Vitamin D Doesn't Live Up to Expectations in Breast Cancer Study
Monday November 24, 2008
In a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vitamin D was tested to see whether it could reduce breast cancer risk in women. To the chagrin of lead researcher Rowan Chlebowski, MD, PhD, at the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute and Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, the results showed that there was no increased protection against breast cancer with the 36,000 women who participated in the study: Of the participants, 528 women, who took 1,000 mg of calcium and 400 IUs of vitamin D daily, and 546 women, who took nothing at all, still developed breast cancer after seven years. This led researchers to conclude that "vitamin D and calcium supplementation has no detectable effect on the risk of postmenopausal invasive breast cancer." That brief conclusion has incited quite a response across the health community, because for quite some time, it was common theory that consistent supplements of vitamin D could help stave off breast cancer. Critics of the study are saying that the daily dose administered was too low. Larry Norton, MD, a breast-cancer specialist at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, says in a Time.com article about the study's results, "Four hundred IUs is just not a lot. The supplementation wasn't adequate to raise blood levels enough in susceptible individuals to have a biological impact." In other words, most doctors recommend up to 2,000 IUs daily; therefore, a daily dosage of 400 IUs cannot compare. The medical community concerned with these findings offer that another study should be conducted comparing higher doses to lower ones and seeing what effect that has on breast cancer. So don't despair about vitamin D yet, because as Norton says, "These results don't close the door on vitamin D research on breast cancer."
Comments
Was the vitamin D the phony laboratory produced type or a natural product? I understand the chemically produced Vitamin D is decidedly inferior but is promoted because the profit is decidedly more than the natural product which
can not be patented and therefore exploited for money.
Hello Dick:
The distinction wasn’t made, to my knowledge, in the study.
ONLY 400 IU ????
they should have tried 2000 IU. Then they’ll see results.
It was Vitamin D3 (the natural type) here is a quote from the study. I would still agree with the limited quantity arguement.
“Methods: Postmenopausal women (N = 36 282) who were enrolled in a Women’s Health Initiative clinical trial were randomly assigned to 1000 mg of elemental calcium with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily or placebo for a mean of 7.0 years to determine the effects of supplement use on incidence of hip fracture.”