Calcium and Vitamin D in the elderly - link to brain lesions?

Posting this because of recent discussions of calcium and vitamin
D - the research is correlational, and no cause-effect
relationship has been demonstrated. Still, it is worth a look
and a thought: of the vitamin D research reporting benefits, how
much has been done on elderly patients? Do they respond differently?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=69610

Brain Lesions In Seniors Associated With Higher Calcium And
Vitamin D Intakes
"Dr. Payne and her co-investigators from Duke and the University
of North Carolina examined magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans
from 232 men and women (79 men, 153 women) between the ages of 60
and 86 (average age 71). All the subjects had at least some brain
lesions of varying sizes, including the extremely miniscule ones
often seen in even healthy older persons, but those who reported
consuming more calcium and vitamin D were markedly more likely to
have higher total volume of brain lesions as measured across
numerous MRI scans."

""At this point," says Dr. Payne, "we do not know if high calcium
and vitamin D intake are involved with the causation of brain
lesions, but the study provides support to the growing number of
researchers who are concerned about the effects of too much
calcium, particularly among older adults, given the current
emphasis on promoting high intakes of calcium and vitamin D."

Link to the abstract:
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/me...act/21/6/A1072

FurPaw
--
The Bush legacy - no child left a dime.

To reply, unleash the dog.

I think a full reading of this reseach will show that readers here
have nothing to worry about.

First we have to know where the old people came from. I suspect they
were handy (ie hospital/care home) ie otherwise ill rather than free
living otherwise healthy.
So what to we know about people who have become institutionalised.
They all have Vitamin D insufficiciency.
So yes they would have been getting a vitamin D supplement but that
would almost certainly be the current RDA and no more thus they would
have remained vitamin D deficient.
If anyone can get sight of the full paper and confirm that these
elderly individuals actualy had their vitamin D status raised to over
100nmol/L and kept at that level for some time then we can blame the
Vitamin d / Calcium for the lesions however I expect this research
will not have ensured these elderly people were getting sufficient
vitamin D for they bodies to work as nature intended.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17218096

I've also noted that the work was done in USA, D2 is routinely
prescribed in the USA.. We all know that The case against
ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694 shows older people
cannot absorb D2 Ergocalciferol

So maybe the research headline should read Supplementing Vitamin D
insufficient elderly vulnerable people with an inadequate amount of
the most toxic least effective form of Vitamin d and calcium may
result in brain lesions that may not have occured in healthy free
living vitamin D replete individuals given access to healthy food and
exercise and the most easily absorbed most effective form of vitamin
D3 Cholecalciferol.
Another suggestion for a news headline. "Once again Medical
Researchers choose the wrong Vitamin D and use an insufficient amount
to leave vulnerable individuals vitamin D deficient while
supplementing with Calcium".

tedhutchinson wrote:
> I think a full reading of this reseach will show that readers here
> have nothing to worry about.
>
> First we have to know where the old people came from. I suspect they
> were handy (ie hospital/care home) ie otherwise ill rather than free
> living otherwise healthy.

But you can't make a valid argument based on a premise that you
merely "suspect."

> So what to we know about people who have become institutionalised.
> They all have Vitamin D insufficiciency.
> So yes they would have been getting a vitamin D supplement but that
> would almost certainly be the current RDA and no more thus they would
> have remained vitamin D deficient.
> If anyone can get sight of the full paper and confirm that these
> elderly individuals actualy had their vitamin D status raised to over
> 100nmol/L and kept at that level for some time then we can blame the
> Vitamin d / Calcium for the lesions

According to the abstract at the link I posted, the vitamin D and
Calcium intake was assessed by questionnaire. Here it is again:
http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/me...act/21/6/A1072

however I expect this research
> will not have ensured these elderly people were getting sufficient
> vitamin D for they bodies to work as nature intended.
> http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...medid=17218096
>
> I've also noted that the work was done in USA, D2 is routinely
> prescribed in the USA.. We all know that The case against
> ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement
> http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694 shows older people
> cannot absorb D2 Ergocalciferol

We don't know what supplement, if any, they were taking. This
research was triggered by an observation that the brain lesions
correlated with high-fat dairy intake, but no correlation was
found between the fat intake and the lesions - something that got
the investigators to scratching their heads.

> So maybe the research headline should read Supplementing Vitamin D
> insufficient elderly vulnerable people with an inadequate amount of
> the most toxic least effective form of Vitamin d and calcium may
> result in brain lesions that may not have occured in healthy free
> living vitamin D replete individuals given access to healthy food and
> exercise and the most easily absorbed most effective form of vitamin
> D3 Cholecalciferol.
> Another suggestion for a news headline. "Once again Medical
> Researchers choose the wrong Vitamin D and use an insufficient amount
> to leave vulnerable individuals vitamin D deficient while
> supplementing with Calcium".

You're really going well beyond the research with your
suppositions. The researchers merely reported a positive
correlation between calculated calcium and D intake and brain
lesions. It may mean nothing, it may be important.

It's a data point, probably worth noting if one is over 50 and
considering embarking on a program with high vitamin D and
calcium intake.

FurPaw

--
The Bush legacy - no child left a dime.

To reply, unleash the dog.

x-no-archive: yes

FurPaw wrote:

> It's a data point, probably worth noting if one is over 50 and
> considering embarking on a program with high vitamin D and calcium intake.
>

Without adequate vitamin K, especially.

Susan

I cannot see anything in that research that indicates those people had
adequate or optimal vitamin d status.

Where is the evidence that they did?

Knowing that Vit D2 Ergocalciferol is the Vit d prescibed in the USA
it is a reasonable supposition that this was used in the research.
We know vit D2 is ineffective for older people.

So why blame Vit D3?

Scaremongering does no one any good.

tedhutchinson wrote:
> I cannot see anything in that research that indicates those people had
> adequate or optimal vitamin d status.
>
> Where is the evidence that they did?

Where is the evidence that they did not?

> Knowing that Vit D2 Ergocalciferol is the Vit d prescibed in the USA
> it is a reasonable supposition that this was used in the research.
> We know vit D2 is ineffective for older peopl

> So why blame Vit D3?

I did saw nothing in either the medical news write up nor the
abstract that mentioned (a) that the people had been _prescribed_
vitamin D nor that they were even taking vitamin D supplements
(but dietary sources _were_ mentioned) and (b) which form of
vitamin D was involved. Neither D3 nor D2 was mentioned.

> Scaremongering does no one any good.

See, you're doing it again ... that is, reading far more into the
reports than was written or even intended.

FurPaw
--
The Bush legacy - no child left a dime.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Jun 22, 1:14 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> tedhutchinson wrote:
> > I cannot see anything in that research that indicates those people had
> > adequate or optimalvitamindstatus.
>
> > Where is the evidence that they did?
>
> Where is the evidence that they did not?
>
> > Knowing that Vit D2 Ergocalciferol is the Vitdprescibed in the USA
> > it is a reasonable supposition that this was used in the research.
> > We know vit D2 is ineffective for older peopl
> > So why blame Vit D3?
>
> I did saw nothing in either the medical news write up nor the
> abstract that mentioned (a) that the people had been _prescribed_vitaminDnor that they were even takingvitaminDsupplements
> (but dietary sources _were_ mentioned) and (b) which form ofvitaminDwas involved. Neither D3 nor D2 was mentioned.
>
> > Scaremongering does no one any good.
>
> See, you're doing it again ... that is, reading far more into the
> reports than was written or even intended.
>
> FurPaw
> --
> The Bush legacy - no child left a dime.
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.

In my view you and the researchers are reading more into the evidence
that that evidence can sustain.
Where is the evidence that these elderly individuals had a Vitamin d
status of above 100nmol/L?
We do know that dietary sources in USA are MAINLY fortified with D2.
We know that elderly people do not absorb D2 well.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694
So what is the logical reason for people to think D3 Cholecalciferol
may be linked to brain lesions?