A new study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism looked at the link between vitamin D supplementation and Type II diabetes.
For the new analysis, researchers reviewed prospective clinical trials that evaluated the impact of vitamin D supplementation on hemoglobin A1C (the long-term measure of blood sugar), fasting blood sugar, and insulin resistance among patients with Type II diabetes.
They evaluated 844 sources through a search of the medical literature and identified 24 controlled clinical trials that included 1,528 individuals diagnosed with Type II diabetes.
Following vitamin D supplementation, the participants increased vitamin D levels in the blood by an average of 17 ng/ml in one system of measurement and 42 nmol/L in the other system of measurement.
More importantly, these relatively modest increases in vitamin D in the blood resulted in significant reductions of hemoglobin A1C, fasting blood sugar, and insulin resistance.
Is there anything vitamin D can’t do?
If any drug showed these kinds of results, doctors would jump to give it to every man and woman with Type II diabetes.
Why everyone needs more of this simple vitamin
I probably write more about vitamin D than any other nutrient — but I’m simply following the science. I see research articles, such as this one, published almost on a daily basis about its wide spectrum of health benefits.
Researchers’ interest in vitamin D isn’t all that surprising either, considering the fact that the U.S. suffers from a vitamin D deficiency epidemic.
There are three reasons why the majority of men and women in this country don’t have adequate levels of this critical nutrient:
It’s very hard to get enough vitamin D from your diet alone, as it’s a fat-soluble vitamin. And the government’s decades-long advice to follow a low-fat diet stacked the deck against you. (Of course, now we know that advice was all-wrong, all-along.)
In most parts of the country, it’s difficult to get enough sun exposure year-round to activate vitamin D production in your skin. In fact, from October through April in most areas, the sun is just too low in the sky for the solar rays to activate vitamin D within skin.
Most Americans don’t get enough sun exposure to activate vitamin D production in the skin, even during the summer months, thanks to misguided dermatologists and the toxic sunscreen industry. They insist you need to avoid the sun or slather up with sunscreen, to prevent skin cancer. (Here’s what you should do in the sun.)
Of course, newer studies now show men and women with higher vitamin D levels have a much lower risk of developing melanoma, the one deadly form of skin cancer. Plus, people with higher vitamin D levels also experience improved survival rates when they get other forms of cancer, such as breast cancer.
For these reasons and many others, I view vitamin D supplementation as an absolute necessity for just about everyone.
But not everyone is on board with my recommendations.
Differing opinions on D
Even respected medical journals like the British Medical Journal in the U.K. (where they, too, could really use more sun and vitamin D) ritually publish editorials telling doctors it’s “too soon” to recommend vitamin D supplementation.
Yet, in these very same issues, they publish studies showing the clear benefits of higher vitamin D intake and/or higher levels of vitamin D in the blood. Worse yet, they sandwich these studies between advertisements for the dangerous drugs they do recommend.
Fortunately, some doctors are beginning to look seriously at the problem. But even when these doctors do take the time to measure your vitamin D levels, there’s a great deal of confusion about the kinds of testing and units of measure.
For example, we measure doses of vitamin D in “international units” (by potency, or biological activity) instead of milligram quantities (by weight), as we do with most other nutrients.
Some experts believe the confusion is intentional. Plus, I have to wonder whether the use of the IU “international unit” numbers is just to make the recommended doses of vitamin D seem “high,” when indeed, they are not.
For example, in the new study, the Type II diabetes patients who improved the markers of their disease took just 4,000 IU per day of vitamin D.
In weight terms, 4,000 IU is a shockingly small 100 micrograms per day. (That’s micrograms, not milligrams. And a microgram is one one-thousandth of a milligram, which is one one-thousandth of a gram.)
Of course, the crony mainstream medical system wants you to believe that 4,000 IU per day is a “high” level. In fact, a recent “fake news” headline tried to get us all worked up in worry about the increasing number of people who are actually taking 4,000 IU of vitamin D per day ¾ which should actually be taken as good news.
The mainstream considers this minimum effective dose to be the maximum acceptable dose.
By comparison, I recommend 10,000 IU per day for everyone, year-round. This amount should slowly help correct any deficiency or insufficiency, and put you on track to reach optimal levels, which will help you prevent and even reverse a host of chronic diseases — not just Type II diabetes.
And conveniently enough, today marks “World Diabetes Day” (a gimmick the mainstream uses to just funnel more money from Congress and private donors). Ignore their ill-informed “recommendations” and learn the real science-backed solutions right here in the Daily Dispatch, in my monthly newsletters and in my upcoming online learning protocol, Dr. Micozzi’s Integrative Protocol for Defeating Diabetes.
This new protocol includes complete details on all the uncommonly effective, commonsense strategies to prevent and reverse Type II diabetes. I’m putting the finishing touches on it now, and will let you know as soon as it’s ready for release. So, stay tuned!
“The Effect of Improved Serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Status on Glycemic Control in Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis,” J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017 September 1; 102(9): 3097-3110