The AICR Report actually does in fact recommend Vitamin D although it is not emphasized as much as it sould have been IMO. However the thesis of these two reports has been of prevention of cancer through food consumption. http://www.aicr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=dc_recs_08_no_supplements "Older people should consider taking a vitamin D supplement, as should: people who rarely go outdoors; people who cover up all their skin when outdoors; those who don't eat meat or oily fish. " Marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marilyn Harris" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 8:00 PM Subject: Re: Supplements/Cancer Risk > Another book, "Foods that Fight Cancer" made the recommendation to avoid > supplements because the acive ingredient is too purefied. The author thinks > that any anti-carcinogenic effect comes from a synergistic effect between it > and the other constituents of the particular whole food . I think he thought > that supplements are a waste of money and basicall ineffective. I can't > recall what if anything was said about Vitamin D. > > I take Vitamin D in the way of cod liver oil and sometimes add ground > eggshells for calcium - a practice I started a couple of years ago during > the fall/winter seasons to help stave off potential osteoporosis. If it is > an effective anti-carcinogenic as well, then all the better. > > I am taken aback at your dismissal of 20 years of research versus one (or > more?) studies. > > Marilyn > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve" <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 1:32 PM > Subject: Re: Supplements/Cancer Risk > > >> 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 >> >> > >