foodperson.com

I know full well that one scientific study does not a conclusion make. (One reason why I wouldn’t make a good scientist: too impatient with the incremental advances.)

Still, I was very excited to read this news about Vitamin D being protective against breast and colon cancer. Scientists led by Cedric F. Garland at the University of California-San Diego Medical Center, estimated that increased intake of Vitamin D could reduce significantly the incidence of those cancers.

This is doubly exciting news for me, because I (a) am daughter of a woman who died from breast cancer and (b) have osteoporosis/osteopenia (depending on where you’re measuring), and Vitamin D, as you probably know, also significantly improves absorption of calcium to build bones.

So, I’m excited. By taking extra D, I get a two-fer: possible breast cancer AND broken-bone avoidance.

Just for the record, the vitamin D evidence goes beyond one study. More and more research is suggesting that the “accepted” recommendations for Vitamin D are far too low. Here are some articles on the subject, if you’re interested:

• American Medical Women’s Association recommends an increase in Vitamin D.
• Newsweek magazine notes the growing interest in increasing the Vitamin D recommendation.
• A group of scientists called the Vitamin D Workshop lay out the evidence in their 13th meeting last year. These are scientists at major universities, by the way.

Most of the pro-D crowd seems to recommend Vitamin D intake in the 1000-2000 international units (IU) arena. Here’s the federally sanctioned official recommendations for comparison which, generally, are 200 IU daily for people under 50 and 400 IU for people older than 50.

I have my bottle of 1000 IU Vitamin D3 capsules. I’d been taking them on alternate days, not wanting to overdo. Starting tomorrow, I’m going with one capsule daily. Even with a little more D from my multivitamin and milk and sun, I think it’s what’s best for me.