Posted on 03/21/2015 2:39:51 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Newswise — SAN DIEGO, CA (March 16, 2015) - Researchers at UC San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates the need by a factor of ten.
In a letter1 published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at UC San Diego’s Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers2 from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.
“Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially,” said Garland. “The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health.”
The recommended intake of vitamin D specified by the IOM is 600 IU/day through age 70 years, and 800 IU/day for older ages. “Calculations by us and other researchers have shown that these doses are only about one-tenth those needed to cut incidence of diseases related to vitamin D deficiency,” Garland explained.
Robert Heaney, M.D., of Creighton University wrote: "We call for the NAS-IOM and all public health authorities concerned with transmitting accurate nutritional information to the public to designate, as the RDA, a value of approximately 7,000 IU/day from all sources.”
“This intake is well below the upper level intake specified by IOM as safe for teens and adults, 10,000 IU/day,” Garland said. Other authors were C. Baggerly and C. French, of GrassrootsHealth, a voluntary organization in San Diego CA, and E.D. Gorham, Ph.D., of UC San Diego.
About GrassrootsHealth:
GrassrootsHealth is a nonprofit public health research organization dedicated to moving public health messages regarding vitamin D from science into practice. GrassrootsHealth is currently running the D*action population intervention program to solve the vitamin D epidemic worldwide. Under the D*action umbrella, there are programs looking at the entire population as well as targeted programs for breast cancer prevention and a newly announced ‘Protect Our Children NOW!’ program to reduce the complications of vitamin D deficiency encountered during pregnancy and childhood.
# # #
1Heaney, R.P. et al. 2015. Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472 URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/3/1688
2Veugelers, P.J. et al. 2014. A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6(10), 4472-4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472 URL: http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/10/4472/htm.
I’ve been taking 4000 IU of Vitamin D3 daily, but I recently upgraded it to 5000 IU—plus another 1000 in my calcium citrate pills.
The new pills are mini soft gels, instead of capsules containing powder. Looks good to me.
Needless to say, I am not a doctor, and people should do their own due diligence and consult their doctors. I think this is a good source, and a reasonable price, but people may find something better:
http://www.vitacost.com/vitacost-vitamin-d3-5000-iu-365-softgels-mini-gels-7
Why should I believe the same bunch that told me to eat margarine that low fat foods are good for you?
Wow. That is really high. When the dr told you to reduce, what was their reason? What effect does too much vit D have on the body?
If you really think you would live better 5,000 years ago, we don't have much basis for a discussion.
Ok, I have a question. If this study shows you need more, than how does that square with the current results people are getting in their blood tests? Shouldn’t that level be required to be higher based on what this new study shows? Which came first, the blood test result or the amount to ingest?
I take 2000 IU/Day per my doctor’s instructions.
And, if you watch Sunday Housecall on FOX, both doctors also recommend 2000 IU/day.
As do I. The generic stuff is dirt cheap. I'm not sure that you can even find vitamin D capsules any lower than 5000 IU. Since the 5000's exceeded my doctor's 3000 IU recommendation, I just went for them
codex Alimentarius...
Throw away the sunscreen, go outside, huff down a Lucky Strike or 2 and have a beer. Science!
I’m so hesitant to rely on anecdotal date, but my doctor also put me on 5,000 IU a day (previously, I had taken no supplements), and I’ve gone from 2-3 colds a year, that lasted two weeks with nagging symptoms, to 1 cold in the last 3 years, where I felt bad for 1 day, and all symptoms gone after 3 days. So I’m onboard with vitamin D.
For quite some time I was feeling lousy. No explanation. Finally had my blood checked. Dr called me and said my vit D level was alarming low. Get on Vir D3 asap. Made a difference. Not expensive.
I take 4,000 IU D3 everyday. Plus 2,000 of calcium. We also take Tumeric and B complex.
“Who made that rule up?”
Nature decided. You should be able to achieve healthy levels through normal eating and outdoor activity. The human race would have died out long ago if that wasn’t the case. Supplements are intended for people who have a disease or some kind of dietary issue that limits nutrient bioavailability.
If you can't see the change, that's on you. Diets have changed, too. and lot of folks died from dietary deficiencies back before electic lights or printing or any of the modern stuff.
No rule there. Just your belief that you know best.
/johnny
My vitamin D count was so low my doc wrote a prescription for 50,000 IU per week. At first it was a pharmacy pill to get me back to normal but now I take 3,000 IU / day and that seems to be maintaining my numbers.
Since I have started this I have not gotten sick either.
Sub-lingual tabs...dissolved under the tongue
If you really think the food, water and air wasn't purer 5,000 years ago, which was the point of my comment, then you're right, we don't have much basis for a discussion.
No side affects except very vivid dreams.
It's good for blood chemistry among those of us who have fewer days ahead than behind, typically D3 (which I think is actually a vitamin precursor) packaged with fish oil for the good fats. Helps the immune system also. Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.
Concur! They've discovered that vitamin K plays a large role in the body's ability to store calcium correctly (e.g. in bones and not in arteries).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.