Jump to content
Ron Put

Too Much Calcium (combined with Vitamin D, or not) = Stroke

Recommended Posts

Not sure if calcium+vitamin D supplementation has been discussed here, but therre have been some studies which indicate that higher doses can increase arteriosclerosis and the risk of stroke.

I take vitamin D (2000 per day) and my OH-25 vitamin D is about 45 ng/mL. I also take calcium occasionally, usually about 1g per day, but skip a month or two between bottles. Now I am thinking of dropping calcium supplementation altogether.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject and it appears that high doses (over 1g) of calcium may be the culprit (but also, other studies show that high doses of vitamin D are detrimental).
 

"Recent studies of the effect of calcium supplementation on the risks of heart attack and stroke have reached conflicting conclusions, so the researchers used three different scenarios based on results from previous studies. The high-risk model predicted that more than 10 000 heart attacks and strokes would be caused by supplemental calcium and vitamin D in a group of 100 000 65 year old women, whereas the medium-risk model predicted about 5000.

Both models showed that the number of years of high-quality life lost by taking calcium was higher than the number of years of high-quality life saved by preventing broken bones."

But other studies seem to indicate that the culprit is high doses of supplements. https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2016/05/calcium-supplements-can-increase-risk-of-heart-attack-stroke/

 

This one seems to blame calcium alone:

Risk of Ischemic Stroke Associated With Calcium Supplements With or Without Vitamin D: A Nested Case‐Control Study

Background

There is controversy surrounding the risk of ischemic stroke associated with the use of calcium supplements either in monotherapy or in combination with vitamin D.

Methods and Results

A nested case‐control study was performed with patients aged 40 to 89 years old, among whom a total of 2690 patients had a first episode of nonfatal ischemic stroke and for which 19 538 controls were randomly selected from the source population and frequency‐matched with cases for age, sex, and calendar year. Logistic regression provided the odds ratios while adjusting for confounding factors. A sensitivity analysis was performed by restricting to patients who were new users of calcium supplements as either monotherapy or with vitamin D. Calcium supplementation with vitamin D was not associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67–1.08) in the population as a whole or under any of the conditions examined (dose, duration, background cardiovascular risk, sex, or age). Calcium supplement monotherapy was not associated with an increased risk in the population as a whole (odds ratio 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–1.61), although a significant increased risk at high doses (≥1000 mg/day: odds ratio 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.25–3.49; <1000 mg: odds ratio 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.45–1.26) compared with nonuse was observed. The sensitivity analysis did not affect the inferences, with similar results observed among new users as to the overall study population.

Conclusions

This study suggests that calcium supplements given as monotherapy at high doses may increase the risk of ischemic stroke, whereas their combination with vitamin D seems to offset this hazard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Put said:

I also take calcium occasionally, usually about 1g per day, but skip a month or two between bottles. Now I am thinking of dropping calcium supplementation altogether.

I recently reduced my calcium supplementation from 500mg to 250mg per day based on the same evidence. 

--Dean 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why take any supplements at all ?

If you want calcium.......pizzza, cheese, ice cream, milk.

Vitamin D..........Sun.

Simple, Easy, Natural, and SAFE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dean Pomerleau said:

I recently reduced my calcium supplementation from 500mg to 250mg per day based on the same evidence. 

--Dean 

I take approximately the same, Dean.

2 AOR ortho mineral caps per day at different times is 286mg.

2 hours ago, DHL said:

Why take any supplements at all ?

If you want calcium.......pizzza, cheese, ice cream, milk.

Vitamin D..........Sun.

Simple, Easy, Natural, and SAFE.

Many people are unable to get enough sun due to where they live or prefer the hormone via supplement which raises serum levels same as sun exposure without UV damage to skin.  Now THATS simple, easy and SAFE.

Pizza and ice cream aren’t high on the list when it comes to a diet that supports healthspan and lifespan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/11/2019 at 2:46 AM, DHL said:

Why take any supplements at all ?

If you want calcium.......pizzza, cheese, ice cream, milk.

Vitamin D..........Sun.

Simple, Easy, Natural, and SAFE.

I am a vegetarian (90% vegan), so I need to supplement with B12, as I am not sure that at my age sun exposure and sun-exposed mushrooms provide enough daily B12.

I also take vitamin D, since my blood levels were at the low end before I started supplementing. As we age, our bodies become much less efficient at providing vitamin D from sunlight -- a 70 year old's vitamin D production efficiency is approximately 25% of a 20 year old's efficiency.

As to calcium, dandelion greens, spinach or tofu are probably better (at least for most here) than pizza or ice cream :) Plus, calcium absorption in obese people can be reduced as much as 50%....

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting observations of vitamin D in familial longevity:

Levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in familial longevity: the Leiden Longevity Study.

"Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Low levels of 25(OH) vitamin D are associated with various age-related diseases and mortality, but causality has not been determined. We investigated vitamin D levels in the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least one nonagenarian sibling; these offspring have a lower prevalence of age-related diseases and a higher propensity to reach old age compared with their partners.

METHODS:

We assessed anthropometric characteristics, 25(OH) vitamin D levels, parathyroid hormone levels, dietary vitamin D intake and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with vitamin D levels. We included offspring (n = 1038) of nonagenarians who had at least one nonagenarian sibling, and the offsprings' partners (n = 461; controls) from the Leiden Longevity Study. We included age, sex, body mass index, month during which blood sampling was performed, dietary and supplemental vitamin D intake, and creatinine levels as possible confounding factors.

RESULTS:

The offspring had significantly lower levels of vitamin D (64.3 nmol/L) compared with controls (68.4 nmol/L; p = 0.002), independent of possible confounding factors. There was no difference in the levels of parathyroid hormone between groups. Compared with controls, the offspring had a lower frequency of a genetic variant in the CYP2R1 gene (rs2060793) (p = 0.04). The difference in vitamin D levels between offspring and controls persisted over the 2 most prevalent genotypes of this SNP.

INTERPRETATION:

Compared with controls, the offspring of nonagenarians who had at least one nonagenarian sibling had a reduced frequency of a common variant in the CYP2R1 gene, which predisposes people to high vitamin D levels; they also had lower levels of vitamin D that persisted over the 2 most prevalent genotypes. These results cast doubt on the causal nature of previously reported associations between low levels of vitamin D and age-related diseases and mortality."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2020 at 7:22 PM, Ron Put said:

The offspring had significantly lower levels of vitamin D (64.3 nmol/L) compared with controls (68.4 nmol/L; p = 0.002), independent of possible confounding factors.

The difference would seem to be very small and unable to cause a longevity advantage. The impression is that researchers bend the meaning of the adverb+adjective (significantly lower) to their specific purposes. I would define the -6% difference as non-significantly lower, perhaps within the error bar.

  • 64.3 nmol/L = 25.7 micrograms/L
  • 68.4 nmol/L = 27.4 micrograms/L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calcium.

Good source for vegans= selected hi-Ca mineral water from carbonatic aquifers, almond milk

Good source for vegetarians: low or nonfat fresh yogurt, parmesan cheese if more calories are  allowed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×