Their study of 3,000 people, published in Archives of Neurology, found people with the lowest levels of the sunshine vitamin had a three-fold higher risk.
Vitamin D could be helping to protect the nerve cells gradually lost by people with the disease, experts say.
The charity Parkinson’s UK said further research was required.
Parkinson’s disease affects several parts of the brain, leading to symptoms like tremor and slow movements.
The researchers from Finland’s National Institute for Health and Welfare measured vitamin D levels from the study group between 1978 and 1980, using blood samples.
They then followed these people over 30 years to see whether they developed Parkinson’s disease.
They found that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were three times more likely to develop Parkinson’s, compared with the group with the highest levels of vitamin D.
Most vitamin D is made by the body when the skin is exposed to sunlight, although some comes from foods like oily fish, milk or cereals.
As people age, however, their skin becomes less able to produce vitamin D.
Doctors have known for many years that vitamin D helps calcium uptake and bone formation.
But research is now showing that it also plays a role in regulating the immune system, as well as in the development of the nervous system.
Writing in an editorial in the US journal Archives of Neurology, Marian Evatt, assistant professor of neurology at Emory University School of Medicine, says that health authorities should consider raising the target vitamin D level.
“At this point, 30 nanograms per millilitre of blood or more appears optimal for bone health in humans.
“However, researchers don’t yet know what level is optimal for brain health or at what point vitamin D becomes toxic for humans, and this is a topic that deserves close examination.”
Dr Kieran Breen, director of research at Parkinson’s UK, said: “The study provides further clues about the potential environmental factors that may influence or protect against the progression of Parkinson’s.
“A balanced healthy diet should provide the recommended levels of vitamin D.
“Further research is required to find out whether taking a dietary supplement, or increased exposure to sunlight, may have an effect on Parkinson’s, and at what stage these would be most beneficial.”
Due to fear of melanoma, a deadly disease that has been erroneously attributed to sunlight exposure, the people are leaving the sunlight and becoming more like cave dwellers. For those of you who believe in evolution, can you imagine that after millions of years under the sun, human beings have been frightened away from their heritage?
There is an inconvenient truth about melanoma that the Powers of Darkness (those who would take away our sunlight) would prefer you not know: people who work regularly outdoors have a lower risk of melanoma than those who work indoors.
Godar, et al. present evidence that outdoor workers, while receiving 3-9 times the UVR exposure as indoor workers,  have had no increase in melanoma since before 1940, whereas melanoma incidence in indoor workers has increased steadily and exponentially. Other research corroborates the idea that outdoor workers have fewer melanomas than indoor workers. Vagero, et al. showed that melanomas were less common among indoor office workers and other indoor workers than among outdoor workers, and Kennedy, et al. showed that a lifetime of sunlight exposure correlated to a reduced risk of melanoma. Garland, et al. showed that those who worked indoors had a 50% greater risk of melanoma than those who worked both indoors and outdoors, and Kaskel, et al. demonstrated that children who engage in outdoor activities are less likely to develop melanoma than those who do not. Many other papers in the scientific literature show that both incidence and death rate from melanoma are reduced with increasing exposure to sunlight.          
This is not to say that sunburn does not contribute to melanoma, but it certainly shows that habitual, non-burning sun exposure correlates to a reduced risk of this deadly disease. In addition, there are approximately 105 additional diseases that are reduced among those who have higher sunlight exposure and therefore have higher levels of vitamin D (see my book for a discussion on each disease). We cannot live without vitamin D, which is not a vitamin at all, but in its most active form is a potent steroid hormone that controls at least 1,000 genes. It is also important to understand that 90% of all vitamin D is produced in the skin by the action of sunlight on skin.
However, blood levels of this important hormone are dropping precipitously in the American population, with a near doubling of the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency that existed 10 years ago, and with 90% of Blacks, Hispanics and Asians, and 75% of the white population now suffering from the disorder.
So what does this mean to the health of US citizens? I have calculated in a manuscript currently in preparation, that the diseases that correlate to sunlight deprivation/vitamin D deficiency kill approximately 1.42 million people per year in the US. Diseases that correlate to sunlight exposure kill approximately 1,500 people per year. That produces a ratio of about 948:1. I will continue with my mid-day sunbathing, thank you!
Remember that no one is advising the injudicious use of sunlight; baking in the sun for hours is neither necessary nor desirable, but regular sunlight exposure is a sine qua non for vibrant health. To say that we should avoid sunlight is like saying we should avoid water. Water correlates to drowning, but no one asks us to avoid water; if we did the results would be catastrophic, as are the results of vitamin D deficiency due to sunlight deprivation.
Of course, there are some extremely rare conditions that may preclude sunlight exposure. Check with your (enlightened) physician.
Is it time to return to reasonable, habitual, non-burning sunlight exposure? It could save your life!
 Godar DE, Landry RJ, Lucas AD. Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D3 levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma. Med hypothesis (2009), doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.09.056
 Godar D. UV doses worldwide. Photochem Photobiol 2005;81:736–49.
 Thieden E, Philipsen PA, Sandby-Møller J, Wulf HC. UV radiation exposure related to age, sex, occupation, and sun behavior based on time-stamped personal dosimeter readings. Arch Dermatol 2004;140:197–203.
 Lee J. Melanoma and exposure to sunlight. Epidemiol Rev 1982;4:110–36.
 Vågero D, Ringbäck G, Kiviranta H. Melanoma and other tumors of the skin among office, other indoor and outdoor workers in Sweden 1961–1979 Brit J Cancer 1986;53:507–12.
 Kennedy C, Bajdik CD, Willemze R, De Gruijl FR, Bouwes Bavinck JN; Leiden Skin Cancer Study. The influence of painful sunburns and lifetime sun exposure on the risk of actinic keratoses, seborrheic warts, melanocytic nevi, atypical nevi, and skin cancer. Invest Dermatol 2003;120:1087–93.
 Garland FC, White MR, Garland CF, Shaw E, Gorham ED. Occupational sunlight exposure and melanoma in the USA Navy. Arch Environ Health 1990; 45:261-67.
 Kaskel P, Sander S, Kron M, Kind P, Peter RU, Krähn G. Outdoor activities in childhood: a protective factor for cutaneous melanoma? Results of a case-control study in 271 matched pairs. Br J Dermatol 2001;145:602-09.
 Garsaud P, Boisseau-Garsaud AM, Ossondo M, Azaloux H, Escanmant P, Le Mab G. Epidemiology of cutaneous melanoma in the French West Indies (Martinique). Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:66-8.
 Le Marchand l, Saltzman S, Hankin JH, Wilkens LR, Franke SJM, Kolonel N. Sun exposure, diet and melanoma in Hawaii Caucasians. Am J Epidemiol 2006;164:232-45.
 Armstong K, Kricker A. The epidemiology of UV induced skin cancer. J Photochem Biol 2001;63:8-18
 Crombie IK. Distribution of malignant melanoma on the body surface. Br J Cancer 1981;43:842-9.
 Crombie IK. Variation of melanoma incidence with latitude in North America and Europe. Br J Cancer 1979;40:774-81.
Weinstock MA, Colditz,BA, Willett WC, Stampfer MJ. Bronstein, BR, Speizer FE. Nonfamilial cutaneous melanoma incidence in women associated with sun exposure before 20 years of age. Pediatrics 1989;84:199-204.
 Tucker MA, Goldstein AM. Melanoma etiology: where are we? Oncogene 20f03;22:3042-52.
 Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C. Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Nat Cancer Inst 2005;97:95-199.
 Veierød MB, Weiderpass E, Thörn M, Hansson J, Lund E, Armstrong B. A prospective study of pigmentation, sun exposure, and risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:1530-8.
 Oliveria SA, Saraiya M, Geller AC, Heneghan MK, Jorgensen C. Sun exposure and risk of melanoma. Arch Dis Child 2006;91:131-8.
 Elwood JM, Gallagher RP, Hill GB, Pearson JCG. Cutaneous melanoma in relation to intermittent and constant sun exposure—the western Canada melanoma study. Int J Cancer 2006;35:427-33
 Luz E. Tavera-Mendoza and John H. White. Cell Defenses and the Sunshine Vitamin. Scientific American 2007;November, p.42.
 Reichrath J. The challenge resulting from positive and negative effects of sunlight: how much solar UV exposure is appropriate to balance between risks of vitamin D deficiency and skin cancer? Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2006;92(1):9-16.
 Adams, J and Hewison, M. Update in Vitamin D. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2010;95: 471–478.
By Dr. Patrick Massey
June 14, 2010
Vitamin D may be as effective as vaccination for seasonal flu.
In a recently published clinical trial, children who took a vitamin D supplement had a significantly lower risk of seasonal flu than children who took a placebo. Risk reduction with vitamin D was comparable to that seen in children who received the flu vaccine.
By Aubrey Vaughn
Vitamin D is officially having a moment. To date, there is some research that suggests D can help build bones, strengthen your immune system, and lower the risk for diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, and heart and kidney disease. Yet, as has been widely reported, half or more of all children and adults may be vitamin D deficient. (You can read more about vitamin D and its effects in Vitamin D: Sunshine and So Much More, and in Vitamin D, Miracle Drug: Is It Science or Just Talk?) As a result, interest in vitamin D is at an all-time high — which is great news. Public interest and media coverage have led to increased individual vitamin D testing, increased discussion among medical professionals and, perhaps most important, to more funding for reliable studies to determine just how important, effective and safe it really is. In the meantime, there are at least a dozen new vitamin D books out this year, and there’s much discussion about how exactly to get more of this currently in vogue vitamin. (In addition to supplements, the easiest way to get vitamin D is from sunshine. You can also get it from fortified milk; oily fish such as salmon, sardines and mackerel; eggs (free-range have more D); and shiitake mushrooms.)
Have you been tested for vitamin D and/or increased your intake? How do you get your vitamin D?
By David Gutierrez
(NaturalNews) Doctors are becoming increasingly concerned about growing rates of vitamin D deficiency, leading many of them to recommend that people get more sun or even take supplements.
Vitamin D has long been known to play an important role in bone health. Deficiency can lead to osteoporosis in adults, and in children and some adults can lead to a bone-softening disease known as rickets.
Although the vitamin is synthesized by the body upon exposure to sunlight, people living far from the equator can have trouble producing enough of it in the winter time. For this reason, numerous governments began fortifying dairy products with vitamin D decades ago, leading directly to a near-elimination of rickets. The disease is starting to make a resurgence, however, even as researchers start to believe that humans may need higher levels of the vitamin than previously thought.
Although the U.S. government recommends a daily vitamin D intake of 200 to 600 IU per day, researchers are increasingly suggesting amounts of closer to 1,000 IU. These amounts are based on new studies finding that higher levels of vitamin D can help regulate the immune system and prevent chronic diseases such as cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
“It helps boost your ability to fight infection, and it also reduces some destructive inflammation in your body, including inflammation with periodontal disease,” said Mark Ryder of the University of California-San Francisco. “Every five or 10 years, a new vitamin becomes the vitamin of the moment. The hot one right now is probably vitamin D, and so far all of the evidence looks encouraging.”
Yet even according to the lower government standards, at least one in three U.S. residents are not getting enough vitamin D.
“We’ve become a culture that shuns the sunshine and doesn’t drink milk,” said Dr. Donald Abrams of San Francisco General Hospital.
Sources for this story include: www.sfgate.com.
By Alan Mozes
THURSDAY, May 13 (HealthDay News) — Seventy percent of pregnant women in the United States don’t get enough vitamin D, new research reveals.
What’s more, the regimen of prenatal vitamins that many women take do not always provide enough vitamin D to boost levels when needed, researchers from the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine (UCDSM) and Massachusetts General Hospital cautioned.
“Prenatal vitamins do help raise vitamin D levels, but many women start taking them after becoming pregnant,” UCDSM’s Dr. Adit Ginde said in a news release. “Although research is ongoing, I think it’s best for women to start a few months before becoming pregnant to maximize the likely health benefits.”
The finding was published in the May issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Although the study did find that some women are getting the vitamin D they need, the authors warned that many are not. Those most at risk are women with darker skin, those living in northern regions during the winter, and those who tend to cover up their skin for religious and/or cultural purposes.
In general, vitamin D levels seem to have been dropping in recent years, the researchers noted — perhaps due to a dip in outdoor activity. Vitamin D deficiency in the first years of life is associated with a higher risk for respiratory infection and childhood wheezing, while adults who lack an adequate supply bear a greater risk for heart disease and certain cancers.
Testing and supplementation could be the answer to the apparent problem. However, there may be risks from excessive vitamin D intake, the researchers said.
“We need more data from clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation in pregnant women,” study co-author Dr. Carlos Camargo, of Massachusetts General, said in the news release. “If the ongoing trials continue to show benefit, the best strategy will likely be measuring vitamin D levels through a simple blood test and choosing supplementation doses according to those levels.”
By Bill Hendrick, WebMD Health News Reviewed by Laura J. Martin, MD
Low vitamin D levels are commonly observed in children in northern states, often due to insufficient sunlight and dietary intake.
But emerging research indicates that young people who live in the South, where sunlight is ample, also have low vitamin D levels.
Vitamin D promotes bone growth and other important body functions. The body uses sunshine to make vitamin D, and it is also found in some foods. Vitamin D and Teens
Researchers measured vitamin D levels in 559 African-American and white adolescents between 14 and 18 in Augusta, Ga., which gets plenty of sunlight year-round. Vitamin D levels were tested in all four seasons of the year.
Kids were excluded if they were taking medications or had chronic medical conditions that might affect growth and development or affect study results.
Of the 559 participants, 49% were female, 51% male, 45% African-American, and 55% white.
Researchers say participants were in various stages of maturation and that 268 of the 274 girls had started menstruation.
About half (56.4 %) of the youths tested had vitamin D insufficiency, meaning the level was low but not affecting health. But 28.8% had vitamin D deficiency — a level low enough to cause health problems.
The vitamin D levels were lowest in winter. But African-American teenagers had significantly lower vitamin D levels in every season of the year, compared to white teens.
Also, adolescents with a higher body mass index had lower vitamin D levels. Vitamin D Deficiency Higher in African-Americans
Overall, the researchers write, vitamin D levels were higher in white children than in African-American teens, and higher in boys than girls.
Researchers report that: * Vitamin D insufficiency rates were 94.3% in African-American girls and 83.1% in African-American boys, compared with 29.6% in white girls and 30.3% in white boys. * Vitamin D deficiency rates were 73.8% in African-American girls and 46.9% in African-American boys, compared with only 2.6% in white girls and 3.9% in white boys. * Severe vitamin D deficiency was found only in African-American adolescents, or 5.2%. * In summer, no white kids had vitamin D deficiency, but 55% of African-American youths did.
Adults Need Vitamin D, Too
Vitamin D deficiency can result in thin, brittle, or misshapen bones; having enough Vitamin D can prevent rickets in kids. It also helps to protect older adults from osteoporosis.
Researchers say their study is one of the first to investigate vitamin D status in children in the southern part of the U.S. in African-Americans as well as whites.
They also say that low levels of vitamin D is a growing national problem for young people in the U.S. regardless of where they live.
“One of the key findings in our study is that a substantial proportion of black adolescents may be at risk for low vitamin D status not only in winter but throughout the year,” the researchers write.
Researchers say more work is needed to investigate the implications for low vitamin D status and how to improve the situation.
By Meredith May, Chronicle Staff Writer
One April day after weeks of rain, Daniel Jiminez took a detour on his way to class: Dolores Park in San Francisco.
He needed the sun.
“I know what they say about skin cancer, but I just feel better when I’m warm and tan,” said Jiminez, 24. “I’m sorry, but I’d rather be happy.”
Turns out doctors are coming around to his point of view. After decades of slathering on SPF protection, more people are discovering through routine medical screens that they have deficiencies in vitamin D – a hormone produced in the body by sun exposure.
As a result, doctors are seeing a resurgence of rickets and are concerned with osteoporosis in adults over 50. But for most people with low vitamin D levels, symptoms are hard to pinpoint: feeling tired, sluggish or a general malaise.
Known for causing bowed legs and fractured bones primarily in children, rickets all but disappeared in the United States in the 1930s as diets improved and vitamin D was added to certain dairy products.
But in the ensuing decades, as people turned to increasingly stronger sunscreen to ward off melanomas, and work shifted from predominantly outdoor activity to office work, vitamin D has been slowly slipping out of our systems, according to Dr. Michael Holick of Boston University Medical Center, who writes in his new book “The Vitamin D Solution” that lack of vitamin D can lead to heart disease, cancer, depression, insomnia, diabetes, chronic pain and perhaps autism.
“We’ve done studies that show that people living at higher latitudes with less sun are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency,” Holick said.
Levels in breast milk
Another study of lactating women in South Carolina showed negligible levels of vitamin D in their breast milk. “Evolutionarily, that makes no sense when our forefathers made thousands of units of it a day,” Holick said.
National guidelines have not kept up with the dipping D levels, he said.
Federal health experts currently recommend between 200 and 600 international units of vitamin D a day. But those benchmarks are due to change this summer, as the Institute of Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board responds to the new research about vitamin D.
“It should be 10 times that,” Holick said.
While vitamin D is found in some foods, such as wild caught salmon, fortified milk and mushrooms, it’s not enough to replenish what’s missing. Receiving serious attention
Holick has caught some flack from dermatologists for suggesting that 15 to 30 minutes of sun exposure on the legs and arms per day, a few days a week, can restore vitamin D levels. Vitamin D created via sun exposure versus supplements lasts twice as long in the body.
Despite being fired from Boston University’s department of dermatology in 2004, Holick is now getting more serious attention because of his stance. He’s Boston University’s lead vitamin D researcher, studying the vitamin’s effect on genes.
“Just a light pink color, before burning, then put on the sunscreen, will do it,” he said, adding that the face should always be protected.
Holick keeps his own vitamin D levels up with three glasses of milk, a multivitamin and a 2,000-unit vitamin D capsule each day. He plays tennis, gardens and cycles each week for brief periods with sunscreen only on his face.
But pills can also do the trick, and that’s what more doctors are suggesting.
Patients can ask doctors to do a special screen for vitamin D (the 25-hydroxyvitamin D test) that costs about $200 and may or may not be covered by insurance. The magic number doctors are looking for is at least 30, which stands for nanograms per milliliter. Prescribing further units
If levels are too low, doctors typically prescribe 50,000 units once a week for eight weeks to fill up the tank, then every two weeks thereafter. The next two months, patients take anywhere from 4,000 to 6,000 units until a healthy vitamin D level is reached. Maintenance is considered anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 units a day.
“It’s kind of a mixed message: Do you want cancer or do you want brittle bones?” said Wren Wolf, 21, a friend who joined Jiminez on his impromptu Dolores Park picnic.
“I think it all boils down to everything in moderation.”
E-mail Meredith May at firstname.lastname@example.org.
By: Jeffrey Wolf
DENVER – When we think of vitamin D, we often think of the sun, and maybe trying to spend more time outdoors. But a new study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology says seven out of 10 pregnant women in the U.S. are not getting enough of this crucial vitamin.
Prenatal vitamins do raise vitamin D levels during pregnancy but this study shows that higher doses may be needed. That is because vitamin D has reemerged as an important nutritional factor in maternal and infant health.
If the mother has low levels of vitamin D during the pregnancy, it can have an affect on her child in its early life. The condition has been linked to increased risk of childhood wheezing and respiratory infections. Low levels in adults have been linked to cardiovascular disease and cancer.
The lead author of the study, Adit Ginde, MD, MPH, is from the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine.
“We already know that vitamin D is important for bone health of the mother and infant, but we are just starting to scratch the surface about the many potential health benefits of vitamin D during pregnancy,” he said.
Those with darker skin or who cover their skin during the day, as well as women living in northern parts of the country are at a particularly risk for lower vitamin D levels.
However, not all women have this problem and an excess of vitamin D can be risky as well.
“We need more data from clinical trials of vitamin D supplementation in pregnant women. If the ongoing trials continue to show benefit, the best strategy will likely be measuring vitamin D levels through a simple blood test and choosing supplementation doses according to those levels. This tailored approach is common in preventive care for people with high cholesterol, and safer and more effective than a one-size-fits-all solution,” Ginde said.
His best advice, and that of other experts, is to treat vitamin D like other medications. People should have levels checked initially to see how much extra is needed. Then recheck once on supplementation to ensure levels are where they are supposed to be.
On top of taking a supplement, you can also get vitamin D from many other sources. Fortified foods like milk, cereal and yogurt, as well as other foods like eggs, have higher levels of vitamin D.
The major source for us is still sunlight, but you have to weigh getting enough vitamin D from the sun against your risk of skin cancer from sun exposure. The bottom line is that it is important to make sure your levels of vitamin D are adequate, but not too high. This is especially true if you’re pregnant.
Much like folate, another essential vitamin for a baby’s development, mothers want levels of vitamin D to be high enough before becoming pregnant.
(KUSA-TV © 2010 Multimedia Holdings Corporation)
By Anne Harding
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Women’s dietary intake of vitamin D and calcium doesn’t seem to influence their risk of breast cancer, before or after menopause, new research from Canada shows. But the findings do suggest that taking vitamin D in supplement form may be protective against the disease. Health
Given these new findings on vitamin D supplements, “it looks promising for vitamin D,” Laura N. Anderson, one of the study’s authors and a doctoral student at Cancer Care Ontario in Toronto, told Reuters Health. “We certainly need more research done in this area,” she said.
Some prior studies have suggested that vitamin D may reduce breast cancer risk. Breast cells have receptors for vitamin D, Anderson noted, raising the possibility that the nutrient could help regulate the division and proliferation of these cells; there’s also growing evidence that vitamin D could help protect against other types of cancer.
When it comes to diet and supplements, vitamin D and calcium often go hand in hand, she added. Vitamin D is necessary for calcium absorption, so women who want to keep their bones strong as they age are advised to take both; also, many calcium-rich foods, like milk, are enriched with vitamin D.
Anderson and her team sought to separate out the effects of vitamin D and calcium on breast cancer risk by surveying 3,101 breast cancer patients and 3,471 healthy controls about their intake of food and supplements.
The researchers found no relationship between overall vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk; nor was there any association between overall calcium intake and risk of the disease.
However, women who reported taking at least 400 international units of vitamin D every day were at 24 percent lower risk of developing breast cancer.
The findings are published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Right now, Anderson noted, health authorities in Canada, the US and other countries are looking at revising the current recommendations on vitamin D intake upward, given that it looks like higher intakes of the vitamin D may be more beneficial.
Further research is needed, she and her colleagues conclude, to investigate the relationship between bigger doses of vitamin D and calcium and breast cancer risk.
SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, online April 14, 2010.