In a new study just published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Jackson, Leboff and other authors went back and looked at the data from the Women's health Initiative Calcium plus Vitamin D Clinical Trial. This trial looked at over 3000 postmenopausal women age 50-70.

They were looking to see if there was a correlation as would be expected between postmenopausal women's vitamin D levels, and the latitude where they live, as well as the amount of sun in their area of the country as well as their oral intake of vitamin D.

They found that although it would be presumed that these factors would be reflected in the blood level of a woman, it was not the case. There was a rough correlation but it was not the strict correlation that was expected.

They found that their model could explain only 21% of the variation in vitamin D levels after they adjusted for many other factors including food, outside activity, race, age, and the amount of sun their region gets per year.

The authors theorize that because so many people are aware that the sun can cause skin cancer, most people use sunblock or stay covered when they go out in the sun which was not the case many years ago before the relation between skin cancer and sun was recognized. They theorize that this may be why women in more southern climates did not necessarily have higher levels of vitamin D in their blood, as would have been expected.

The authors appropriately note also that the women had only one vitamin D  blood test and because the study was done over several years that one blood test may not have been representative of what happened over the years.

The absolute numbers in the study were that over 50% of the sample of US postmenopausal women had blood levels less than 20 ng/ml. In addition, 13% of the women had blood levels less than 10 ng/ml. Note that if they were using the newly recognized minimal normal level of vitamin D i.e. greater than 30 ng/ML that these percentages would hvae been much higher. The 20 ng/milliliter level is only enough to prevent rickets.

The authors' summarize that models that predict blood levels of vitamin D by  looking at oral intake and/or vitamin D made from sun exposure to the skin should now "be used with caution in making assumptions about the relation between vitamin D status and health outcomes."

This corroborates what I have said in my book and in my blog many times. Everybody should be getting a vitamin D blood test, at least once a year, just like they get a cholesterol or diabetes test once a year.

It is also why I chose to make available in my vitamin D store, an at-home blood test. In this way people who do not go to the doctor often or who do not have insurance, can find out their own blood level which is the only really accurate way to know where you stand in regards to vitamin D adequacy.

REFERENCE

As most of my patients, friends, and readers know I have a special interest in the role that the environment plays in human health. That is why I am a professor at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine and their  environmental medicine Center of Excellence in Arizona.

Increasing evidence has consistently been found that environmental pollutants play a significant role in human disease.

Now a new article has come out in the government-sponsored journal Environmental Health Perspectives which shows that persistent organic pollutants (POP's) lead to insulin resistance a condition which is asscociated with diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. POP's are organic compounds that are resistant to being broken down by our environment through the normal processes. Therefore they persist in the environment and accumulate in human tissue and get magnified in food chains.

Epidemiologic studies have suggested that exposure to persistent organic pollutants in our diet might be a contributing factor to diabetes. POP's are known to accumulate in some foods such as fatty fish.

In this study, when the authors exposed adult male rats to crude, but not refined, salmon oil, the rats developed insulin resistance,  abdominal obesity, and liver problems.

In rats given refined salmon oil this did not happen.

In addition the authors studied fat cells and found that POPS led to significant inhibition of insulin action at the cellular level, which is what we call insulin resistance.

This is a very interesting article because it shows that it may not be just fat that contributes to diabetes and obesity but an environmental contaminant in the fat, that makes it more likely that these diseases will occur.

This is just one more reason to eat organic as much as we possibly can.

REFERENCE

For many years now, observational studies as well as experimental studies have noted the biological consequences of phthalate exposure on neurological development in children.

Now, in what I would call a landmark study, Engel and colleagues, looked at the association of phthalate exposure in the womb and subsequent offspring behavior.

Phthalates are used in the manufacture of plastics. They are very common in women's cosmetics including nail polish, as well as in children's toys, paints, food products, and textiles. Liquid soap, hairspray and perfume often contain phthalates.

This was a multiethnic population that was enrolled in the Mount Sinai Children's Environmental Health study which took place in New York City between 1998 and 2002.

The researchers took third trimester urine specimens from the mothers and analyzed these urine specimens for phthalate's breakdown products. Subsequently they evaluated the behavioral and cognitive development of the children between the ages of four and nine years old.

The findings are astonishing. Higher concentrations of phthalates in the mother during pregnancy were associated with poorer scores on the following indices in the children: aggression, conduct problems, attention problems, depression, and externalizing problems as well as behavioral symptom Index scales.

It was also noted that higher phthalate levels in the mother were also connected with poorer scores on the global executive composite index and the emotional control scale.

The authors also commented that the areas of behavior that are adversely associated with intrauterine phthalates are associated with children who are diagnosed with conduct or attention deficit — hyperactivity disorders.

This study puts a whole new light on the prevalence of these behavioral disorders diagnosed in our society and  in so many children. Combine this with low vitamin D levels in the mother (which is needed to repair DNA mutations), along with poor diet, and we begin to see why these behavioral disorders are so common in our society.

This is one of the reasons why I advise all of my pregnant patients to use only health-food-store nail polish, no perfumes, non-toxic makeups and an organic diet when they are pregnant.

Please give me your comments and thoughts on this most important article.

REFERENCE

,

It is well established that chronic, high-level lead exposure is a significant risk factor for kidney disease.  A new study conducted at the Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research in Baltimore examined a less well understood problem, the effect of low-level lead exposure such as that found in everyday environments, especially as it may effect younger people.

769 adolescents aged 12 to 20 years were examined in the Third National Health and Nutrition survey (NHANES III) conducted from 1988-1994.  Their blood lead levels were measured, as well as their level of kidney function.

The conclusion was that higher blood lead levels, even those in a range below the current CDC designated level of concern (10 microg/dL) were associated with adverse effects on kidney function. In fact the higher the adolescents's lead level the more kidney function was affected.

This study further confirms what Environmental Doctors have been concerned about for a long time on the role that the environment plays on our children's health. 

We live in a highly polluted environment, particularly if we live in big cities.  Although laws have been made to protect us from acute lead poisoning, studies like this one show that toxins such as lead, even at so-called “safe” levels of exposure, may be keeping our bodies from functioning at at their best.  I carefully  evaluate heavy metals in the blood or all my patients especially new patients.

I have 60 year old woman in my practice right now with impaired kidney function. Her urologist is not sure why her kidney function is down. With a challenged urine test I found her lead level to be about 30 times normal ! So I have to wonder based on this new information if the lead might be the main cause of her kidney function impairment? 

Reference