It is apparently alleged that vitamin D deficiency in pre-menopausal women may increase the possibility of developing systolic hypertension some 15 years later. This was claimed by a study which was announced at the American Heart Association’s 63rd High Blood Pressure Research Conference.
Study experts apparently monitored women who were supposedly enlisted in the Michigan Bone Health and Metabolism Study. The data from about 559 Caucasian women living in Tecumseh, Mich were analyzed. The continuing research apparently commenced in 1992 when the women were around 24 to 44 years old with an average age of 38 years.
The blood pressure readings were taken yearly during the research. They claimed to calculate vitamin D blood levels once in 1993, and then it was supposedly weighed against their systolic blood pressure measurements which were apparently taken in 2007. Premenopausal women who had vitamin D deficiency in 1993 apparently had three times more chances of developing systolic hypertension some 15 years later as opposed to those who had regular levels of vitamin D.
Flojaune C. Griffin, M.P.H., co-investigator of the study and a doctoral candidate in epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health in Ann Arbor, Mich, commented, “This study differs from others because we are looking over the course of 15 years, a longer follow-up than many studies. Our results indicate that early vitamin D deficiency may increase the long-term risk of high blood pressure in women at mid-life.”
In the beginning of the study, around 2 percent of women had apparently been detected or were being treated for hypertension and an added 4 percent of the women supposedly had undiagnosed systolic hypertension, which may be described as 140 millimeters of mercury or more. But some 15 years later, about 19 percent of the women were claimed to be detected or were alleged to being treated for hypertension and an added 6 percent apparently had undiagnosed systolic hypertension, which may be a notable distinction.
The experts evaluated the position of vitamin D by apparently gauging blood concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D i.e. 25(OH) D in 1993. 25(OH) D may be a prehormone in blood that could be formed in the liver from the metabolism of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol. Serum 25(OH) D is believed to be the main form that is apparently tested when probing vitamin D deficiency as it may stand for vitamin D storage in the body.
This evaluation in the blood could be a sign of vitamin D which may be acquired from ultraviolet B rays through sun exposure, vitamin D from foods like fatty fish or prepared milk products and nutritional supplements. Experts apparently did not scan the effect of these diverse sources of vitamin D.
Specialists in the medical community believe that vitamin D deficiency among women is said to be extensive. Some experts account that several women don’t get enough sunlight exposure which might aid in neither keeping vitamin D levels close to normal, nor do they have diets or practice supplementation that may sustain standard levels of vitamin D.
Nevertheless, Griffin mentioned that different people vary with their optimal intake of Vitamin D. Few experts are of the opinion that the present recommended intake of 400 international units (IU) to 600 IU daily is apparently insufficient and they claim that a much higher daily intake, from 1,000 IU to 5000 IU may be sufficient enough.
Vitamin D may have a well-established function for bone health. Other recent studies signify that vitamin D deficiency in women may increase the possibility of acquiring some cancers and could have a negative effect on immune function and inflammatory diseases.