Scientists have found that vitamin D may play a crucial role in preventing heart disease.
A team of scientists, at the Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas; led by Dr. James H. O’Keefe and found that vitamin D plays an important role in heart health.
The group studied adults and analysed the relation between their intake of vitamin D and their risk for heart disease. The results were alarming. Those who took decreased amounts of vitmin D had higher risk for heart disease, other cardiac events and stroke. The researchers also found that most adults dont get enough vitamin D as part of their daily diet.
The study concluded that increasing the intake of vitamin D can help to significantly reduce the risk of heart disease in humans.
D is for don’t.
RECOMMENDED Summer Sunlight Exposure Levels Can Produce Sufficient (20 ng ml−1) but Not the Proposed Optimal (32 ng ml−1) 25(OH)D Levels at UK Latitudes
Note that “only 2.9 % have proposed optimal levels of 32 ng/ ml” [75 nmol/L]
Now why is it that 97% of people have lower concentrations of vitamin D in their blood than the putative ‘optimum’?
Could it have something to do with this
IN the Framingham study the lowest cardiovascular disease risks were found in participants with with baseline 25(OD)D levels of 20 to 25 ng/ml, but increased with both higher and lower values suggesting that increased cardiovascular risk occured at levels below 30 ng/ml.”
The heart attack risk is increased at lower levels than are now being considered optimum levels (and this directly contradicts the Grassroots chart)
That’s just one disease so maybe there is a trade off. On balance the attaining the higher levels and reducing risks of all the diseases chart will lead to a longer heathier life?
IN NHANES III higher mortality was observed in participants with 25 OH)D above 49ng/ml”.
That English UVB exposure does not put vitamin D levels up to 32 nm/ml in 97 % of people is obviously because
either :-
A – Natural selection hasn’t got round to it yet, 97% of the Engish are still adapted to running around with no clothes on.
B it wouldn’t be good for them to have levels that high.
CONTRARY to what is expected, many studies have come to the conclusion that vitamin D concentrations are generally higher among people in northern Europe than among people in southern Europe [30], [31]. Our average serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are in line with the earlier Swedish values estimated in the MORE study [30]. These values were, independent of season, approximately 30% higher than the average among people from central and southern Europe. The results have been explained by a diet containing more vitamin D-fortified foods, lighter skin and wearing lighter clothing when being outdoors during the summer [30], [31]. Our results indicate that our genes, as well as environmental factors, contribute to our vitamin D status. Higher vitamin D concentrations in northern countries may have a genetic basis.”
For a given amount of sun whites will have higher levels of vitamin D than blacks for genetic reasons , (in fact they have higher levels for the same exposure than even southern Europeans). There are dangers in of blacks raising their vitamin d levels to white’s natural levels, let alone trying to attain the very high putative ‘optimums’ that are now being recommended for whites and which 97% of them don’t reach with normal sun exposure.
FWIW I think whites would be wise to leave their D levels alone too.