Archive for November 19th, 2009

h1

Research mounts showing Vitamin D’s health benefits

November 19, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

Over the past year or so I’ve been following the debate and research on Vitamin D intake. Initially Vitamin D supplementation was recommended simply to reduce the incidence of rickets in children, but increasingly Vitamin D is associated with a wide range of health benefits, from reducing fatigue to improving metabolism to improving heart health. Vitamin D has become a particular challenge in the past 30 years, because we’ve gotten out of the stereotypical “spoonful of cod liver oil” that was popular in the early 20th century (fish oils are rich in Vitamin D and in omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids that are good for metabolism and for the heart). At the same time, we’ve increased our use of sunscreen, and since almost no foods are rich in Vitamin D, the primary way to get it is to expose your skin to sunlight for 10-60 minutes per day, depending on time of year (less in summer, more in winter). Sunscreen blocks Vitamin D absorption while protecting us from skin cancer.

This week a new study was released and presented at the American Heart Association meetings, as reported in this Yahoo/AP story and this longer New York Times story. As the NYT summarized the results:

In the study, researchers looked at tens of thousands of healthy adults 50 and older whose vitamin D levels had been measured during routine checkups. A majority, they found, were deficient in the vitamin. About two-thirds had less vitamin D in their bloodstreams than the authors considered healthy, and many were extremely deficient.

Less than two years later, the researchers found, those who had extremely low levels of the vitamin were almost twice as likely to have died or suffered a stroke than those with adequate amounts. They also had more coronary artery disease and were twice as likely to have developed heart failure.

The findings, which are being presented today at an American Heart Association conference in Orlando, don’t prove that lack of vitamin D causes heart disease; they only suggest a link between the two. But cardiologists are starting to pay increasing attention because of what they’re learning about vitamin D’s roles in regulating blood pressure, inflammation and glucose control — all critical body processes in cardiovascular health.

The article goes into much more detail about the study, and is a very worthy read.

The sports nutrition community have also been paying attention to Vitamin D for a while, and these new results reinforce the idea that Vitamin D levels are an important factor in athletic performance, in addition to overall health. This article from Competitor discusses the role of Vitamin D in fatigue in endurance athletes, something that we frequently attribute to iron deficiency instead (especially in women), but it may be that Vitamin D is a culprit too. The author, a dietitian, summarizes some sports research on Vitamin D levels:

This was my very first experience with vitamin D deficiency and I have since learned that vitamin D deficiency is becoming an epidemic worldwide, not only in geographic regions where sun exposure is limited.  And my discussions with fellow dietitians working with college runners and professional athletes in generally sunny states (Texas and Florida) confirmed the alarming prevalence of vitamin D deficiency across ethnicity and gender.

Athletes who live in northern latitudes (north of 35 degrees), or use sunscreen consistently, perform their sport indoors, or keep their skin covered are at the greatest risk.  Melanin affects the production of vitamin D.  So those with more melanin or darker skin produce less vitamin D.  Since vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, athletes with fat malabsorption problems such as cystic fibrosis, Crohn’s disease, and celiac disease are at risk for deficiency.  Those who have normal levels typically (around 50 ng/ml) live in sub-equatorial Africa and work outdoors for most of the summer.

Once thought of as being primarily involved in bone development, activated vitamin D (calcitriol), a steroid hormone, is responsible for regulating more than 1000 human genes.  Almost every cell in the human body has receptors for vitamin D.  Recent research shows that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of different types of cancer (such as breast cancer and prostate cancer), as well as heart disease, diabetes, depression, autoimmune diseases, hypertension, obesity, gum disease, chronic pain, muscle wasting, inflammation, birth defects, osteoporosis, influenza and colds, etc.

So here’s my public service announcement for the day: at your next annual checkup when you order your blood work, ask to have your Vitamin D levels tested. And think about the sunscreen-Vitamin D tradeoff; getting 30 minutes of unobstructed sun is unlikely to increase skin cancer risk enough to outweigh the Vitamin D benefits from the sun absorption. Vitamin D supplementation is also low-risk; I figure between my multi and my fish oil and my Vitamin D I get about 800 IU, and I have noticed decreases in my fatigue levels.

h1

Jonah Lehrer channels his inner economist

November 19, 2009

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve recommended Jonah Lehrer’s The Frontal Cortex blog before, and if you haven’t checked it out, here are two more reasons to do so. His most recent post discusses Bill Belichick’s decision to go for the first down from 4th and 2 in Sunday night’s Patriots game, and ties it to David Gordon’s research on whether or not NFL coaches follow the optimal 4th down strategy:

… it illustrates the difficulty of making rational decisions, even when the evidence supports the call.

I’ve blogged about the research of UC Berkeley economist David Romer before, but his basic thesis, based on an exhaustive statistical analysis of 4th down scenarios, is that NFL coaches are irrationally risk-averse. They punt the ball way too frequently and kick far too many field goals.

Belichick was an econ major, and has expressed a familiarity with Romer’s research.

Lehrer then goes on to discuss this risk-aversion research, with links to other analyses of Belichick’s decision. One of the fascinating aspects of the 4th down decision that Lehrer highlights is that Belichick was statistically correct to go for it, but it’s emotionally difficult for coaches to make that call (and for fans to endure it). The probability part is also interesting — even with a higher probability of making a field goal, this research shows that going for the 1st down on 4th down increases the probability of winning.

On Tuesday Lehrer also remarked on the research of my Kellogg colleague Jennifer Brown, who does some of the most interesting work I’ve seen in a long time. In her new working paper, “Quitters Never Win: The (Adverse) Incentive Effects of Competing with Superstars“, Jen finds that golfers in PGA tournaments perform more poorly when competing against Tiger Woods, especially when Woods is playing well. She and Lehrer have different hypotheses for this result, as Lehrer notes:

Brown argues that this phenomenon is caused when “competitors scale back their effort in events where they believe Woods will surely win.” After all, why waste energy and angst on an impossible contest?

That hypothesis is certainly possible, but I’d argue that the superstar effect has more to do with “paralysis by analysis” than with decreased motivation. I’d bet that playing with Tiger Woods makes golfers extra self-conscious, and that such self-consciousness leads to choking and decreased performance. The problem, then, isn’t that golfers aren’t trying hard enough when playing against Tiger – it’s that they’re trying too hard.

I wonder if there’s a way to test these two hypotheses? I think given her data that it might be difficult; testing such a hypothesis may require biometric data like heart rate, sweating, etc. I frankly am more inclined toward Lehrer’s hypothesis, based on my reading of neuropsychology and my non-Tiger-Woods-like experience of athletic competition; the “trying too hard” fits with my experience of athlete psychology. But I’d really like to see if there’s a way to discriminate between the two.

h1

More on natural gas from shale and its critic

November 19, 2009

Michael Giberson

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has a story on shale gas production critic Art Berman:

Arthur Berman runs a one-man energy consulting firm out of his home near Houston, producing research that says forecasts for natural gas production in the U.S. are flawed. He’s won the industry’s attention and its anger.

Since last month, Chesapeake Energy and Devon Energy, two of the five largest gas producers in the U.S., attacked Berman’s claims. Berman, 59, had his monthly column pulled from the November issue of World Oil after gas companies complained, prompting him to quit the trade journal.

Berman, an oil geologist who worked two decades for Amoco, says company production projections for shale gas in the U.S. are at least double what drill results justify. At issue is the rate of production decline in shale wells, where water, sand and other materials are injected to fracture rock and make gas flow.

“I think that the wells decline at a much higher rate than the operators think they do,” Berman said in an interview in Houston. “They’re being overly optimistic.”

More on the dispute at the linked article.

[HT to NewsWatch: Energy]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers