DaveFromRI said...
ASAdvocate said...
There was a thread about this last year. Several of us noted that we had low D before being diagnosed. Another forum member stated that there was nothing in the research literature to support this linkage. After enough of us said the same thing about low D preceding a G 3+3 diagnosis, there was no more discussion. The linkage may be anecdotal...but it happened to me.
I would like to respectfully re
open this specific topic (Vitamin D supplements affecting both PSA and biopsy results). May I re
open this topic please? If not, okay...just trying to provide my own statistical input.ASAdvocate, are you referring to the poll I started 2/5/16 here? :
www.healingwell.com/community/default.aspx?f=35&m=3581293It was titled "Was your Vitamin D level less than sufficient".
It appears there were 20 poll responses, plus some other responses that could not quite fit into the limited # of categories I gave, and the last response was 2/16/16. It was oriented towards those who had not supplemented before Dx and who had their levels checked at some point.
Here were the categories I made available:
"So, I have low or intermediate risk PC and:
1: I was not taking supplements or much in the sunshine, and my vit D was in what is considered the high range, past sufficient, above 40 ng ml
2:I was tested and it was sufficient, definitely not deficient, but still <40ng
3: My level was insufficient, 21-29ng
4: My level was deficient, 0-20 ng
Or, I have High risk PC and:
1: I was not taking supplements or much in the sunshine, and my vit D was in what is considered the high range, past sufficient, above 40 ng ml
2:I was tested and it was sufficient, definitely not deficient, but still <40ng
3: My level was insufficient, 21-29ng
4: My level was deficient, 0-20 ng"
Of the 20 total respondents, for the 13 low risk cases:
1: 1(8%) low risk case fell into the sufficient range of 30-100.
2: 10(77%) low risk case fell into the insufficient range of 21-29.
3: 2(15%) low risk cases fell into the deficient range of 0-19
Summary: 0f 13 low risk cases reporting, 12(92%) were under 29 ng/ml, and 15% were actually deficient at <20,.
For the 7 high risk cases,
1: 1(14%) high risk case fell into the sufficient range of > 30 ng/ml
2: 2(29%) fell into the insufficient range of 21-29
3: 4(57%) were deficient at < 20 ng/ml.
Summary: of the 7 Dx with high risk PC, 86% were either insufficient or deficient at <30, while 14% were 30 or greater.
Summary for all cases, low and high risk: out 20 Dx'ed, 2(10%) were at least sufficient at 30 or more. 18 of 20(90%) were either insufficient or deficient at < 30 ng/ml.
I hated to see that only 20 responded, but the fact is probably most of us never had our levels checked before we were diagnosed and or had already started supplementing. And even if 100 had responded, it would still be unscientific. Regardless, it is at least somewhat interesting to me that of those who were tested before supplementing, 90% were less than 30, and only 10% were above 30. It also seems interesting to me that while only 15% of low risk cases were actually deficient at <20, 57% of the high risk cases were deficient(<20).
I ran out of categories, and could not participate in my own poll. In my case, I had been supplementing for possibly a year or 2 before diagnosis(can't remember exactly) with 2000 IUs per day. During that time I had my level checked and it was either 30 or slightly under 30. Inceasing the dose to 10,000 got me up to 80, so I backed off to 5000 most days unless I either forget to take it or am getting plenty of sunshine. So if 2000 only got me to about
30, I feel that likely means I was probably deficient at < 20 most of my life prior to supplementation and later diagnosis. So I probably can add at least 1(me) to that category of high risk and < 20, but that is just a guess of course.