Do Artificial Sweeteners Help You Lose Weight?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in artificial sweeteners and weight loss, Blood Sugar, Diet Soda and Health

Sucralose and Weight Loss

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

Do artificial sweeteners help you lose weight?

It’s a puzzle. We are drinking more artificially sweetened foods and sodas than ever. We’ve been told that those artificially sweeteners will help us cut calories and keep us slender. Yet, surprisingly, we’re fatter than ever.

Let me put some numbers to that statement. The number of people consuming calorie free sodas in the US alone increased from 70 million to 260 million between 1987 and 2000. During that same time period, the percentage of overweight adults in this country increased from 52% to 66%; the percentage of obese adults increased from 20% to 32%; and the percentage of obese children increased from 10% to 17%. Clearly something isn’t working.

And, it may just be the artificial sweeteners that aren’t working. A study published in 2007 (R. Dingra et al, Circulation, 116: 480-484, 2007 ) showed that people consuming regular (sugar containing) sodas were 48% more likely to become obese over a four-year period than people who primarily drank water. That wasn’t surprising. The surprising finding from this study was that people who consumed diet sodas were just as likely to become obese as those drinking regular sodas.

Now you may be saying: “Wait a minute. I thought I read that consuming diet sodas actually helps people lose weight.” The answer is that in those studies dietitians rigorously controlled the caloric intake from other foods so that the only caloric difference was between the diet sodas and the regular sodas. Under those conditions the results are fairly obvious. Fewer calories from sodas = weight loss. But those aren’t the results that you see in free living populations where you don’t have a dietitian peering over your shoulder. In those populations people consuming diet sodas tend to take in the same number of total calories overall and gain just as much weight as people drinking regular sodas.

 

Do Artificial Sweeteners Prevent Weight Loss?

 

Obviously, people consuming diet sodas which contain artificial sweeteners must compensate by consuming extra calories from other foods. But, why are they consuming those extra calories? Some experts hypothesize that the answer is physiological. The sweet taste of the diet sodas triggers the release of insulin, which drives down blood sugar levels and makes people hungrier. Other experts hypothesize that the answer is psychological. People simply feel virtuous for consuming the diet sodas and feel they can now splurge somewhere else.

do artificial sweeteners help you lose weightAnimal studies have suggested that the cause may actually be physiological. Those studies have shown that there are “sweetness receptors” in the intestine that respond to the sweetness of sugars and trigger an increase in the level of proteins that transport sugars from the intestine into the bloodstream. That makes great sense from an evolutionary point of view. If we’re eating a low carbohydrate diet we really don’t want to waste a lot of energy producing proteins that transport sugars into our bloodstream. However, whenever we eat foods high in carbohydrates we don’t want to waste that carbohydrate. So, our intestine rapidly breaks the carbohydrates down to simple sugars, and our body responds by increasing our ability to transport those simple sugars into the bloodstream.

This can lead to blood sugar swings and increased food cravings. You’ve heard about the blood sugar swings associated with meals high in simple sugars. When sugars enter the bloodstream very rapidly, blood sugar levels increase, which causes insulin to be secreted. The insulin drives down blood sugar levels, leading to hypoglycemia and increased hunger. That’s a highly simplified scenario, but you get the general idea.

Now the interesting thing is that animal studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners are also recognized by the intestinal “sweetness receptors”. So artificial sweeteners also trigger an increase in the intestinal sugar transporters and prime the body so that blood sugar swings are more likely to occur whenever we eat carbohydrates.

While the results from animal studies have been very consistent with this model, the results from human clinical studies have been mixed. Some studies have suggested that artificial sweeteners do increase the likelihood of blood sugar swings, while other studies have reported that artificial sweeteners have no effect on blood glucose and insulin levels.

With this in mind, do artificial sweeteners help you lose weight?  Let’s continue to investigate.

 

Do Artificial Sweeteners Help You Lose Weight?

 

A recent study (M.Y. Pepinoet al, Diabetes Care, 36: 2530-2535, 2013 ) provides a possible explanation for these conflicting results. This study was similar to many of the previous studies in that obese adults were given either sucralose (an artificial sweetener) or water 10 min before being given a fixed amount of glucose, and blood sugar and insulin levels were followed over the next five hours. What made this study unique was that overweight participants were selected who did not normally consume artificially sweetened beverages or foods (Those people are hard to find in the overweight US population).

artificial sweetenersAnd the results were fairly clear-cut. The participants consuming sucralose prior to the glucose load had a 20% greater increase in blood sugar levels, a 20% greater increase in the amount of insulin produced, and significantly lower blood sugar levels three hours after the glucose load than participants consuming water prior to the glucose load. In the words of the authors: “These data suggest that sucralose ingestion is not physiologically inert but affects the glycemic [blood sugar] response to oral glucose load and potentiates glucose stimulated insulin secretion in obese people.” Basically, what they are saying is that sucralose primes their bodies so that they are more likely to experience blood sugar swings when they subsequently consume carbohydrates. [And that can lead to food cravings and weight gain.]

The authors hypothesized that some previous studies had not found an effect of artificial sweeteners on blood sugar and insulin levels because most of the people in those studies were already consuming artificially sweetened beverages on a regular basis and their intestinal sugar transport proteins were already maximally stimulated. Basically, what they are saying is that when someone is regularly consuming artificial sweeteners the damage has already been done (sugar transport is already maximal), and a single dose of an artificial sweetener will not have any significant additional effect.

So, do artificial sweeteners help you lose weight?  I think you know.

 

The Bottom Line

 

It has become clear in recent years that artificially-sweetened diet sodas and diet foods are not effective at preventing weight gain, and may, in fact, contribute to weight gain. There is also increasing evidence that artificially-sweetened diet sodas may be harmful to our health. In fact, an international consortium of obesity experts recently concluded: “The absence of evidence to support the role of artificially sweetened beverages in preventing weight gain and the lack of studies on their long-term effects on health strengthen the position that artificially-sweetened beverages should not be promoted as part of a healthy diet.”

 

However, the reason why diet sodas appear to promote obesity rather than prevent it has remained elusive.

  • A recent study suggests that sucralose (and presumably other artificial sweeteners) triggers a complex serious of metabolic responses that lead to increased appetite and food cravings.
  • However, this is just one small study. Many more studies will be required before we understand why artificial sweeteners promote obesity, rather than prevent it.
  • However, it is clear that artificial sweeteners are not the simple, magical solutions for weight control that food manufacturers and advertisers would have you believe.
    • There are unresolved safety issues with all the artificial sweeteners – but that’s another subject for another day.
    • There is no convincing evidence that artificial sweeteners actually help you lose weight unless you are very carefully controlling the calories from all the other foods you’re eating – and if you’re doing that successfully, you probably don’t need artificial sweeteners in the first place.
    • There is some evidence that artificial sweeteners may actually cause blood sugar swings and make you hungrier, thus making it harder – not easier – to control your weight.
  • The best solution to weight control is always true lifestyle change that includes exercise, healthy foods, and reduced caloric intake and is not based on gimmicks or artificial ingredients.

For more details, read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Which Foods Lower Blood Sugar?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Blood Sugar

Can You Believe The “Experts”?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

which foods lower blood sugarYour blood sugar levels have been creeping up. Your doctor has been bugging you to do something about it – even threatening to put you on medications if you don’t get your blood sugar under control. So, which foods lower blood sugar?

Now it’s the first of the year, and you’ve vowed to do something about it. You have vowed to make better food choices. That should be easy. There is lots of great advice about foods that lower blood sugar on the internet. For example, in a recent search, I found articles proclaiming “9 foods that lower blood sugar”, “7 foods that control blood sugar”, and “12 power foods to beat diabetes”.

But, are those foods the right ones for you? What if we are remarkably different in our blood sugar responses to the same food? This is just what a recent study suggests.

How Was The Study Designed?

A group of scientists in Isreal set out to test the hypothesis that people eating identical meals might have a high variability in their post-meal blood glucose response (Zeevi et al, Cell, 163, 1079-1094, 2015).

measure glucoseThe investigators enrolled 800 subjects ages 18-70 into their study. None of the individuals had diabetes. However, 54% of them were overweight (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2) and 22% of them were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2). Thus, their subject population was typical of the adult population of almost every Western, industrialized country.

All 800 subjects were followed for one week during which time:

  • They were connected to a continuous glucose monitor, which measured their blood glucose levels every 5 seconds.
  • They were given a Smartphone app and instructed to log their food intake, exercise, and sleep in real time.
  • They were told to follow their normal daily routine and dietary habits except for the first meal of every day, which consisted of five different types of standardized “meals” (glucose, fructose, bread, bread with butter, bread with chocolate), all providing 50 gm of available carbohydrate.

The glucose monitor recorded blood sugar responses for 2 hours following each meal. From that information, the investigators calculated a PPGR (post-prandial glycemic response), which I will mercifully refer to as “blood sugar response”, for every meal eaten by every subject throughout the week.

The standardized “meals” eaten at the beginning of the day were used to validate the study. For example:

  • Two of the standardized meals were given to each subject twice during the study separated by at least one day.
    • There was very little variability in blood sugar response when the same standardized meal was given to the same subject on different days.
    • However, there was a significant amount of variability in blood sugar response when the same standardized meal was given to different subjects.
  • The average blood sugar response to each of the standardized meals was very similar to literature values from previous studies (Most previous studies have reported only average blood sugar responses, not individual variability).

In short, the results from the standardized “meals” validated both the reliability and reproducibility of the data.

Finally, to eliminate as many confounding variables as possible, the investigators compared blood sugar response only for those meals in which a single food was the major component of the meal and that food provided 20-40 gm of carbohydrate.

Here is where things got really interesting!

Which Foods Lower Blood Sugar?

breadThis study showed that there is tremendous individual variability in the blood sugar response to any given food. For example, individual blood sugar responses varied by:

  • 4-fold for sugar-sweetened soft drinks, grapes and apples.
  • 5-fold for rice.
  • 6-fold for bread and potatoes.
  • 7-fold for ice cream and dates.

Put another way:

  • Some people had almost no blood sugar response to cookies, but a very high blood sugar response to a banana.
  • Other people had almost no blood sugar response to bananas, but a very high blood sugar response to cookies.

That is a pretty striking result. Which foods lower blood sugar? This study suggests that some people trying to control their blood sugar can eat bananas, while others should avoid them. It might even mean that some people trying to control blood sugar can eat cookies. I know that is what many people would like to hear, but I’m not ready to make that recommendation.

Why Is There So Much Individuality in Blood Sugar Response?

good food choicesYou are probably wondering why there is such variability in blood sugar response to the same foods. There are several factors that influence individual blood sugar response. For example,

  • Overweight and obesity (Both tend to increase blood sugar response).
  • Dietary habits (Meats, particularly fatty meats, processed grains, and simple sugars tend to increase blood sugar response to a given amount of carbohydrate. Unprocessed grains, fresh fruits & vegetables tend to decrease blood sugar response to a given amount of carbohydrate).
  • What we eat with a given meal (Protein, fiber, and fat in a meal can decrease blood sugar response to the carbohydrate in that meal).
  • Physical activity (Increased muscle mass decreases blood sugar response to a given amount of carbohydrate).
  • The bacteria in our intestine (This may be a chicken-and egg thing. The bacteria in our intestine are influenced by our dietary habits.)
  • Genetics.
  • Things we don’t yet know about.

The good news is that we can actually control some of these variables. The ones over which we have the most control are weight, dietary habits, what we eat along with the carbohydrates in our meals, and physical activity.

What Does This Mean For You?

blood sugarThe authors concluded that “universal dietary recommendations [for lowering blood sugar levels] may have limited utility.”  That is because dietary recommendations are based on average responses and none of us are average. As the saying goes “We are all wonderfully [and differently] made”.

So, when you read about diets and foods that will help you keep your blood sugar levels under control, take those recommendations with a grain of…sugar. They are a good starting place, but you need to listen to your body, and eat the foods that work best for you.  So, which foods lower blood sugar?  It is different for different people, but there are some variables you can control.

Don’t get carried away, however. I’m pretty sure Twinkies washed down with a soft drink are bad for just about everyone.

More importantly, control the variables you can – weight, dietary habits, foods you eat along with carbohydrates, and physical activity. If you control those four variables, you will be well on your way to ideal blood sugar control.

 

The Bottom Line

 

  • A recent study has shown that there is tremendous variability in blood sugar response to identical meals from one individual to the next.
  • The authors of the study concluded that “universal dietary recommendations [for lowering blood sugar levels] may have limited utility.” That is because dietary recommendations are based on average responses, and none of us are average.
  • So, when you read about diets and foods that will help you keep your blood sugar levels under control, take those recommendations with a grain of…sugar. They are a good starting place, but you need to listen to your body, and eat the foods that work best for you.
  • There are variables influencing our blood sugar response that we cannot control, such as genetics. However, there are some very important variables that we can control. For example, we can improve our blood sugar response by:
    • Attaining and maintaining ideal weight. Losing as little as 5-10 pounds can result in a significant improvement.

 

    • Eating a diet that emphasizes fresh fruits & vegetables, nuts, and whole grains and minimizes meats, especially fatty meats, processed grains, and simple sugars. This may act by influencing the bacteria that populate our intestine.

 

    • Consuming carbohydrates along with protein, fiber-rich foods, and even some fat in the same meal.

 

    • Increasing physical activity, especially activity that increases lean muscle mass.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

The Truth About Vitamin D

Posted December 11, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Does Vitamin D Reduce Risk Of Heart Disease & Cancer?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

 

the truth about vitamin dYou have every right to be confused. One day you are told that vitamin D reduces your risk of heart disease and cancer. The next day you are told vitamin D makes has no effect on those diseases. You are told vitamin D is a waste of money. What should you believe?  What is the truth about vitamin D?

In mid-November a major clinical study called VITAL was published. It examined the effect of vitamin D and omega-3s on heart disease and cancer risk. Last week I wrote about the omega-3 portion of the study. This week I will cover the vitamin D portion of the study.

Once again, if you rely on the media for your information on supplementation, you are probably confused. Headlines ranged from “Vitamin D Is Ineffective For Preventing Cancer And Heart Disease to “Vitamin D Lowers Odds Of Cancer Death.” What is the truth?

The problem is that reporters aren’t scientists. They don’t know how to interpret clinical studies. What they report is filtered through their personal biases. That is why I take the time to carefully evaluate the clinical studies, so I can provide you with accurate information. Let me sort through the dueling headlines and give you the truth about vitamin D, cancer, and heart disease.

How Was The Study Designed?

the truth about vitamin d studyThe VITAL study (JE Manson et al, New England Journal of Medicine, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1811403) enrolled 25,871 healthy adults (average age = 67) in the United States. The study participants were 50% female, 50% male, and 20% African American. None of the participants had preexisting cancer or heart disease. The characteristics of the study group were typical of the American population at that age, namely:

  • The average BMI was 28, which means that most of the participants were significantly overweight.
  • 7% of them had diabetes.

Study participants were given questionnaires on enrollment to assess clinical and lifestyle factors including dietary intake. Blood samples were taken from about 65% of the participants to determine 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels (a measure of vitamin D status) at baseline and at the end of the first year. The participants were given either 2,000 IU of vitamin D/day or a placebo and followed for an average of 5.3 years.

There were two important characteristics of the participants in this study that may have influenced the outcome.

  • The average 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of participants at the beginning of the study was 31 ng/ml (78 nmol/L). The NIH considers 20-50 ng/ml (50-125 nmol/L) to be the optimal level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for most physiological functions. This means that study participants started in the middle of the optimal range with respect to vitamin D status.

[Note: The NIH defines the 20-50 ng/ml range as “adequate.”  However, I know many of my readers like to aim beyond adequate to reach what they consider to be “optimal.”  In the case of vitamin D, that might not be a good idea. The NIH considers anything above 50 ng/ml as associated “with potentially adverse effects.”  For that reason, I will refer to the 20-50 ng/ml range as optimal for this article. I wouldn’t want to encourage my readers to be aiming for above 50 ng/ml.]

  • Only 12.7% of participants had 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels below 20 ng/ml, which the NIH considers to be inadequate. The results with this group were not statistically different from the study participants with optimal vitamin D status, but it is not clear that there were enough people in this subgroup for a statistically valid comparison with participants starting with an optimal vitamin D status.
  • At the end of the first year, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in the treatment group increased to 42 ng/ml (105 nmol/L), which is near the upper end of the optimal range. Thus, for most of the participants, the study was evaluating whether there was a benefit of increasing vitamin D status from the middle to the upper end of the optimal range.
  • The study allowed subjects to continue taking supplements that contained up to 800 IU of vitamin D. While the authors tried to correct for this statistically, it is a confounding variable.

Does Vitamin D Reduce The Risk Of Cancer?

 

the truth about vitamin d and cancerYou may remember from last week that omega-3s were more effective for reducing heart disease risk than for reducing cancer risk. What is the truth about vitamin D and cancer risk?   The results are reversed for vitamin D, so I will discuss cancer first.

The study reported that vitamin D supplementation did not reduce a diagnosis of invasive cancer of any type, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or colon cancer during the 5.3-year time-period of this study. This was the result that was reported in the abstract and was what lazy journalists, who never read past the abstract, reported.

However, the rest of the study was more positive. For example, occurrence of invasive cancer of any type was reduced by:

  • 23% in African-Americans.
  • 24% in patients with a healthy body weight.

Several previous studies have suggested that vitamin D may be more effective at preventing cancer in people with a healthy body weight, but the mechanism of this effect is currently unknown.

Most previous studies have not included enough African-Americans to determine whether they respond more favorably to vitamin D supplementation. However, African-Americans have a higher risk of cancer, so this finding deserves follow-up.

In addition, when the study looked at deaths from cancer, the results were very positive. For example:

  • Cancer deaths during the 5.3-year study period were reduced by 17%.
  • The longer vitamin D supplementation was continued the more effective it became at reducing cancer deaths. For example,
  • When the authors excluded cancer deaths occurring during the first year of supplementation, vitamin D reduced cancer deaths by 21%.
  • When the authors excluded cancer deaths occurring during the first two years of supplementation, vitamin D reduced cancer deaths by 25%.

Finally, no side effects were noted in the vitamin D group.

 

Does Vitamin D Reduce The Risk Of Heart Disease?

 

the truth about vitamin d and heart diseaseThe VITAL study also looked at the effect of vitamin D on heart disease risk. What is the truth about vitamin D and heart disease?  The results from this study were uniformly negative. There was no effect of vitamin D supplementation on all major cardiovascular events combined, heart attack, stroke, or death from heart disease. Does that mean vitamin D has no role in reducing heart disease risk? That’s not clear.

The authors had a thought-provoking explanation for why the results were negative for heart disease, but positive for cancer. Remember that the participants in this trial started with a 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of 31 ng/ml and increased it to at least 42 ng/ml with vitamin D supplementation.

The authors stated that previous studies have suggested the 25-hydroxyvitamin D level associated with the lowest risk for heart disease is between 20 and 25 ng/ml. If that is true, most of the participants in this trial were already in the lowest possible risk for heart disease with respect to vitamin D status before the study even started. There would be no reason to expect additional vitamin D to further reduce their risk of heart disease.

In contrast, the authors said that previous studies suggest the 25-hydroxyvitamin D level associated with the lowest risk of cancer deaths is above 30 ng/ml. If that is true, it would explain why vitamin D supplementation in this study was effective at reducing cancer deaths.

However, previous placebo-controlled clinical studies have also been inconclusive with respect to vitamin D and heart disease. My recommendation would be to think of adequate vitamin D status as part of a holistic approach to reducing heart disease – one that includes a heart-healthy diet and a heart-healthy lifestyle – rather than a “magic bullet” that decreases heart disease risk by itself.

As for heart-healthy diets, I discuss the pros and cons of various diets in my book, “Slaying The Food Myths.”  As I discuss in my book, the weight of scientific evidence supports primarily plant-based diets that include omega-3s as heart healthy. As an example, the Mediterranean diet is primarily plant-based and is rich in healthy oils like olive oil and omega-3s. It is associated with reduced risk of both heart disease and cancer.

 

What Is The Truth About Vitamin D?

 

the truth about vitamin d signThere is a lot of confusion around the question of whether vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer. This study strengthened previous observation suggesting that vitamin D supplementation decreases cancer deaths. However, it is also consistent with previous studies that have failed to find an effect of vitamin D on cancer development. How can we understand this apparent discrepancy? The authors provided a logical explanation. They pointed out that:

  • Cancer development takes 20-30 years while this clinical study lasted only 5.3 years. That means that vitamin D supplementation only occurred at the tail end of the cancer development process. In fact, the cancer was already there in most of the patients in the study who developed cancer. It just had not been diagnosed yet. In the words of the authors: “Given the long latency for cancer development, extended follow-up is necessary to fully ascertain potential effects [of vitamin D supplementation].”
  • In contrast, none of the patients had been diagnosed with cancer when they entered the trial. That means that the patients were diagnosed with cancer during the 5.3-year study period. They were receiving extra vitamin D during the entire period of cancer treatment. Thus, the effect of vitamin D on reducing cancer deaths was easier to detect.

What Does This Study Mean For You?

the truth about vitamin d questionsVitamin D Is Likely To Decrease Your Risk Of Dying From Cancer: When you combine the results of this study with what we already know about vitamin D and cancer, the results are clear. Vitamin D appears to reduce your risk of dying from cancer. More importantly, the longer you have been supplementing with vitamin D, the greater your risk reduction is likely to be.

Vitamin D May Decrease Your Risk Of Developing Cancer: Association studies suggest that optimal vitamin D status is associated with decreased cancer risk, especially colon cancer risk. However, the long time for cancer development means that we may never be able to prove this effect through double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Holistic Is Best: When you combine the VITAL study results with what we already know about vitamin D and heart disease, it appears that supplementing with vitamin D is unlikely to reduce your risk of developing heart disease unless you are vitamin D deficient. However, a holistic approach that starts with a healthy, primarily plant-based diet and makes sure your vitamin D status is adequate is likely to be effective.

The same is likely true for cancer. While the latest study suggests that vitamin D supplementation reduces your risk of dying from cancer, those vitamin D supplements are likely to be even more effective if you also adopt a healthy diet and lifestyle.

How Much Vitamin D Do You Need? The optimal dose of vitamin D is likely to be different for each of us. One of the things we have learned in recent years is that there are significant differences in the efficiency with which we convert vitamin D from diet and/or sun exposure into the active form of vitamin D in our cells. Fortunately, the blood test for 25-hydroxyvitamin D is readily available and is widely considered to be an excellent measure of our vitamin D status.

I recommend that you have your blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D tested on an annual basis. Based on the best currently available data, I recommend you aim for >20 ng/ml (50 nmol/L) if you wish to minimize your risk of heart disease and >30 ng/ml (75 nmol/L) if you wish to minimize your risk of cancer. If you can achieve those levels through diet and a multivitamin supplement, that is great. If not, I would recommend adding a vitamin D supplement until those levels are achieved.

Finally, you shouldn’t think of vitamin D as a magic bullet. If you are a couch potato and eat sodas and junk food, don’t expect vitamin D to protect you from cancer and heart disease. You should think of maintaining adequate 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels as just one component of a holistic approach to healthy, disease-free living.

 

The Bottom Line

 

There is a lot of confusion around the question of whether vitamin D reduces the risk of cancer and heart disease. A major clinical study has just been published that sheds light on these important questions. It reported:

  • Vitamin D did not decrease the risk of developing cancer during the 5.3-year study duration. The authors pointed out that cancer takes 20-30 years to develop, which means their study was probably too short to detect an effect of vitamin D on the risk of developing cancer.
  • Vitamin D did decrease the risk of dying from cancer, and the longer people were supplementing with vitamin D the bigger the protective effect of vitamin D was.
  • Vitamin D did not decrease the risk of heart disease. However, most study participants had a level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D that was optimal for reducing the risk of heart disease at the beginning of the study. There was no reason to expect that extra vitamin D would provide additional benefit.
  • With respect to both cancer and heart disease the best advice is to:
    • Get your 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels tested on an annual basis and supplement, if necessary, to keep your 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in what the NIH considers to be an adequate range (20-50 ng/ml).
    • We do not have good dose response data for the beneficial effects of vitamin D on heart disease and cancer. However, according to this article, previous studies suggest you may want to am for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels above 20 ng/ml to reduce the risk of heart disease and above 30 ng/ml to reduce your risk of cancer.
    • Consider vitamin D as just one component of a holistic approach to healthy, disease-free living.

For more details about the interpretation of these studies and what they mean for you, read the article above.

 

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

 

UA-43257393-1