almost totally" - almost is not good enough for me. Some of the confirmed CS patients had no adverse response to the regular bread, so their assay is not sensitive enough, obviously. No mention of wheat germ agglutinin whose effects are separate from gliadins.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17008163?ordinalpos=9&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
KGH:
This is only an abstract and not even a scientific study but it sounds bread-industry-funded to me. Again, why on earth devote resources to franken-bread when you can just stop eating bread, period? Makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913301?ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
KGH:
In vitro only test of frankenpasta. Proves nothing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11823200?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
KGH:
Another in-vitro food science study of frankenpasta. Means nothing if you eat real, unprocessed food.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17513580?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
KGH:
This one failed as stated right in the abstract! It says "ca. 20% of glutenins persisted" - there are still glutenins in the engineered frankenbread.
I'm just supplying these links for information, not advocacy...
KGH:
All these "food science" papers are from the same Italian research group.
This is simply totally stupid. As no grains offer us anything we need in the least, why would it ever be preferable to eat them after meticulous processing of some laboratory engineered pasta or bread rather than just avoid them? If you eat real food, gluten grains avoidance is trivially easy. Why in hell would you go out of your way to eat it if you don't have to? Just eat a sweet potato for Christ's sake.
If you know you have celiac and you eat gluten grains in any form, you have rocks in your head, period.
If you don't know you have celiac, your innate immune system is probably still affected (5/6 of non-celiacs) and then you are just ignorant if you eat any gluten grains.
Let's keep comments appropriate to the post.
Hi Kurt,
Here is my third attempt at posting.
KGH:
Your post is long and I'll respond when I get time in a blog post. I'm kind of busy with responses to the more current topics.
Kurt,
Sorry for replying in this thread, but as Ryan Koch mentioned, the appropriate thread has been closed for comments.
I'm a little confused by your response. You've previously made the claim that gluten cannot be eliminated or reduced by food processing techniques - the papers above (whether from a food science group from Italy or not, as if the origin of the results negates them) clearly show that fermentation does do this.
Fermentation - ie, as in sourdough bread - is a common kitchen technique, not some esoteric lab or factory method.
Whether or not this helps celiac patients is a different question.
Why do you think that gluten proteins are in and of themselves poisonous? Robert McCleod of Entropy Production blog made an interesting comment on Stephan's blog - as long as the gut isn't compromised, no foreign proteins should enter the blood stream.
Evidence seems to point to high omega-6 and fructose as causative agents of gut inflammation/permeability, not gluten. Gluten just seems to be the last nail in the coffin of the diseases of civilization.
Again, note that I'm not advocating this for celiacs or anyone else. But I am interested in truth, not dogma about anything.
KGH:
Fermentation in your kitchen absolutely does not reliably remove all gliadin proteins to zero, nor does is destroy wheat germ agglutinin.
Gliadin proteins and WGA each independently make the gut leaky even if there is no adaptive immune response.
I do not "think they are poison" - they are poison.
You have rocks in your head if you eat them and you are not forced to by starvation.
Give me a single reason that eating fermented wheat is better than avoiding it in favor of something else.
If eating sourdough bread because it is "traditional" is central to your religion for some reason, go ahead and eat it. But suggesting it might be safe for celiacs is irresponsible.
Enough of this already.
Population differences in vitamin D metabolism
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2010/01/predictions-for-2010.html
"There probably is a causal link between white skin and European vitamin-D metabolism, but the sequence of cause and effect may run in the opposite direction:
1. European skin whitened for an unrelated reason, probably sexual selection.
2. Because this depigmentation ensured abundant vitamin-D synthesis in the skin, there was a relaxation of selection pressure on vitamin-D metabolism. This would explain why, in comparison to other populations, Europeans convert less of it to its most active form and why it binds less effectively to the type of vitamin-D receptor that is most common among Europeans[...]
If this optimal range is continually exceeded, the long-term effects may look like those of aging"
'What about the variation in cancers and MS with latitude?'
"One study
found that the intensity of solar
UVB inversely correlates with mortality
rates for breast, colon, esophageal,
gastric, and rectal cancers
among black Americans.14 This is
essentially a latitude effect: cancer
rates are higher in northern states
than in southern states. Northern
states, however, not only receive
less solar UVB but also have more
manufacturing, particularly heavy
industries that use synthetic chemicals.
On a county-by-county basis,
there is a clear association between
higher cancer mortality and the
presence of chemical, automobile,
and machinery manufacturing.15"
Black-White Differences in Cancer Risk and the Vitamin D Hypothesis
http://www.nmanet.org/images/uploads/Publications/LTE1309.pdf
KGH: I have seen these before and am not convinced by either of them.