Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Low vitamin D levels linked to greater risk of heart attacks in men

MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 6:27 AM EST 17/06/08

Having low levels of vitamin D is associated with a doubling of the risk of heart attacks in men and an even greater risk of dying from the cardiac condition, says study ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. shoshana berman from Canada writes: This effect could be purely correlative and not causal. It probably reflects different diet and lifestyle and has nothing to do with vitamin D itself.
  2. R L from Canada writes: People who are physically active tend to wear running shoes more frequently.

    Therefore there is a statistical correlation between running shoes and good health.

    Does that mean our health will improve if we wear running shoes?
  3. Jorly fuster from Canada writes: I find it hard to believe that the one cause of heart attacks in men is a lack of vitamin D. What about all the bacon double cheeseburgers and lack of exercise does that have anything to do with heart attacks?
  4. Rusty Brown from Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes:
    Article doesn't say that low vitamin D causes heart attacks.

    It says high vitamin D seems to be protective, i.e....

    "Although the study doesn't prove vitamin D caused the
    reduction in heart attack risk, it is considered by some
    medical researchers as strong circumstantial evidence
    of a connection."

    Me, I'm a believer.

    RB
  5. Tom h from Edmonton, Canada writes: I wish the Globe would give more details in its science reporting. Did the researchers control for physical activity? Seems to me that someone with higher vitamin D levels would be outside more often, likely getting more exercise than his indoor brethren. (Or is exercise included in the ambiguous "other factors" that are mentioned?)
  6. G. Triver from langley, Canada writes: TO THOSE SKEPTICS: I'm a Ph.D. with an epidemiologist/doctor brother, a top notch cancer researcher nephew and a slew of friends in the sciences. I have stopped stopped shaking my head when I read the illogic of many of the comments on this story--they occur again and again and are invariably from people who have absolutely NO IDEA of the magnitude of research on D3 (which, by the way isn't even a vitamin but a hormone precursor). Most of these folks do not read science, do not read medical abstracts and have not followed the massive research that has culminated with some critical public health statements from major health organizations--viz., do yourself a favor and take 3-4 thousand I.U./daily of D3. Evolution ensured that you could not obtain enough from mere food. D3's benefits in exerting HUGE decreases in some 16 varieties of cancer, its reduction in Type 2 diabetes is objective medical fact. Mittelstaedt, god bless him, has done more for public health in Canada than the Canadian Cancer Society in my opinion. There is no space to present the papers to you people, but the science is there and it all points in one direction--to D3 as the perhaps the major variable in the incidence of numerous major diseases. Do you and your loved ones a favor and merely plug in: Vitamin D Cancer into Google and you will be astounded at what you will find in the literature. The same profile of low sunlight and disease rate that exists for cancer exists in MS. Virtually every cell in your body has D3 receptors. Even animals require it--your cat is not cleaning itself exclusively all day. It is ingesting "vitamin" D (which was misnamed because it was next in line to C in its earlier discovery). UV light hits the oils in animal furs and D is produced. D3 is also THE regulator of calcium absorption and a regulator of cellular integrity. Be a skeptic, or go with the science. My belief is that D3 research is THE major public health story of our time.
  7. Rusty Brown from Cobourg, Ontario, Canada writes:
    Thank you, G. Triver. This wonderful news comes just when our employees in Ottawa are about to pass Bill C-51 into law.

    As one article reported:

    "Critics feel the bill will outlaw up to 60 per cent of natural health products...that have been sold in Canada for decades unavailable for purchase and penalizing parents who give herbs or supplements to their children..." See:

    http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/05/09/bill-c51.html?ref=rss

    If supplements become more difficult to obtain (e.g. by prescription only) or more expensive due to onerous bureaucratic requirements for testing and documentation, we can expect disease rates to rise as a result.

    Just imagine how Big Pharma, with its expensive high-tech side-effect-laden "solutions" would feel about that.

    RB
  8. Garry C from Toronto, Canada writes: I guess these scientists have isolated vitamin D as a wonder vitamin. Maybe people can start popping these pills and eat meat and other fatty foods three meals a day and their arteries won't get clogged.

    I wonder what kind of lifestyle and diet these people had. Maybe they sat inside watching television eating and drinking and did not exercise.

    If there was a control group, that went outside got exercise - which could also reduce stress - they would be healthier and have higher levels of vitamin D and might be less likely to have a heart attack.

    It seems like these Harvard scientists are doing only half the research.
  9. Pete Kauchak, Green Tory from Cascadia, Canada writes: It's been reported that Vitamin D causes cumulative damage to the liver. I would not jump on the bandwagon yet!
  10. harry schmidt from near Shanghai, Canada writes: This and other articles on human health tell us that there are many ways of living healthier and longer.
    First, take stress out of your life; either at work or living with the wrong mate. I gave up a managing job back in the eighties, and have a diff. mate too. A friend of mine at that time, who made a lot of dough, but had a too much stress at work, suffered a heart attack on the tennis court and died as a result. He was 49.
    Read that story about the folks in southern NS living to 90 years plus? Living a stressfree life with clean air to boot. That's difficult to find in China. Time to go home
    Get your exercise, like a 30 minute walk most days or swim, which is even better. Leave animal fats out of your diet; contrary to what Julia Child told us.
  11. Stephen Bosch from Calgary, Alberta, Canada writes: Given that the study population were doctors and dentists, it seems improbable that they were spending a lot of time getting fat in front of the television.
  12. Hal Frizzle from Canada writes: I'm not sceptical about the benefits of vitamin D in preventing heart attacks it probably does help. "The new finding may help explain why heart attack incidence has a peculiar distribution. It rises during the winter months, and is more common in northerly countries, such as Canada, regardless of whether people have other proven risk factors". However, it seems to me, that snow shovelling would account for this peculiar distribution and increased incidence a lot better than a lack of vitamin D.
  13. daniel coates from Almonte, Ontario, Canada writes: Many thanks G. Triver from langley! A welcome and valued contribution. As you suggest, the hard evidence from hundreds of studies on the health benefits of Vit D3 are conclusive. Our two physician friends recommend 2,000 IU's per day, but I believe that much more is not advised. Of course, a healthly lifestyle and a largely plant based diet is equally vital in promoting health and avoidance of degenerative diseases.
  14. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: G. Triver. Thank you for the info. Can I take too much D3 esp. during the summer when I get more than 20 minutes of sunshine per day?
  15. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Although these vitamin D articles are invariably accompanied by a picture of pill bottles, the studies themselves seldom have anything to do with taking supplements. This is not objective reporting.

    Our blood levels of vitamin D rise and fall through the seasons, and apparently they’re supposed to. The idea that they should be above a certain level all year round is simply not reasonable -- nor is there any science behind it.

    As others have suggested, there are many variables affecting our risk for heart disease -- most related to diet -- and low vitamin D is far more likely to be a result of poor health than a cause. Many studies have found this to be the case, in fact, but unfortunately our health reporters always seem to overlook them.
  16. Kim Philby from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, for what it's worth, I saw my doctor yesterday, he filled out a form for blood tests, and the form requests testing of levels for only two vitamins - D and B12.
  17. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: Drink low fat or skim milk. One eight ounce/250 ml glass contains 45% of your daily requirement of Vitamin D according the Canada Health guide.
  18. Nick T from Calgary, Canada writes: Thomas A The maintenance of year round vitamin D is at the crux of the issue for those populations that live at high latitudes. Demonstrating a relationship, especially a preventative one, should compel people to keep their serum vitamin D content at an ideal level. For a country with a long vitamin D "winter" such as Canada, supplements are a very affordable and safe means of elevating internal vitamin D and hopefully preventing a host of autoimmune diseases, cancer, osteoporosis, and now evidently heart disease. While vitamin D is not the cause per se of these diseases, its worth as a protective factor can't be emphasized enough. Gogh the daily requirement of Vitamin D according the Canada Health guide is way out to lunch. The current research demonstrates this and the raft of research being released uses much higher amounts of daily vitamin D to achieve spectacular results. For instance, use of 1,000 IU/d in women over four years saw a 77% reduction in all cancers. The following week the Canadian Cancer Society recommended all Canadians take 1000 IU/d. Consider that these were women living in Nebraska and because they live closer to the equator than any part of Canada they were probably getting more than just 1,000 IU/d of vitamin D when you add on ambient exposure from the sun.
  19. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Nick T -- The study you cite tested calcium and calcium with vitamin D on a small group of postmenopausal women living in the U.S. midwest. It did not test vitamin D alone. Hence it did not produce the results you ascribe to it -- nor has any other study published to date. The deficiency theory is based on the idea that humans are meant to live only near the equator. Therefore, because of our northward movement over the centuries, it is impossible for us to be healthy unless we take supplements of vitamin D to make up for the lower UVB levels at higher latitudes. It's a ridiculous theory for more reasons that I have time to list. Gogh Forit -- First of all, dairy fats are strongly protective against nearly all forms of cancer, thus it doesn't make sense to drink defatted milk with the idea that it has some benefits that whole milk does not. Secondly, low-fat and skim milk have been linked in hundreds of studies to higher rates of cancer, especially breast, prostate and lung cancer. Some researchers believe that the vitamins added to low-fat and skim milk may be responsible, as they are completely different from the fat soluble vitamins found in natural foods. I can provide you with some study links if you would like to see them.
  20. Nick T from Calgary, Canada writes: Thomas A Indeed the study I referred to tested 1,179 (is this small?) women, healthy postmenopausal women aged 55 and older. They were split into 3 groups and given one of: calcium alone, calcium plus vitamin D or a placebo.

    Only the group given vitamin D achieved a the risk reduction of cancer. This is consistent with many the epidemiology distribution of cancer with latitude and the well documented influence hormonal vitamin D has on cell differentiation. In conjunction with the relatively recent appreciation of how much vitamin D is needed and how much is toxic you can see why there is so much excitement from guys like Mr. Triver.

    I believe the ridiculous theory you refer to is simply a means of maintaining the identified therapeutic hormone 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D3 with supplements when it is not produced via UVR exposure. Both means are well identified to produce serum vitamin D in humans.

    We have evolved as a species predominantly in equatorial climes and have adapted our physiology to capitalise on vitamin D derived from abundant UVR exposure. This isn't to say we were meant to live to live only near the equator but more appropriately we are "meant" to have abundant vitamin D circulating in our bodies.
  21. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Read the study again and I think you'll find that calcium alone cut the cancer incidence nearly in half. One of the many problems with this study was its short duration. Technically, it wasn't even a cancer study -- which is why no cancer journal would publish it.

    Vitamin D in supplement form is a drug, not a food, and it clearly has a number of "rogue effects" such as diversion of calcium from bone to arteries. How ironic that this supplement would be recommended as a way to lower one's risk for heart disease when it appears to play a part in the calcium influx related to atherosclerosis.

    Review the literature and you'll see that there is very little aggreement on what constitutes an "insufficiency" of vitamin D. With so many of these vitamin D claims based on nothing more than conjecture, I should think blanket recommendations would be viewed as premature, unwise and even unethical.
  22. Diane Schweik from EDMONTON, Canada writes: .

    Is it possible that some of the benefits from the Mediterranean diet may be related to the year round sunshine in that area and not just the diet itself ?
  23. daniel coates from Almonte, Ontario, Canada writes: Dr. Triver's comments are valued because he identified his credentials. Some of the postings are dogmatic in their assertions, perhaps selective in their citings, yet we don't know what competence the authors have. I rely on the WHO study of studies on D3 -- it is conclusive. BTW, cow's milk is for calves, not for human consumption. While rich in many nutrients, it is also rich in toxins, more so for humans. We have been indoctrinated since childhood by propaganda from the Dairy Industry on the health benefits of cows milk. Research this issue for I have no formal expertise in this subject, but have consulted a range of medical experts such as Dr. Andrew Weil.
  24. Hale Mary from Pothole Ont., Canada writes:
    Dr. Triver may not be a "he" of course. Women do it. Excellent submission, in any case.
  25. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I have worked outside all my life and get a wonderful deep tan in summer. Thus I get lots of sun for vitamin D. Yet I have had 3 heart attacks. Lifestyle folks, not lack of vitamin D.
  26. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes: Daniel Coates --

    What "toxins" are in milk? What studies show that milk contains anything that is toxic to humans? What makes Andrew Weil an expert on this subject? Why do you believe the dairy industry is behind all the positive information about milk -- and which dairy industry are you referring to?

    Might it be possible that the soy industry is behind all the negative information about milk?

    Bear in mind that Dow Chemical and DuPont are the driving forces behind the promotion and marketing of soy products. Should we trust the makers of Agent Orange more than than the hundreds of scientists around the world whose studies show only benefits from milk?
  27. Peter Richards from Canada writes: The test may be "free" as in $, but first you have to find a (family) doctor who can order it ......
  28. Nick T from Calgary, Canada writes: Thomas Calcium alone did drop the incidence in the first year yet had no effect on incidence in the last three years of the trial. Vitamin D Calcium had a decrease in incidence of 60% in the first year and 77% after four years. What cancer journal did you claim to be with? This trial by Lappe et al was indeed conducted to determine the influence of vitamin D on bone density yet had made the recognition on the remarkable effect of cancer prevention. It's not the first accidental discovery that has led to a medical epiphany and I see no reason to disregard it for that aspect. Vitamin D does indeed act as a drug upon its final conversion to a serum form. The latest research has well documented that therapeutic doses of vitamin D does not cause hypercalcemia. See Kimball et al 2007 where they gave up to 40,000 IU/d with no adverse affects. On the contrary adequate vitamin D prevents hyperparathyroidism which leaches calcium from bones. For genetically susceptible people, dairy proteins are indeed toxic. Guggenmos et al 2004 and Winer et al 2001 have shown how dairy proteins are the causal element is people with MS and type 1 diabetes. According to recent research again, especially if they are deficient in immunoregulatory amounts of vitamin D. Which most are in Canada, which is why we have the world's highest prevalences of many autoimmune diseases. Yes there is a lot of confusion of what is considered insufficiency because modern standards were derived on preventing Ricketts rather than for other physiologic benefits yet this is definitely changing. Guy from S If all of your vitamin D is derived from summer sun exposure in Riderland than you will be deficient for most of the year because 1. vitamin D will only stay in your body for about one month after your exposure to intense enough sunlight 2. sunlight intensity in Saskatoon (and most places in Canada) is only able to initiate vitamin D production for about 4 months (summer) of the year.
  29. guy tozer from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Nick T: Your analysis of Toontown sun exposure is reasonably correct. I however, do not totally rely on sunshine for vitamin D. I drink a litre of milk every day, eat lots of cheese and fish, fortified with it. My cereals are Vit.D fortified, so I do get enough of this vitamin. I was trying to say in my previous post, that the amount of sun that I get is above normal for most people. I should have added my dietary intake, so as not to confuse.
  30. Nick T from Calgary, Canada writes: Hi Guy Toontown...I like that. The amount of vitamin D added to food products is paltry compared to what an adult human uses on a daily basis. I'd speculate that you get at most 250 to 500 IU /d from the foods you mention. Compare that to what you get from sun exposure. A hour half of full body exposure in mid day, July sunshine, in Saskatoon would probably cause you to produce 10,000 IU/d. I'm sure there are other lifestyle factors that enter into a person's risk for a heart attack so your higher than average vitamin D content might be offset by your higher predisposition for an attack. Maybe you need three times what another needs to have any preventative effect. Maybe vitamin D has little to do with heart health.

    What is widely becoming recognised is that adult humans should be getting 4,000 IU/d either from supplements and or UVR exposure in order to provide an optimum physiological amount. Please don't just take my word for it but consult a health care professional who has bothered to inform him or herself (rigth Hale).
  31. Thomas Anderson from Canada writes:

    Nick T --

    As I'm sure you know, acute toxicity and long term harm are two entirely different things. A recent Canadian review of the literature on vitamin D concluded that the benefits are far from proven, while possible long term harm has not been studied. The same is true of vitamin A which, like vitamin D, has been added to milk and a great many other foods over the years -- and taken as a supplement -- without any consideration of chronic toxicity. See these warnings from 33 years ago:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1213862?dopt=Abstract

    Warnings about vitamin D have been around for many years also, but I've never seen any reference to them in the newsletters from our friend in Atascadero.
  32. M A from London, United Kingdom writes: Apart from a PCRT, another thing that would prove conclusive results is to see if outdoor exercise of the same degree is better than indoor. If this is the case it would further show that vitamin D - on top of getting exercise - is a serious thing.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top