Marilyn Harris wrote:
> How many studies have there been that validate what you are saying? The 
> WCRF/ACIR reports are each 10 years in the making (that's 20 years of 
> data gathering/analyses). One or two studies cannot make a serious 
> health recommendation.
> 
> Marilyn
> 
> 
>> My gut reaction to this report is "trash".  Supplementing just with 
>> vitamin D for example reduced cancer by 77% over a 3 year period.   
>> Most people should be taking vitamin D since few run around in loin 
>> cloths during the summer months

Perhaps it's your contention Marilyn that low vitamin D status is not correlated 
with higher cancer rates and that there is no benefit to raising vitamin D 
levels to normal regardless of the method and that your contention is that 
supplementing with vitamin D WILL INCREASE cancer risk.  A 77% decrease in 
cancer is however very dramatic no matter how you choose to slice it.  It is 
strong evidence that the general statement that "supplements increase cancer 
risk" is "trash" talk with motives that seem to be less than honorable.

Personally, I take over 7000 IU of vitamin D daily to get my vitamin D levels up 
to the mid normal range but ultimately I will be adjusting them to the high 
normal range.  Vitamin D levels are correlated with latitude with higher 
latitudes resulting in lower vitamin D blood levels and increased cardiovascular 
disease.  I don't intend to ignore the mounting evidence so that cancer 
interests can continue to make larger and larger profits.

My gut reaction to the "report" posted is still that it is generally "trash". 
Even then, the evidence is so OVERWHELMING that vitamins supplements are 
necessary in our modern environment for better health (ignoring life extension 
objectives some of us have along with achieving optimum vitamin/mineral levels) 
that the article recommend vitamins in some cases at the end of the article.

I can see the next article they might publish now; "Daily multi-vitamins cause 
cancer: Avoid all vitamin enriched foods" not because of the lower quality from 
being processed but because vitamins have been added back in.  Trash.

The primary purpose of the American Medical Association, American Diabetic 
Association, American Heart Association, etc., it to keeps their members 
enriched, not to cure these problems and put the "associations" out of business. 
  Consequently, the American Institute for Cancer Research output should be 
taken with a LARGE grain of salt and I doubt thay have much if any positive 
things to say about eating Paleo - it probably causes cancer too in their book.

-- 

Steve - [log in to unmask]

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

"If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march
to truth we must still march on." --Stopford Brooke