December 4, 2009
Which is more deadly —
high cholesterol or
low vitamin D levels?
You've undoubtedly heard that high cholesterol can be deadly. However, I've told my readers for years that it isn't how high your cholesterol level is. It's how well your body handles that cholesterol. So I'm not nearly as concerned about your cholesterol levels as most doctors.
In fact, there's another risk factor that's far more critical for your health and longevity. That's vitamin D. Two important studies came out recently that showed why a vitamin D deficiency is far more deadly than high cholesterol.
The first study followed 13,331 adults over 20 years of age. The researchers followed them for an average of 8.7 years. They found a 26% increase in all-cause mortality among those with the lowest vitamin D blood level (<17.8 ng/ml).
A second study on 3,299 Austrian subjects showed a dramatically increased risk of heart disease in those in the lowest quartile. They suffered a nearly three-fold increased risk for death due to heart failure. And they had a five-fold increased risk for sudden cardiac death.
Could you detect a deadly poison in a healthy-looking meal?
The answer may shock you…
Click Here To Learn More
Wondering if you're deficient? You probably are. The researchers in the first study found that older folks have a greater risk of deficiency. As do females and non-whites, diabetics, smokers, and those who are overweight. In other words, most people are deficient.
If you're deficient in vitamin D, it puts you at a much higher risk of death from all causes. It's a substantially higher risk that the supposed cholesterol level risks. You don't want to be a part of the vitamin D deficiency epidemic!
The good news is a vitamin D deficiency is much easier to correct than high cholesterol. All you have to do is take a supplement (5,000 units daily). Advanced Bionutritionals has a high-quality vitamin D3 supplement that's very affordable. You can learn more about it by following this link.
Yours for better health and medical freedom,
Ref: Arch Intern Med, 2008; 168(15): 1629-37.