Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IOM Report...New Dietary...Levels...Calcium...Vitamin D...Maintain Health...Avoid Risks...
INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE ^ | November 30, 2010 | Unknown

Posted on 11/30/2010 6:57:33 AM PST by decimon

Most Americans and Canadians up to age 70 need no more than 600 international units (IUs) of vitamin D per day to maintain health, and those 71 and older may need as much as 800 IUs, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. The amount of calcium needed ranges, based on age, from 700 to 1,300 milligrams per day...

>

A large amount of evidence, which formed the basis of the new intake values, confirms the roles of calcium and vitamin D in promoting skeletal growth and maintenance and the amounts needed to avoid poor bone health.

>

The science on calcium's role in bone health shows that 700 milligrams per day meets the needs of almost all children ages 1 through 3, and 1,000 milligrams daily is appropriate for almost all children ages 4 through 8. Adolescents ages 9 through 18 require no more than 1,300 milligrams per day. For practically all adults ages 19 through 50 and for men until age 71, 1,000 milligrams covers daily calcium needs. Women starting at age 51 and both men and women age 71 and older need no more than 1,200 milligrams per day.

As for vitamin D, 600 IUs daily meets the needs of almost everyone in the United States and Canada, although people 71 and older may require as much as 800 IUs per day because of potential physical and behavioral changes related to aging.

>

Greater amounts of food fortification and rising rates of supplement use have increased the chances that people consume high amounts of these nutrients. Getting too much calcium from dietary supplements has been associated with kidney stones, while excessive vitamin D can damage the kidneys and heart.

>

(Excerpt) Read more at 8.nationalacademies.org ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: calcium; hypercalcemia; pancreas; pancreaticcancer; vitamind; vitamindtoxicity

1 posted on 11/30/2010 6:57:35 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem; DvdMom; grey_whiskers; Ladysmith; Roos_Girl

Ping


2 posted on 11/30/2010 6:58:12 AM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
One year ago, 70% of USA children had Vit D deficiency.

This stuff is all just a bunch of cr** depending on who is "creating" the stats.

Just take a regular one a day vitamin, eat a "heart"y dinner, be happy and drink milk not soda.

US Gov: Stop feeding the school kids!!

3 posted on 11/30/2010 7:06:30 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon
Just another trial lawyer financed “report.”

Guess it's time to sue “Big Supplemental.”

4 posted on 11/30/2010 7:11:15 AM PST by Happy Rain ("GO GAMECOCKS--THE REAL USC!!!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: decimon

It was only a year ago that the CDC was reporting that men in their 50’s were in need of vitimin D supplements.Now they’re saying just the opposite.

We just have to ignore these idiots before kill us.


5 posted on 11/30/2010 7:24:07 AM PST by puppypusher (The World is going to the dogs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

To quote Judge Judy: "Follow the money."

These kinds of revelations have one purpose: to get government grant money.
6 posted on 11/30/2010 7:46:07 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: decimon
Quels morons!

Cheers!

7 posted on 11/30/2010 8:57:46 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puppypusher; decimon; austinmark; FreedomCalls; IslandJeff; JRochelle; MarMema; Txsleuth; ...
It was only a year ago that the CDC was reporting that men in their 50’s were in need of vitimin D supplements.Now they’re saying just the opposite.

The CDC is a different part of the gov't. The Institute of Medicine, another part, of the National Academy of Sciences, generated this opinion.

From the source:

The report's recommendations take into account nearly 1,000 published studies as well as testimony from scientists and stakeholders. A large amount of evidence, which formed the basis of the new intake values, confirms the roles of calcium and vitamin D in promoting skeletal growth and maintenance and the amounts needed to avoid poor bone health. The committee that wrote the report also reviewed hundreds of studies and reports on other possible health effects of vitamin D, such as protection against cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes. While these studies point to possibilities that warrant further investigation, they have yielded conflicting and mixed results and do not offer the evidence needed to confirm that vitamin D has these effects. Rigorous trials that yield consistent results are vital for reaching conclusions, as past experiences have shown. Vitamin E, for example, was believed to protect against heart disease before further studies disproved it.

Whose testimony from scientists and which stakeholders?

Based on available data, almost all individuals get sufficient vitamin D when their blood levels are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter as it is measured in America, or 50 nanomoles per liter as measured in Canada.

How about some double blind, randomly controlled studies? IMHO, read the entire press release. Half of it is used to identify those on the board who agree with it.

FReepmail me if you want on or off the diabetes ping list.

8 posted on 12/01/2010 9:07:16 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
What's interesting is that we are not told what studies they looked at....were the studies just on D2....which we know does not work the same as D3 (cholecalciferol)??

Check out who is on the 'President's Club' of this outfit and then tell me there is another agenda....

http://www.iom.edu/Global/Directory.aspx?committee1=TPC

Brief rundown -

Norman Augustine - Lockheed Martin Corporation

Donald Beall - Rockwell International Corporation

Malin Burnham - Cushman & Wakefield

Richard Foster - Investment & Advisory Services, LLC

Jack Gill - Vanguard Venture Partners

Jane Hirsh - Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc.

Charles Holliday - Bank of America

Christopher Ireland - Cheskin Associates, Inc.

Irwin Jacobs - Qualcomm Incorporated

John McDonnell - McDonnell Douglas Corporation

John Reed - Citicorp

Sara Schupf - Sara Lee Corporation

Thomas Sutton - Pacific Life Insurance Company

Judy Swanson - The Swanson Foundation

9 posted on 12/01/2010 11:57:32 AM PST by BossLady (Even Russia has a 13% Flat Tax!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obfuscation is how they make the money.


10 posted on 12/01/2010 3:54:42 PM PST by Lady Jag (Double your income... Fire the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson