NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/med/nutritio/1737

Text File | 1993-01-02 | 4.3 KB | 94 lines

Newsgroups: sci.med.nutrition
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!dyer
From: [e-mail] (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Prof. Moon et al. on "vitamin" D
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 18:05:11 GMT
Lines: 83

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Ted Wayn Altar) writes:
>    "'Vitamin D' is an ANABOLIC SECO-STEROID HORMONE (or more
>    appropriately, a group of hormones).  The family name of
>    these hormones is "CALICIFEROL", due to their calcium-
>    controlling functions"  (emphasis his)

The word anabolic is not correct here.

My God, how many times does this need to be repeated?  We have rehashed
this argument over and over again, and this summary of yours is full of
mistruths and distortions.  Posting it over and over again does not make
it true.

>     "none of the known steroid hormones are safe to use over
>     prolonged periods, and except for calciferol, all are restricted
>     to use by prescription only"

This is patently false.  First, there are many steroid hormones which are
safe to use over prolonged periods, birth control pills containing female
sex hormones, for example.  Second, just because some steroid hormones are
dangerous to use chronically, this says nothing about any particular steroid,
because as has been pointed out again and again and again (I don't think Ted
reads this stuff actually) steroids vary widely in their specificity of action.
Needing a prescription for hydrocortisone says nothing about the desirability
of needing it for vitamin D.  And, (not that this is relevant to anything but
the dumb argument above) topical hydrocortisone is available without
prescription in many countries, including the US and Canada.

>and  "Vitamin D, or calicferol, is one of the most
>     potent steroid hormones available and a very
>     toxic food additive"

To describe something as "potent" means that a very small dose suffices
to achieve its desired effect.  This is a content-free statement in the
context of supplementation.  And it's not toxic in the levels used in
food supplements and supplemented foods.

>and  "most people don't realized that it is a vitamin at all"

I think you mangled this.  Perhaps you meant "...don't realize that it's a
steroid...", to which I say: "So what?"  Its chemical family isn't relevant.

>and  "This is one hormone people should avoid  consuming unless
>     there is a clear medical reason for its use.  Infants under
>     the age of two who are not exposed to the ultraviolet rays
>     and of the sun, lactating women who do not get sufficient
>     exposure to solar ultraviolet or people who are confined
>     indoors, such as elderly invalids, may need calciferol
>     replacement therapy, but they are a minority of the
>     population"

Or individuals in northern climates.  To hear this assertion, you'd
imagine that rickets was never a public health problem.

>and  "Vitamin D was classified as a steroid hormone in 1970, but
>     this knowledge is disseminated slowly.  The full implications
>     of this discovery are still not well-understood, even by those
>     scientists who specialize in studying vitamin D"

This is just incorrect.  The chemistry of the D vitamins has been well known
for decades.  Every nutritionist and MD knows it's a steroid.  Plus, the
hormone-like qualities of vitamin D were appreciated and understood well
before 1970.  Finally to note that it binds to cytosolic receptors in a
manner similar to other steroid hormones says nothing about its actions
on calcium metabolism.

>and  "For those who need it, the hormone is a powerful therapeutic
>     agent, but for those who do not, it has no beneficial effect
>     but many well-documented detrimental effects"

There are no well-documented detrimental effects at doses which people
receive in supplemented foods.

>and  "there is no evidence that any group of people who get
>     sufficient sunshine -- and that includes the vast majority
>     of all humans -- ever needs to consume this hormone"

People who receive enough sunshine do not need to ingest vitamin D.
This is not the vast majority of most humans.

--
Steve Dyer
[e-mail] aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer