Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Digestive Health Support Forum banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Can having a vitamin defeciancy of anykind cause diarrhea or loose stool? I am still taking my lomotil everyday because without it I would be a mess. I never seem to have any stable days to where I can go without the pills. I was thinking maybe my body is just lacking something because that is the only issue I have is loose stool.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
Yes, niacin. Niacin deficiency causespellagra which can cause diarrhea.Doubt you have that as you wouldhave other severe symptoms.Scurvy (lack of vitamin C) causes diarrheabut again, you would have other severe symptoms.And it's very difficult to develop scurvy as a fewbites of many different vegetables or fruit willgive you enough to prevent scurvy.Vitamin A deficiency can as well but as long asyou eat sources of this or sources of beta carotene,you're fine. One baby carrot a day can prevent this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I know for me personally, vitamin d3 and fat nutrients EPA/DHA from fish oil helped tremendously with stopping my D. D3 of course is unique as it is made when warm sunlight strikes the skin. You don't eat it in your diet in significant quantities. What is curious to me is that I used to live in sunny Florida. I was well when I lived there. Shortly after coming to Illinois, where the sun goes away for around 6 months of the year, I developed severe IBS. Is there a connection? I'll never know for sure. Most people do not realize that D3 is a pro-hormone. To reach a healthy testing level between 50 to 80ng/ml can be tricky. I enjoyed this cardiologists article which explains how to get vitamin D right. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/01/...in-d-right.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
This disorder and IBD has a lower rate in populationsin warmer climates. It could be the vitamin D. I take 1,000 to 2,000s in the winter and get copiusamounts of sun in the summer and my D has notgone away.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
There's no research that I'm aware of that supports the hypothesis of keeping blood levelsat 60 to 70.All the studies I've read compare those at 15 to 20 or below to those who are 30 to 40 or higher.I know the sun itself, a few minutes a day, will get you 15,000 IU but I've yet to meet anyonewho has taken the amount you are taking.Walter Willett, the researcher who has spurred the recent interest in vit D. says 4,000 IU perday. I'd be interested in seeing any literature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
There's no research that I'm aware of that supports the hypothesis of keeping blood levelsat 60 to 70.All the studies I've read compare those at 15 to 20 or below to those who are 30 to 40 or higher.I know the sun itself, a few minutes a day, will get you 15,000 IU but I've yet to meet anyonewho has taken the amount you are taking.Walter Willett, the researcher who has spurred the recent interest in vit D. says 4,000 IU perday. I'd be interested in seeing any literature.
Sure, I learned about keeping my circulating D3 levels between 60 to 70ng/ml from Dr Davis's sight. He is the one that I linked to before with the D3 information. Here is what he has to say: Getting vitamin D rightVitamin D is, without a doubt, the most incredible "vitamin"/prohormone/neurosteroid I have ever encountered. Frankly, I don't know how we got anything accomplished in health pre-D. Unfortunately, people I meet rarely take their vitamin D in a way that accomplishes full restoration of vitamin D blood levels. It really isn't that tough. Here's a list of common tripping points with vitamin D:"I take vitamin D: 1000 units a day." This is probably the most common mistake I see: Taking a dose that is unlikely to yield a desirable blood level. (We use 60-70 ng/ml of 25-hydroxy vitamin D as our target.) Most men and women require 6000 units per day to achieve this level. There is substantial individual variation, however, with an occasional person needing much more, a rare person requiring as little as 1000 units. "I bought some vitamin D on sale. They were white tablets."Time and again, patients in my office who initially have had successful vitamin D replacement, despite being reminded that only oil-based forms should be taken, switch to tablets. While they initially showed a 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood level, for instance, of 67 ng/ml on 8000 units per day with an oil-based capsule, they switch to a tablet form and the next blood level is 25 ng/ml. In other words, tablets are very poorly or erratically absorbed. I have had people use tablets successfully, however, by taking their vitamin D tablets with a teaspoon of oil, e.g., olive oil. Oil is necessary for full absorption. "I'm going to Florida. I'll stop my vitamin D because I'm going to lay in the sun." Wrong. 90% of adults over 40 years old have lost the majority of their ability to activate vitamin D in the skin. A typical response might be an increase in blood level from 25 to 35 ng/ml--a 10 ng increase with a dark brown tan. There is an occasional person who, with sun exposure, increases blood levels substantially. This can occur in both fair-skinned and dark-skinned people, though I've never seen it happen in an African-American person. The occasional person who maintains the ability to convert vitamin D with sun exposure, or young people, should seasonally adjust their vitamin D dose, e.g., 6000 units winter, 3000 units summer, or some other regimen that maintains desirable blood levels. You can see that monitoring blood levels (we check levels every 6 months for the first 2 years) is crucial: You cannot know what your vitamin D needs are unless you assess 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels. "I drink plenty of milk. I don't think I need to take vitamin D." Oh, boy. This is so wrong on so many levels. First of all, no adult should be drinking plenty of cow's milk. (A discussion for another day.) Second of all, cow's milk averages 70 units of vitamin D, often the D2 form (ergocalciferol), per 8 oz. Even if the FDA-mandated 100 units per day were present, an average adult dose of 6000 units would require 60 glasses of milk per day. Can you say "diarrhea"?Likewise, other food sources of vitamin D, such as fish (300-400 units per serving) and egg yolks (20 units per yolk), are inadequate. This makes sense: Humans are not meant to obtain vitamin D from food, but from sun exposure over a large body surface area. And this is a phenomenon that is meant to occur only in the youthful, ensuring that nature takes its course and us older folks get old and make way for the young (i.e., unless we intervene by taking vitamin D supplements). "My doctor said that my vitamin D blood level was fine. It was 32 ng/ml."Let's face it: By necessity, your overworked primary care physician, who manages gout, hip arthritis, migraine headaches, stomach aches, prostate enlargement, H1N1, depression, etc., is an amateur at nearly everything, expert in nothing. Nobody can do it all and get it right. Likewise vitamin D. The uncertain primary care physician will simply follow the dictates of the laboratory form that specifies "30-100 ng/ml" as the "normal" or "reference range." Unfortunately, the laboratory often quotes population distributions of a lab measure, not an ideal or desirable level. To illustrate the folly of population distributions of a measure, imagine you and I want to know what women weigh. We go to a local mall and weigh several thousand women. We tally up the results and find that women weigh 172 lbs +/- 25 lbs (the mean +/- 2 standard deviations). (That's true, by the way.) Is that desirable? Of course it isn't. Population average or population distribution does not necessarily mean ideal or desirable. "My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood. "I don't need to take vitamin D. I already take fish oil."I suspect this mistaken belief occurs either because people confuse fish oil with cod liver oil, which does contain some vitamin D. (Cod liver oil is not the best source of vitamin D, mostly because of the vitamin A content; also a discussion for another time), or because they've heard that eating fish provides vitamin D. However, fish oil capsules do not contain vitamin D unless it is added, in which case it should be prominently and explicitly stated on the label. "I don't have to take vitamin D. It's summer." For most people I know, if it's a bright, sunny July day, where are they likely to be? In an office, store, or home--NOT lying in the sun with a large body surface area exposed. Also, most people expose no more than 5-10% of surface area in public. I doubt you cut the grass in a bathing suit. Because of modern indoor lifestyles and fashion, the majority of adults need vitamin D supplementation year-round. I advise everyone that gelcap vitamin D is preferable. Some, though not all, liquid drop forms have also worked. Take a dose that yields desirable blood levels. And blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D are ideally checked every 6 months: in summer and in winter to provide feedback on how much sun activation of D you obtain. If your doctor is unwilling or unable to perform vitamin D testing, fingerstick vitamin D test kits can be obtained from Track Your Plaque.Another great place to learn information on D3 is Dr Cannell's web sight: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/One can find information on GI studies and vitamin D there also. Keeping D3 levels between 60 to 70ng/ml is not controversial. You can walk into any hospital in America and that testing level is with-in the normal range. My understanding is once one reaches a level of 150 ml/ng and higher you are at risk of vitamin D toxicity. Some further information on D3 toxicity:http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/...d-toxicity.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
Thanks Blueberry for sending that info...I read it, and read through Dr. Davis's blogsiteand went to a couple articles he mentioned.There is a difference between whether or not a certain levelis toxic and whether or not there is evidence that those levelsare needed to prevent disease.Dr. Davis is one man, a doctor yes but he is not a scientistpublishing research on vitamin D. For that you must go toscientific literature. Again, there is no evidence that taking that much vitamin Dis needed to prevent heart disease or cancer. Will you get sick from taking that much? Probably not. What I always suggest to people is never put your faith in oneman. Always look to the nutritional epidemiologists and gather the information from many of the top nutrition experts.At this time, they all say we get too little D and that the RDAshould increase. The general range is 1,000 to 4,000 IU.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Thanks Blueberry for sending that info...I read it, and read through Dr. Davis's blogsiteand went to a couple articles he mentioned.There is a difference between whether or not a certain levelis toxic and whether or not there is evidence that those levelsare needed to prevent disease.Dr. Davis is one man, a doctor yes but he is not a scientistpublishing research on vitamin D. For that you must go toscientific literature. Again, there is no evidence that taking that much vitamin Dis needed to prevent heart disease or cancer. Will you get sick from taking that much? Probably not. What I always suggest to people is never put your faith in oneman. Always look to the nutritional epidemiologists and gather the information from many of the top nutrition experts.At this time, they all say we get too little D and that the RDAshould increase. The general range is 1,000 to 4,000 IU.
You actually make me chuckle on this one. I like Dr Davis quite a bit because he is not a lab scientist. He is a doctor with patients. He sits down with people and works out a plan for success at reversing heart disease. And he is having success at just that. He isn't a scientist that works in labs and forms theories that may or may not work in the real world. Dr Davis isn't the only one that is saying to have higher D3 levels in the 50 to 80ng/ml range. There are several other physicians out there saying the same thing, keep D3 levels between 50 to 80ng/ml. If 1000ius of D3 gets you to that level, great. If not, take more till you reach that testing range. A few of the other doctors that I enjoy reading vitamin D3 information on are:http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/http://www.thevitamindcure.com/blog/http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/http://www.paleonu.com/http://drbganimalpharm.blogspot.com/http://nephropal.blogspot.com/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
And I'm sure there are even morethan the ones you listed. It's not about a lab, epidemiology does not occur in a lab.Epidemiology compares disease rates in populations.With vitamin D, they compare groups of people with lowserum vitamin D levels in individuals with those who arenormal. No study has ever demonstrated the amount of Vit. Dthat Dr. Davis recommends. That does not mean its not true. It merely means Dr. Davis(and the others) are operating on a hypothesis.They have to test that hypothesis in order to state conclusivelythat it works. Until then the most prudent is to take 1,000 to 4,000 IUbut if you get sun for more than a few minutes per day,then on those days you do not need any supplement.Again, we have to go on the advisement of the top expertsnot a handful of clinicians who see patients and never conduct epidemiological research. I have 3 degrees in nutrition and have worked at policy level, counseledpatients, conducted research, etc. The most well known heart disease researchers who reverse heart diseaseare Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esseltyon. They have worked withthousands of people and have published research.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,427 Posts
Sunnsnow, The Vitamin D is helping Blueberry Hill. That is a good thing. If it isn't something you would like to do... that's fine.. but please respect the treatment choices of others, ok?? They can go over with their own physicians what is and is not prudent for them, ok?Thanks.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
BQ, there was no reason for you to interject hereas we are simply having a conversation.And the discussion has extended to vitamin D and heart disease and cancer in the context of vit. d andIBS. Taking vitamin D for IBS or any disease is good.Most people who do it for IBS are doing 600 IUto 2,200 IU. I support that. If you read what we are discussing BQ,it is whether or not a serum concentration of 60 to 70 in the blood is scientifically proven. And that of course is not. Taking mega doses of vit D as recommended by this Dr. Davis is not for the treatment of IBS. It is not hisdoctor, it is a blog written by a cardiologist whowrites about heart disease reversal.I think you're confused BQ. I think you skim posts of minetoo quickly because you want to scold me too quickly.Read what we are discussing in a slow manner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
And I'm sure there are even morethan the ones you listed. It's not about a lab, epidemiology does not occur in a lab.Epidemiology compares disease rates in populations.With vitamin D, they compare groups of people with lowserum vitamin D levels in individuals with those who arenormal. No study has ever demonstrated the amount of Vit. Dthat Dr. Davis recommends. That does not mean its not true. It merely means Dr. Davis(and the others) are operating on a hypothesis.They have to test that hypothesis in order to state conclusivelythat it works. Until then the most prudent is to take 1,000 to 4,000 IUbut if you get sun for more than a few minutes per day,then on those days you do not need any supplement.Again, we have to go on the advisement of the top expertsnot a handful of clinicians who see patients and never conduct epidemiological research. I have 3 degrees in nutrition and have worked at policy level, counseledpatients, conducted research, etc. The most well known heart disease researchers who reverse heart diseaseare Dr. Dean Ornish and Dr. Caldwell Esseltyon. They have worked withthousands of people and have published research.
Thanks BQ. I'm doing fine, and happy to discover what helped me so greatly. It is heavenly to escape the bath room! I hope that the information I post here helps others. That is all. Sunnsnow may find reasons to not like it, but that is her choice, and I'm perfectly fine with that. Actually I disagree concerning no studies being found to help with the level I and the doctors talk of concerning D3. I'll leave the science though to the doctor's links I gave. They discuss the studies they base their reasoning on from time to time. And honestly I don't want to spend time working on digging them up. Aw I see, you are an Ornish follower with his fat phobia. He did not reverse heart disease. I know that he says he did, but what Ornish accomplished was to improve endothelial dysfunction. You can do that with exercise though. That is nothing special. Reversing plaque growth is something Dr Ornish - who is not a cardiologist - has not accomplished. If he did he would write another book.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
As I am open minded and scientifically trained,I read more of Dr. Davis's blog and others you mentioned.The websites you linked me to (some of them) are paidto promote or have a vested interest in the sale of supplements.It is not always good to rely on these sources.Dr. Davis's diet for heart disease reversal is actually completelyinaccurate and out of the mainstream. Thousands of scientific articlesstate that whole grain carbs are what prevents and reversesheart disease. If you have had a heart attack or have cholesterol issues, I stronglyurge you to experiment with a diet high in whole grains, good fats,low salt, fruits, and vegetables and good proteins (fish, beans, nuts,etc.)We'll probably have to agree to disagree as you seem like a big fan ofthis ONE individual where as I rely on the scientific studies by hundredsof individuals.No, I am not an Ornish follower. I am a science follower. I personally consume30% fat (100% from unsaturated sources.) Ornish is for individuals whohave had a heart attack. For those who are trying to prevent it, we recommendindividuals follow something like an Ornish but with added good fats on a dailybasis. Primarily plant based with 30% good fat. The individuals with the lowest rates of heart disease in the world are thoseconsuming large amounts of carbs (Japanese, rural Chinese, inner city Chinese,Vietnamese, ETC.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,427 Posts
Hmm.. nope SunNSnow.. I am not at all confused.
But thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
As I am open minded and scientifically trained,I read more of Dr. Davis's blog and others you mentioned.The websites you linked me to (some of them) are paidto promote or have a vested interest in the sale of supplements.It is not always good to rely on these sources.Dr. Davis's diet for heart disease reversal is actually completelyinaccurate and out of the mainstream. Thousands of scientific articlesstate that whole grain carbs are what prevents and reversesheart disease. If you have had a heart attack or have cholesterol issues, I stronglyurge you to experiment with a diet high in whole grains, good fats,low salt, fruits, and vegetables and good proteins (fish, beans, nuts,etc.)We'll probably have to agree to disagree as you seem like a big fan ofthis ONE individual where as I rely on the scientific studies by hundredsof individuals.No, I am not an Ornish follower. I am a science follower. I personally consume30% fat (100% from unsaturated sources.) Ornish is for individuals whohave had a heart attack. For those who are trying to prevent it, we recommendindividuals follow something like an Ornish but with added good fats on a dailybasis. Primarily plant based with 30% good fat. The individuals with the lowest rates of heart disease in the world are thoseconsuming large amounts of carbs (Japanese, rural Chinese, inner city Chinese,Vietnamese, ETC.)
Well, I like all the doctors I linked to. Dr Davis I enjoy reading because he has had success at reversing plaque growth. And he has a study showing this. All, minus 2, of the patients in the study experienced either plaque reversal, or a slowing of plaque growth. Plaque growth or reversal was determined by calcium/ heart Ct scan results. As far as I know he is the only doctor having this kind of success. His study can be seen at his blog slight. I don't think saturated fat is the devil you believe it to be. I've been enjoying the information coming out the past few months showing that there is little connection between saturated fats and heart disease. Here is one article where Dr Guyenet writes about this:http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010...icle-by-dr.htmlThursday, January 14, 2010New Saturated Fat Review Article by Dr. Ronald KraussI never thought I'd see the day when one of the most prominent lipid researchers in the world did an honest review of the observational studies evaluating the link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. Dr. Ronald Krauss's group has published a review article titled "Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease". As anyone with two eyes and access to the medical literature would conclude (including myself), they found no association whatsoever between saturated fat intake and heart disease or stroke:A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.Bravo, Dr. Krauss. That was a brave move. Thanks to Peter for pointing out this article.Posted by Stephan at 9:42 AM 72 commentsLabels: Cardiovascular disease, diet, fats
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
240 Posts
Dr. Ronald Krauss was my professor. I embarrassed himso many times in front of the class that he refused to callon me by pretending to not notice me raising my hand. Dr. Krauss is a paid subversive researcher by the dairyassociation. He also has a patent on LDL particle size testing.He has a vested interest in the notion that LDL particlesize is a predictor of cardiovascular disease despite noconclusive evidence demonstrating this. The dairy industry is acutely aware that saturated fat killspeople and they are acutely aware that their product is loadedwith saturated fat. Thus, they have decided to pay researchersLOTS of money to either stay silent about the dangers ofsaturated fat (by funding their research) or actually fund researchthat demonstrates saturated fat is not as bad as we thought. Lucky for you, I'm an expert on nutrition, nutrition policy,CVD and nutrition, and corrupt nutrition science. I can point out who and what is corrupt and what the generalconsensus is among the top researchers in the world.Sadly, even after pointing out this rampant corruption to people,many of them continue to believe that meat and dairy is benign.This is not because of their ability to read the scientific literatureand come to a scientific conclusion but rather their penchant tocontinue to consume cream, butter, ice cream, red meat, lamb,etc. In other words, people love to hear good things about their badbehavior. This is taken from the database:"Research on whether a change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men supported in part by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board in cooperation with the National Dairy Council."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,427 Posts
Blue & Sun...We seem to have strayed quite far away from Mrae's original topic question. So please continue this conversation on your own via PM or, if you choose, email.Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
There is certainly grounds for a relationship between IBS-D and vitamin deficiency. In many people with IBS, anxiety plays a huge role. I found this study that compared the intestinal transit times of people with anxiety or depression against a control group. Depression, they found, slowed things down. Anxiety, however, seriously sped things up.
RESULTS: Median (range) WGTT was shorter in patients with anxiety (14 (6-29) hours) than in patients with depression (49 (35-71) hours) (p < 0.001), and controls (42 (10-68) hours) (p < 0.001). In patients with anxiety, orocaecal [mouth to cecum, the first part of the large intestine] transit time was shorter (60 (10-70) minutes) than in patients with depression (110 (60-180) minutes) (p < 0.01), and shorter than in controls (75 (50-140)) minutes (p < 0.05).
While the median orocaecal transit time of patients suffering from anxiety (60) wasn't a huge amount less than the control group (75), I think we can all agree that anxiety makes symptoms worse. And it's plausible that if your orocaecal transit time is short enough for long enough, you could over time become deficient in some vitamins and nutrients, which'd probably make your anxiety worse, which would... you get the picture.I sort of gave myself Habba Syndrome a few months ago when I began taking a bunch of supplements which happened to increase my bile secretion. Since stopping taking them, things are returning to normal. In retrospect, I must admit that I'd always had bad gas and softer stool when extremely anxious, like when I got dumped or was going into a job interview, which I understand was probably unabsorbed nutrients reaching my gut flora and going crazy. And lately, the anxiety has been pretty constant. Heck, six or seven months ago I was having a terrible few days and got shingles. I guess the good news is that I'm anxious instead of depressed!
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top