Edited by author 02-10-2010 07:49 AM
A quick update on the mysterious EGGPLANT EXTRACT question.

We have found some new information that the stemulite proponents have provided, linking nicotine with angiogenesis and improved wound healing in mice genetically modified to have diabetes. Of course there is a lot of complex biochemistry involved and pharmacology as well, but you do not have to understand that part.

In simple words, nicotine or its metabolites (or both) appear to have the ability to create new micro-vascularization (such as capillaries) in epidermal wounds in diabetic mice. The increased blood flow apparently leads to quicker wound healing. Other studies have also found nicotine to have the ability to increase vascularization, but this appears to be the only study showing a real benefit in terms of healing time. However it IS in genetically altered, diabetic mice in a lab. But its still exciting.

What does it have to do with stemulite??

Eggplant contains nicotine--in fact the most of almost any vegetable we consume.

The stemulite people, therefore, are saying that the nicotine in eggplant is going to lead to the improved healing in muscles by recruiting stem cells from bone marrow.

What they do not seem to understand is that the nicotine induced vascularization is not a stem cell issue, its the result of differentiation due to receptor mediated processes in the cells that line the blood vessels--otherwise known as epithelial cells. These cells have the ability to change and direct growth of new blood vessels. Cancer cells do this all the time in order to keep blood flow to the tumor.

This ability has nothing to do with muscle cell regeneration.

Further, there is no evidence that stem cells from bone marrow can be induced by nicotine to differentiate. There is no evidence that bone marrow stem cells can become muscle cells anyway.

And, finally, there is no way you could EVER eat enough eggplant to have the kind of blood concentrations of nicotine you would require to cause any of these effects anyway. But the stemulite people have a way around that pesky fact---they have a SUPER SECRET, proprietary method of growing eggplant on SPECIAL MUSHROOMS that allows for CERTAIN processes to occur... Seriously--thats their explanation.

You can decide for yourselves how much of that you want to believe.


Thats it. Just wanted to keep everyone informed.

Edited by author 02-05-2010 08:43 AM

As always, remember that we are not giving medical advice, just trying to clear up the questions that these sorts of advertisements raise. It is worth questioning any advertisement or article that claims such incredible things but does not tell you exactly how it works, or what it includes, until you put your money down for it. And even then, sometimes you still never find out.

Is it a myth?

The advertisement in the link is for “Stemulite Fitness Formula.”

Otherwise called “eggplant extract,” with some other goodies, by this ad.

Unsure of exactly what this stuff may have in it, this report will only be about eggplant extract. Stemulite may have other stuff in it, too. However, we don’t know so we can’t guess.

A quote from the ad:
“Dr. Robert Shorr highly recommends the Stemulite formulations as "the next generation all-natural fitness supplement for men and women. "It is the actual aggregate, interaction and synergy of all-natural proteins, enzymes and amino acids, including a stem cell agonist and a trace mineral called indium, that works its magic, for the ultimate easy, safe results you want, need and demand," he says.”

To the few of us who worked on this, this quote is awful, and sounds like another myth. It tries to come-off as scientific and uses science jargon, but does not actually say anything. This statement is merely the stringing together of buzzwords intended to produce a credible sounding scientific rationale without actually considering their meaning or merit. Not even worth analyzing in our opinion.

Another quote:
“The core muscle building ingredient, "eggplant extract," is a natural dietary adult stem cell agonist. When working out and pushing our bodies, our muscles and ligaments suffer tiny micro tears, creating the soreness from exercise. The eggplant extract quickly goes to work recruiting the sleeping adult stem cells in our bone marrow and starts repairing the micro tears and building new muscle.”

Here is something we can analyze. Eggplant extract, and adult stem cell agonists. Is this true?

The following article outlines some of the basic benefits of things that might be considered “eggplant extract.”

Differential response related to genotoxicity between eggplant (Solanum melanogena) skin aqueous extract and its main purified anthocyanin (delphinidin) in vivo.
Food Chem Toxicol. 2007 May;45(5):852-8.
Azevedo L, Alves de Lima PL, Gomes JC, Stringheta PC, Ribeiro DA, Salvadori DM.
Departamento de Nutrição, Escola de Farmácia e Odontologia de Alfenas, Centro Universitário Federal, MG, Brazil.

This stuff is real, meaning people really have used various extracts from eggplants for thousands of years as medicinal supplementation, but the health benefits are not proven but instead are assumed based on the antioxidant properties of the anthocyanins in eggplant and any other dark purple, blue or red colored fruit, berry, vegetable or flower.

From that paper (and there are a few like it):
“Anthocyanins are the largest group of water-soluble pigments in the plant kingdom. A number of studies have demonstrated that anthocyanins present antioxidant capacity and show inhibitory effects on the growth of some cancer cells.”

The problem, as usual, is that there are no good studies clinically with controls or appropriate design to actually test the relevant antioxidant power in humans. It’s hard to argue with thousands of years of experience, but we also have to consider the fact that simply consuming this one extract, amidst all of the other garbage we consume and bombard ourselves with, is hardly going to be able to make much of an impact in our overall health. It is becoming obvious that anthocyanins have the potential for powerful health benefits. How this is realized in living, breathing, Snickers-bar eating humans is yet to be seen.

Another proposed benefit is that eggplant extract will lower serum cholesterol and lipid levels. However, several papers, like this example, refute that claim:

Eggplant (Solanum melongena) extract does not alter serum lipid levels.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2004 Mar;82(3):269-76.
Praça JM, Thomaz A, Caramelli B.
Instituto do Coração, Hospital das Clínicas, USP. julipraca@hotmail.com

Here is a link by some random MD who has a few things to say, as well. His view is aligned with our view. http://www.raysahelian.com/eggplantextract.html

It seems this is another claim that may or may not be true.

However, we STILL have not answered the stem cell questions raised in the advertisement…

But, unfortunately…
There is no evidence available that we could find that linked eggplant of any kind with stem cells at all, in any capacity. That doesn’t mean it’s not possible, but we couldn't find any evidence. We would like to see any sort of credible study regarding this claim, and it is not out there.

We also found nothing linking eggplant extract with any sort of muscle building capacity. Antioxidant protection is important, however it will not single-handedly support the claims of this article.

We unanimously rule this one MYTH, until proven otherwise.

Hope this helps.

We are on it.

 We will have some words of devastatingly honest wisdom regarding "eggplant extract" for you soon.

Please, stay tuned...

So, I'm trying to "get fit" so I can look devastatingly handsome (heh) in my swimsuit this year. I came across this link which is pretty much an advertisement: http://www.aralifestyle.com/article.aspx?U...-strength-supplemen. What can you tell us about Stemulite Fitness Formula?

The range of activities in the human body in which vitamin D (rather, the active form of vitamin D) plays some role are astounding. It really does have its hand in everything.

Data that can show any photo-protective effect by vitamin D in the skin are hard to come by.

There are very few studies beyond cell culture studies in vitro that really come close to providing real evidence that in vivo, in every-day people, there is a protective effect against sunburn mediated by vitamin D.

 It appears that there should be, but it is very hard to prove this.


This article highlights the controversial findings:
Controversy Surrounding Vitamin D in skin


This paper by Dixon, et al, In vivo relevance for photoprotection by the vitamin D rapid response pathway is one of the better papers available recently. However, this has more to do with the different biochemical pathways that the different stereo-isomers of activated vitamin D effect. But it does at least show in a mouse model that there is some protective effect of vitamin D.

Thats as good as the evidence gets right now.


Here is a link to a review article about Vitamin D, UVB radiation and the immune properties of the skin:

Vitamin D, UVB, and the Skin


V.E. Reeve, R.D. Ley, Animal models of ultraviolet radiation-induced skin cancer, in: D. Hill, J.M. Elwood, D.R. English (Eds.), Prevention of Skin Cancer. Cancer Prevention–Cancer Causes, vol. 3, Kluwer Acad Publ., Dordrecht, 2004, pp. 177–194.

B. Lehmann, et al., UVB-induced conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in an in vitro human skin equivalent model, J. Invest. Dermatol. 117 (5) (2001) 1179–1185.

A.W. Norman, et al., Different shapes of the steroid hormone 1alpha,25(OH)(2)-vitamin D(3) act as agonists for two different recep- tors in the vitamin D endocrine system to mediate genomic and rapid responses, Steroids 66 (3–5) (2001) 147–158.

A.W. Norman, et al., Comparison of 6-s-cis- and 6-s-trans-locked analogs of 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 indicates that the 6-s-cis conformation is preferred for rapid nongenomic biological responses and that neither 6-s-cis- nor 6-s-trans-locked analogs are preferred for genomic biological responses, Mol. Endocrinol. 11 (10) (1997) 1518–1531.

B. Lehmann, S. Abraham, M. Meurer, Role for tumor necrosis factor-alpha in UVB-induced conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to 1alpha,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 in cultured keratinocytes, J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 89–90 (1–5) (2004) 561–565.

Wow, thanks a lot for the analysis!

Any comment on the claims that one can simply take vitamin D3 instead of lathering on the sun-screen?

Following that 2003 presentation by Dr. Vieth, I became aware of vitamin D research and the fact that D3 supplementation also protects against sunburn. So, a few summers ago I gave all my grandchildren 2,000 IU with breakfast at the cottage, and found that we could spend the whole day at the glorious sandy beaches in our area without suffering from sunburns. Prior to this discovery, I had always taken them to the beaches in late afternoon to avoid the inevitable burns.

Seems like sunscreen could indeed impede the UVB rays to reduce the conversion of vitamin D, but it doesn't sound like vitamin D can protect you against sunburn.

Thanks again!

As usual, this is an article that takes real facts and stretches the truth to make something sound like a miracle cure. 4 research scientists and 3 PhD candidates researched this article and this is the quick and dirty answer:

As we say SO OFTEN here on the Debunking Health Myths site, nothing is as simple as fixing your health with one simple thing. Every process is tied to numerous other processes. The truth is that vitamin D3 is important in all of the claims they make, however it is only one cog in the giant machine of human biochemistry. Instead of billing vitamin D3 as a supplement that will cure you, the article should only support the known facts, which clearly indicate that measured calcidiol and vitamin D3 levels in plasma are correlated with a lot of the diseases discussed in humans, with few actual in vivo biochemical studies, but also that normal vitamin D3 intake is just one thing you can do to help prevent them. Obviously it is an oversimplification to say ingesting more vitamin D3 will do all of the things they say if you are still eating poorly, smoking, not exercising, drinking alcohol excessively or all of the above. Assuming you are already a perfectly healthy individual, with no measurable health problems, even if you ingest the appropriate amount of vitamin D3 you are only reducing your chances (at best) of preventing the flu, cancer, etc. It is never as simple as one thing.

On to the analysis.


“A healthy human body uses the liver and kidneys to convert vitamin D obtained through diet and sunlight into an active form that the body can use. While still a graduate student in 1970, Michael F. Holick discovered vitamin D3 – and that it is the only active form of Vitamin D the body can use and is, therefore, essential. In the 1990’s he proved that actually every cell in our bodies has D3 receptors, not just the liver and kidneys.”

Vitamin D3 is acquired through diet and sun exposure, and this vitamin D3 is NOT active until it is metabolized in the liver and kidney to calcitriol. Therefore, technically, vitamin D3 is not the active form. In addition, it is not essential because it may or may not be the only active form—that is not the correct definition of essential in this context. In this context an Essential nutrient is: a substance that must be obtained from the diet because the body cannot make it in sufficient quantity to meet its needs.

“Vitamin D3 prevents 17 types of cancer. Exactly how it prevents breast, colon and prostate cancers is now fully understood. Several long-term studies have shown that simply fortifying a person with 1,100 IU of D3 daily reduces the incidence of cancer by 77% over a three-year period. D3 also protects us against approximately 100 autoimmune diseases.”

We could not find published research confirming that there are 17 types of cancer prevented by vitamin D3. However, there are ample review articles that all point to 2 or three pivotal studies that show in vitro and in vivo how vitamin D3 really does play a role in oncogenesis. Oddly enough, the really good informative studies with REAL DATA aren’t included in this article. Probably because they are all “test tube” or rodent studies, and the studies in humans are all correlations. The truth is that in humans these systems are never as simple as they are in the Petri dish. Therefore, it is a broad overgeneralization to say that the mechanism is “now fully understood.” Any time you see this is claimed about biochemical processes in the body, do not believe it. While we have a better understanding of the role that vitamin D3 plays in preventing certain forms of oncogenesis, there is much more involved with cancer forming than simply one vitamin. Cancer is the result of a breakdown in numerous systems, and vitamin D3 levels play an important role in one of those systems.

We are always learning that we are wrong. THAT is the only thing that is fully understood.

We would be happy to explain the proposed mechanism for the role vitamin D plays in oncogenesis if someone requests it. It is really an elegant system that would just take up a lot more space to explain here.

“As well, D3 in therapeutic doses revs up all those activities in the immune system that fight viral and bacterial infection, thus its emerging reputation as “the antibiotic vitamin.” For a century before the advent of antibiotics, it was observed that daily, long-term exposure to sunshine was the most successful cure for tuberculosis. The proof that sunlight can cure rickets and TB won Dr. Niels Ryberg Finson the Nobel Prize in 1903. Rickets in children had been treated since the 1700s by exposure to sunlight. Indeed, the Floating Hospital in Boston in the 19th century was a hospital ship on which rickets-afflicted children were taken on long trips for “heliotherapy.””

This paragraph has several important claims, all of which are true (albeit sensationalized in the language a little) but also unrelated. First, calcitriol—the final, active version of vitamin D3— appears to be important for stimulating the AntiMicrobial Peptide Systems (AMPS), which are part of the innate immune system produced in our bodies. This is the general systemic response to microbes that is genetically imprinted in humans before we ever come in contact with the microbe, as opposed to our adaptive immunity which creates antibodies as we come into contact with new microbes. It is really actually quite amazing stuff. We all were surprised when we read this effect of calcitriol, and happy to report that vitamin D3, if metabolized to calcitriol, does appear to have immune response benefits in terms of the first line of preventing infection.

This is a separate issue from rickets. We do not know why this was written this way. Rickets (osteomalacia, or soft bones) is a disease caused by insufficient calcium and phosphorous absorption/regulation, which is intimately dependent upon calcitriol levels in blood. This is not an immune response issue.

“The research of the last five years has further shown how D3 works to prevent (and even cure) certain types of liver disease (such as fatty liver), as well as bacterially-caused pregnancy problems, tooth decay, organ rejection in transplant surgery, certain skin diseases (atopic dermatitis, psoriasis), Type I diabetes in children, Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease. D3 also reduces the need for painkillers in chronic pain patients.”

Wow. That is a lot to digest in one sentence. Let us focus on the claims about liver disease for now, as that is the first issue brought up. The others are a bit of a combination of various things and will be too lengthy to discuss.

We think the authors of this article have made a mistake, when it comes to liver disease. We have found numerous studies regarding liver disease and its link to vitamin D deficiency, but the information indicates that individuals with liver disease and gastrointestinal disorders are vitamin D deficient, NOT that vitamin D deficiency causes these disorders, as the article states. This is just false. If you think about it, GI disease may impair absorption of nutrients including vitamin D and calcium and the liver is an important site of vitamin D3 metabolism. Therefore if there are problems in the GI, liver, or both, vitamin D3 deficiency may result. We saw no data regarding how vitamin D3 can cure fatty liver.

Incidentally, vitamin D3 exposure has been correlated with decreased incidence of type 1 diabetes in children. THAT is a true correlation linked to calcitriol and omega-3 fatty acids. Why didn’t they talk about that more, instead of a false claim about the liver?

“Adequate levels of this vitamin in our bodies are achieved if we invite sunlight in. Our bodies can only make D3 by exposure to sun. Consequently, when sunlight is geographically or seasonally unavailable, or if some people cannot expose themselves for too long to sunlight, supplementation is absolutely necessary.”

This is true. We must ingest vitamin D3 in our food OR be exposed to UVB radiation to have vitamin D3 converted in our skin.

“And so, fortified by the very best published science, you can confidently tell your doctor you won’t need the (mercury-laced) ‘flu shot for any strain of influenza because nothing can prevent a ‘flu as effectively as D3. It has been shown that the ‘flu season is strictly associated with seasonal lack of sunlight, and that taking D3 supplements protects you in fall, winter, and spring.”

Influenza infection has been correlated to seasonal changes. Vitamin D3 circulating blood levels are also correlated to seasonal changes, mostly (it’s thought) due to decreased sun exposure in northern latitudes. This does not explain influenza in southern or equatorial areas; in this case, in latitudes with greater UVB intensity, most people have increased melatonin in their skin which prevents the production of vitamin D3 relative to people with less pigment in their skin. However it appears to be a believable correlation between sun exposure and influenza infection rate. This implies, then, that lower vitamin D3 production is correlated to increased influenza infection rates.

None of us agree that the language the article uses is appropriate; “fortified by the very best published science?” According to who? “nothing can prevent ‘flu as effectively as D3.” Really? When was this study conducted? How come none of us have heard about this? Where is the evidence of THAT? “It has been shown that the ‘flu season is strictly associated with seasonal lack of sunlight…” there is an association, but we wouldn’t say ‘strictly’.

“You can rest assured that your blood pressure will be just fine, too, if you have optimal amounts of D3 in your cells — optimal being dictated by the geographical region you live in: the more sun, the less blood pressure problems; the less sun, the more D3 supplementation is required to normalize and maintain healthy blood pressure. In fact, it is imperative not to take statin drugs and blood thinners for reducing blood pressure, since they prevent D3 from being absorbed, as do aspirin and all non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).”

The article lists this to back up their claim about blood pressure:
Archives of Internal Medicine, vol. 169/1:75 ff, 2009

Read this article. It says absolutely not a single thing about vitamin D. This article, in fact, is studying the effect of temperature and blood pressure. They even state:
 “Mechanisms that could explain the association between blood pressure and temperature remain undetermined.”

The other article they site is:
Circulation, vol. 117/4:503 ff

This article describes a clinical study testing the association of vitamin D3 with various cardiovascular issues, including hypertension. It is interesting that of all of the cardiovascular problems tested, hypertension appears to be the LEAST associated with vitamin D, at least by statistical testing of the covariates. This article states “borderline significance”. Sorry, but it either is or is not statistically significant. In this case, vitamin D and hypertension appear to be linked, but causality has not been correlated, and risk is loosely correlated. Interestingly, stroke, myocardial infarction and general cardiovascular disease can all be linked to calcitriol levels. It has yet to be seen if increased intake of vitamin D3 can prevent or cure any of these conditions.

Truly, there is an important link between cardiovascular health and vitamin D3/calcitriol. This could, eventually, be clinically relevant. Right now, it is obvious that parathyroid hormone, calcium and calcitriol among other things all play roles in vascular smooth muscle and cardiac myocyte regulation, and altering the levels of any one of them will potentially result in cardiovascular disease.




REFERENCES

Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2008 Mar;24(2):176-83.
Vitamin D status in gastrointestinal and liver disease.
Pappa HM, Bern E, Kamin D, Grand RJ.

Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of colorectal cancer.
The New England journal of medicine, 2006 Feb 16; 354(7): 684-96

Ultraviolet B and blood pressure.
Krause R, Bühring M, Hopfenmüller W, Holick MF, Sharma AM.
Lancet. 1998 Aug 29;352(9129):709-10.
PMID: 9728997

What is the dose-response relationship between vitamin D and cancer risk?
CF Garland; WB Grant; SB Mohr; ED Gorham; FC Garland
Nutr Rev. 2007-08. Vol. 65, Iss. 8; pg. S91 – 5

Calcium and vitamin D: what is known about the effects on growing bone.
MB Demay; Y Sabbagh; TO Carpenter
Pediatrics. 2007-03. Vol. 119 pg. S141 – 4

VITAMIN D: WHAT IS THE OPTIMAL LEVEL IN CHILDREN?
by ICCBH Program and Abstracts (20070621/24); C M Gordon
Bone, v40 n6 (200706): S12-S13

Pharmacokinetics of a single, large dose of cholecalciferol
Marium Ilahi; Laura Ag Armas; Robert P Heaney
Am J Clin Nutr 2008. Vol. 87, Iss. 3; pg. 688

Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium
and vitamin D1–4
Robert P Heaney, EV McCollum Award Lecture, 2003
Am J Clin Nutr 2003;78:912–9.

Calcium absorption varies within the reference range for serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
Heaney RP, Dowell MS, Hale CA, Bendich A.
J Am Coll Nutr 2003;22:142–6.

On the epidemiology of influenza
John J Cannell, Michael Zasloff, Cedric F Garland, Robert Scragg, Edward Giovannucci
Virology Journal 2008, 5:29 doi:10.1186/1743-422X-5-29

Correspondence: re: On the epidemiology of influenza
JOHN F. ALOIA AND MELISSA LI-NG
Epidemiol Infect 2007, 135(7):1095-1096.

Epidemic influenza and vitamin D.
Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Umhau JC, Holick MF, Grant WB, Madronich S, Garland CF, Giovannucci E
Epidemiol Infect 2006, 134:1129-1140.

Unexpected actions of vitamin D: new perspectives on the regulation of innate and adaptive immunity.
Adams JS, Hewison M
Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab 2008, 4:80-90.

Perkovic V, Hewitson TD, Kelynack KJ, Martic M, Tait MG, Becker GJ.
Parathyroid hormone has a prosclerotic effect on vascular smooth muscle
cells. Kidney Blood Press Res. 2003;26:27–33.

Mitsuhashi T, Morris RC Jr, Ives HE. 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 modulates
growth of vascular smooth muscle cells. J Clin Invest. 1991;87:
1889–1895.

Wolf M, Shah A, Gutierrez O, Ankers E, Monroy M, Tamez H, Steele D,
Chang Y, Camargo CA Jr, Tonelli M, Thadhani R. Vitamin D levels and
early mortality among incident hemodialysis patients. Kidney Int. 2007;
72:1004 –1013.

Lind L, Wengle B, Wide L, Ljunghall S. Reduction of blood pressure
during long-term treatment with active vitamin D (alphacalcidol) is
dependent on plasma renin activity and calcium status: a double-blind,
placebo-controlled study. Am J Hypertens. 1989;2:20 –25.

Schleithoff SS, Zittermann A, Tenderich G, Berthold HK, Stehle P,
Koerfer R. Vitamin D supplementation improves cytokine profiles in
patients with congestive heart failure: a double-blind, randomized,
placebo-controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83:754 –759.

Michos ED, Blumenthal RS. Vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular
disease risk. Circulation. 2007;115:827– 828.

Edited by author 12-02-2009 09:08 AM
There will be 2 parts discussing the article.
Part 1 is going to discuss the background of vitamin D, where it is from, what it is, and what happens to it in the body. All references will be lumped together at the end of Part 2.

Vitamin D: Is it really a magic bullet?

This is in response to a request to analyze the article found at the following link:

Vitality Magazine Article


The first thing we all noticed is that this article is in a “journal” that more than likely is trying to sell you something. In fact, within the article itself (and this instantly diminished the credibility in a few of our minds) there appears to be a well-placed advertisement, cloaked as helpful advice. This does not completely negate the information, it is just something to keep in mind in terms of how the article was written, with what intent was it published, and it explains the almost desperate voice of persuasion that is prevalent throughout. Info-mercial?

As always, understanding the basics is our first priority.


WHAT IS vitamin D3?

 The article in question says

“Vitamin D3 is a prohormone and thus the most important precursor of all hormones, vitamins, and minerals. Without D3, the body’s signal systems (hormones, neurotransmitters), and super-catalysts (minerals), cannot enable all other catalysts (vitamins) to cause the liver to create the 600 vitamin/mineral-dependent enzymes our bodies depend on. And vitamin D regulates calcium and phosphorus levels, without which our food cannot nourish us properly.”

This is pretty vague and fails to describe what they are discussing. In addition, it seems to indicate that vitamin D3 is THE SOLE FACTOR that leads to the creation of these 600 enzymes, etc. So…what is vitamin D3, really? This is important to help understand what we are reading in articles like this.

Look at a nutrition facts label of some packaged food item. It might just say “Vitamin D” without a number (2 or 3). This means that this food product probably contains an undetermined amount of D3 and D2. There is no requirement to specify the quantity of each of the two. Sometimes they also give D2 or D3 (like in Silk brand soymilk, they list D2). Usually these data are included if they are trying to use D3 supplementation as a selling point.


Here are some basics to understand when you read about vitamin D. (We agree with the article in question, Wikipedia has good information regarding the synthesis of the forms of vitamin D. The problem is the Wikipedia entry seems to be compiled in a rather biased fashion instead of objectively organizing the facts.)

- Vitamin D2 is called ergocalciferol, and D3 is cholecalciferol. They are known collectively as calciferol.

- Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) is formed when ergosterol is exposed to UVB (as opposed to UVA) radiation, and this occurs primarily in plants, fungi and invertebrates, not humans. Therefore it is consumed by humans and not produced. Vitamin D2 has hormone activity in humans, and certain studies claim it is as active a hormone as D3. This is contested across the literature.

- Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is either consumed like D2 or formed when UVB radiation from the sun reacts with 7-dehydrocholesterol in the skin. Our bodies, mostly the skin, produce 7-dehydrocholesterol on its own, but without UVB radiation this will not be converted to cholecalciferol. So remember: We can get vitamin D3 through our diet as well as through sun exposure. However, vitamin D3 is NOT the active form of vitamin D.

- Once circulating in the blood, cholecalciferol is hydroxylated in the liver to 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25(OH)D3) or calcidiol. Calcidiol is stored in the liver and released in response to hormonal triggers. Once released by the liver, calcidiol is further hydroxylated in the kidneys to form the main biologically active hormone 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol (1,25(OH)2D3) or calcitriol.

- Parathyroid hormone (PTH) plays an important role in the regulation of calcitriol. It does this through a couple of different mechanisms, one of which is up-regulating the amount of the enzyme in the kidney that forms calcitriol from calcidiol.


The Main Issue: HOW MUCH VITAMIN D3?

Currently, there is a recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin D3 that is based upon what is called the “index disease” for vitamin D deficiency—Rickets (osteomalacia). The index disease is the disease that was usually initially described as being directly related to a very certain cause. This does NOT mean that Rickets is the only disease that vitamin D deficiency causes, it was just the first and easiest to show causality. And, as is the way in western medicine, the system is resistant to change. Therefore, the RDA was set for this single condition and has ever been updated. Is this RDA correct?

The following website is a slightly less advertisement-oriented description of vitamin D. We will stop short of calling this objective because it does appear to be government sponsored. However you can find some facts about the RDA here as well as basic information about vitamin D.

NIH Dietary Supplements Info



TO SUMMARIZE:

You either ingest cholecalciferol (D3) or it is converted in your skin during UVB exposure. It is then metabolized in the liver, stored until needed, then released and the kidneys metabolize it to form the biologically active species calcitriol.

Remember that the circulating levels of calcidiol are what are measured as an indicator pharmacologically. D3 (cholecalciferol) level alone is not a good physiological marker for vitamin D status because there are numerous steps between it and when the active species are formed, one of which is a storage step (calcidiol).

The questions that we have are: How much vitamin D is enough? Do the claims of the article hold true that vitamin D and sunlight will solve almost all of your health problems?

NEXT TIME:

In Part 2 we are going to tackle the claims made in the article, one at a time. It is going to be a super chunk, and it COULD wind up being Part 2 A and Part 2 B… sneaky.

xqnstyl: this is going to be fun! Please be patient, this is a big article and will take a little time to go through. The University of Washington happens to be on the forefront of Vitamin D metabolism and pharmaceutical related research. We have some of the experts right here with whom we can address these claims. Stay tuned!

I would appreciate your analysis of this article on vitamin D:
http://www.vitalitymagazine.com/june09_helkefeat

Thanks!

Melanie, that's not exactly what we said...

thursday, 15 october, 2009 07:50 MAT

excellent. thanks. australia is in the middle of a drought, so it is best to conserve water. drought or no drought, it is best to conserve water. so, america is just wasteful and paranoid. typical.

,` )

Your thought process seems good, but there are some assumptions in this that we have to make in order for there to be pathogenic potential. We are going to mostly talk about bacteria, because that seems to be a more common food-born illness, and it illustrates the point. A virus more likely will not only depend on surface-to-surface contact, and therefore will be more likely to contaminate through a larger number of means.

One thing to consider is the pathogenic dose: how large of a dose there must be in order to get sick. In other words, how many individual organisms of whatever infectious bug does it take to cause disease? This in itself will depend upon many things, one in particular being the status of the individual being exposed. An individual with a less formidable immune system (elderly would be perfect in this example) would probably require fewer contaminating particles, whether that particle be cells or virus, than a 30 year old in normal health.

It is really amazing how much this dose can vary between pathogens. E. coli and Salmonella, two bacterial pathogens that most of us are very familiar with (some on a personal level), require large doses of bacteria to be ingested before there is even a chance of causing illness. And even the correct dose doesn’t mean the person will get sick. The following link is a FDA study using healthy people to find the infectious dose of some common bugs.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1002755

Based on this, how many pathogenic particles will there be on the contaminated surface, if we follow your thought process through? You are diluting greatly the number of particles actually making it to the food source along the journey from saliva to utensil to plate to serving spoon and then buffet food container. Think about how many particles had to be in that initial contact so that after all those dilutions there are still enough to cause any damage!!!

Further, if the temperature of the food is appropriate, either cold enough or hot enough, most bacteria will either die and denature or at least be unable to reproduce quickly enough in cool conditions to generate enough particles per serving size to cause infection, further decreasing the likelihood of pathogenicity. LOTS of speculation and very little data. There are bacterial “parts” that can cause infection, as well, just by existing. That complicates things and tilts it in favor of CAUSING infection for certain bugs. And then the toxins from some bacteria are sufficient to cause illness in significant enough doses, so the bacteria don’t need to even be there.

But seriously.

How many pathogens do you think “hang out” in your saliva at any given time?

If one has saliva that contains pathogens, do you not think they would probably have some illness manifested into some symptoms that would cause an individual to not feel well? We hope that people not feeling well are not hanging out at buffets, but there is always the case of people who do not know they are sick going and contaminating the world. So let’s explore the possibility of contaminated saliva.

What is the likelihood of a pathogen residing in saliva? To be really honest, it depends. Typically you will not find Salmonella or E. coli in saliva. If you do have one of those two living in you, I seriously doubt you will feel UP to going to a buffet. And even if you do, the chances of the bacteria being in your saliva are slim.

Here is the point: How clean do you think people’s hands really are???

We believe the real source of contamination is hands. Your hands are all over the place, and some of those places harbor more bacteria than a public restroom. Yet we walk around and touch all these things all the time without worrying excessively.

The Journal of Food Protection found in a 2007 study that Formica and stainless steel became contaminated and transfered bacteria most easily, much more so than wooden or polypropylene surfaces. This suggests that Formica and steel surfaces are the most likely sources of bacterial transfer. A 2003 study by the same journal gives some idea of the time required for bacteria to die off on a surface: the mean time to cause a significant reduction in bacterial populations varied from about 30 min to 400 min, depending on the surface. Now doesn't seem so bad: within a day, almost certainly, any residual bacteria would have died off. However, commonly used surfaces (doorknobs, faucet handles, hand railings, computer keyboards, etc.) are rarely left untouched long enough for most of the bacteria on them to die.

Here is a good one to follow through:
We walk into the buffet style restaurant by grabbing the door handle and opening it. We walk to our seats and grab the seat and pull it out to sit down. (Have you noticed in nice restaurants you neither open the door yourself nor pull out your own seat? Hmmmm…) We then go to the buffet and handle the utensils which are used to get food and slop it onto our plate where our hands have been. We put the utensil back for the next person to use. And we put that food in our mouths that was on our plate that came from the spoon.
 
In our opinions, collectively, this is much more scary than saliva. But is it enough? Is there not still a great amount of dilution, or is the number of hands touching things the issue?

How often do you get food born illness? We all walk around amongst the filth and scum touching things all the time and really, how sick are we as a result? We don’t think it’s all that bad if a person’s immune system is up to snuff. Most of ours are, too, because we are always exposed to those things, always challenged. Stress level and sleep are quick and easy ways to open ones self to infection, by decreasing the immune response.

What the hell is the point, you ask??

The point is maybe the Australians have just realized there is no way to prevent contamination unless you can follow people around and clean their hands all the time and clean all of the surfaces all of the time.


So why waste water washing extra dishes??



Concentration method for the detection of enteric viruses from large volumes of foods.
Cheong S, Lee C, Choi WC, Lee CH, Kim SJ. J Food Prot. 2009 Sep;72(9):2001-5.

Large outbreak of salmonella phage type 1 infection with high infection rate and severe illness associated with fast food premises.
Giraudon I, Cathcart S, Blomqvist S, Littleton A, Surman-Lee S, Mifsud A, Anaraki S, Fraser G. Public Health. 2009 Jun;123(6):444-7. Epub 2009 May 22.

Transfer of surface-dried Listeria monocytogenes from stainless steel knife blades to roast turkey breast.
Keskinen LA, Todd EC, Ryser ET. J Food Prot. 2008 Jan;71(1):176-81.

Occurrence of bacteria and biochemical markers on public surfaces.
Reynolds KA, Watt PM, Boone SA, Gerba CP. Int J Environ Health Res. 2005 Jun;15(3):225-34.

Development of standardized inspections in restaurants using visual assessments and microbiological sampling to quantify the risks.
Tebbutt GM. Epidemiol Infect. 1991 Oct;107(2):393-404.

wednesday, 14 october, 2009 08:20 MAT

okies. so from an ordinary person's perspective, this is what i preceive as the risk of eating at such places without having to use a new plate.

i understand that saliva is one of the many places that germs live and thrive. i understand that saliva is a carrier and transporter of germs from one place to another.

when one eats, saliva is a contaminant. a person typically uses an eating utensil to get food from the plate to their mouth. their mouth closes completely around the food and utensil creating an avenue for saliva to get from their mouth to the eating utensil. then the eating utensil travels back to the plate to collect more food by which saliva is transferred from the eating utensil to the food and the plate.

so the germ has just been transferred from the person to the plate.

then the person takes this same saliva contaminated germ infested plate back to the bar of food. in the process of getting new food, the serving spoon from the desired food may touch the saliva contaminated germ infested plate, transferring the germ from the plate to the serving spoon and then to the container of new food when the serving spoon is put back.

so the germ has just been transferred from the plate to the bar of food.

then the next person (this could be me) goes to get new food and uses that contaminated serving spoon and gets contaminated food onto their plate ! thus contracting the germ from the previous person after consuming their food of choice.

yuk !

maybe my premise is flawed, so my conclusion is incorrect. but that's what i imagine the pathogenic process would be in this sort of situation, which does not leave a yummy satisfied feeling in my tummy.

,` )

thursday, 1 october, 2009 12 noon MAT

i understand. it is the end of term for us with piles of assignment marking and exams looming. and, of course, the research that is meant to be done amongst all of that !

the restaurants are usually buffet style where i go to the bar and serve myself what i want.

,` )