Report from the Institute of Medicine about Vitamin D

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20024097-10391704.html

 

Re: Recent Vitamin D study suggest supplement unnecessary, high doses risky

Thanks for posting Carrie. Always good to have both sides.

 

Re: Recent Vitamin D study suggest supplement unnecessary, high doses risky

I have always thought a rule of thumb on nutrients was to look to our evolution. Do we get more or less of these things than did our distant ancestors? We evolved to need what they got generally. I don't think we need as much food in general as we have come to think we do in modern times. We need to be aware of the possibility of nutrient deficiencies but I don't think more is better in most cases.

 

Re: Recent Vitamin D study suggest supplement unnecessary, high doses risky

This was not a "Vitamin D Study." It was a report from the Institute of Medicine, a self-selected group of scientists and physicians who make proclamations on various health topics. Only 65 individuals are allowed to become members each year, and are elected by the current membership (http://www.iom.edu/).

Their report certainly does claim -- in the dismissal of dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and studies to the contrary (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research.shtml) -- that increased supplemental vitamin D is unneccessary.

But it, in fact, does not claim that "high doses" are risky. Specifically, the report states, "Very high levels of vitamin D (above 10,000 IUs per day) are known to cause kidney and tissue damage. Strong evidence about possible risks for daily vitamin D at lower levels of intake is limited, but some preliminary studies offer tentative signals about adverse health effects."

In fact, the report now states that 4000 IU should be the upper daily limit of vitamin D, a doubling from the former 2000 IU. The report clearly states that this higher "upper limit" is not to be construed as a daily dosage recommendation. But it's still twice the earlier upper "limit."

It would be inappropriate (or rather, useless) for me to propose here that one's medical and nutritional decisions should be guided solely by the IOM's pronouncements on such matters. The same report dismissing increased daily intake of vitamin D also states that virtually all Americans, except for some 9 to 12 year old girls get plenty of dietary calcium and no efforts are needed to supplement American diets with this ion.

The real question here to ask is this. Just why are there dozens upon dozens of physicians and medical researchers, such as those at the Vitamin D Council (among many others) stating without reservation that a mere 400 to 800 IU of daily vitamin D will create a host of medical problems, based upon dozens upon dozens of studies clearly showing that those people and populations with the lowest serum vitamin D levels suffer the greatest from a host of medical problems? The converse is true. People and populations with the highest serum vitamin D levels have the lowest rates of various diseases; with the classic case being multiple sclerosis.

The IOM, in its report, implied strongly that 20 ng/ml of serum vitamin D is entirely sufficient and normal. If anyone wants to think this is so, please do not read any of the dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles and reports posted on (but not written by) the Vitamin D Council, at the Council link above. Across the board, for a multitude of diseases and conditions, serum vitamin D levels are inversely proportional to the occurance and severity of a multitude of human conditions and diseases.

If the IOM is correct, stop taking vitamin D, as you will get enough (D-2, that is) in milk and orange juice. And stop taking any calcium to prevent, stop, or reverse your osteoporosis. You get enough in your diet, so these self-selected experts claim.

Their report is here:
http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D/Vitamin%20D%20and%20Calcium%202010%20Report%20Brief.pdf

It will be used extensively by medical defense lawyers defending medical practitioners in tort cases who failed or refused to test their patients' serum vitamin D levels, where it was in fact very low and other evidence shows conclusively that vitamin D supplementation bringing serum levels into the 30 to 50 ng/ml range has great health benefits.

I'll continue to pop my 6000 IU of vitamin D3 each day. I haven't had a cold or flu since doing this, don't have mid-wnter SAD (winter blues) any more, sleep better, and my thyroid now functions better, with reduced levothyroxine. But what can I know? --Only what I read in the multitude of medical research reports that the IOM people decided to reject or dismiss. Their standards of "evidence" are very different from mine, bless their scientific hearts (which are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease, given their "normal" serum vitamin D levels of 20 ng/ml or less). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20352623 -- " In our opinion, the current knowledge of the beneficial effects of vitamin D on myocardial and overall health strongly argue for vitamin D supplementation in all vitamin D-deficient patients with or at high risk for myocardial diseases."]

--John of ohio

 

Changed the title to remove the word "study"


Excerpt from the article re use of the word risky"

"A National Cancer Institute study last summer was the latest to report no cancer protection from vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the highest D levels. Doses above 10,000 IU a day are known to cause kidney damage, and today's report sets 4,000 IU as an upper daily limit - but not the amount people should strive for."

 

Re: Recent Vitamin D study suggest supplement unnecessary, high doses risky



Where attention really needs to be paid is the movement to restrict the availability of supplements.
(The bill currently in congress H.R. Bill 207 has huge implications)

This article will be used to support the position that supplements should not be over the counter or available at all.
Same sort of political positioning is occurring in many different countries, probably with the same "players" backing it.
They just need a tiny opening...

 

The National Cancer Institute is welcome to their view that there can be "no cancer protection from vitamin D."

But is would be incorrect to presume that other medical professionals agree with that pronouncememt. Merely to show that the Cancer Institute's view is not universally accepted by the medical profession, I've pasted in the abstract of just one published journal article at odds with the Institute. Remember, to get such an article published in a medical journal, an entire team of professional researchers and physicians must review the submitted article for accuracy. The abstract states following, with text I've highlighted in blue:

----

Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Jul;19(7):468-83.
Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective.Garland CF, Gorham ED, Mohr SB, Garland FC.

Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Abstract
PURPOSE: Higher serum levels of the main circulating form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D), are associated with substantially lower incidence rates of colon, breast, ovarian, renal, pancreatic, aggressive prostate and other cancers.

METHODS: Epidemiological findings combined with newly discovered mechanisms suggest a new model of cancer etiology that accounts for these actions of 25(OH)D and calcium. Its seven phases are disjunction, initiation, natural selection, overgrowth, metastasis, involution, and transition (abbreviated DINOMIT). Vitamin D metabolites prevent disjunction of cells and are beneficial in other phases.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: It is projected that raising the minimum year-around serum 25(OH)D level to 40 to 60 ng/mL (100-150 nmol/L) would prevent approximately 58,000 new cases of breast cancer and 49,000 new cases of colorectal cancer each year, and three fourths of deaths from these diseases in the United States and Canada, based on observational studies combined with a randomized trial. Such intakes also are expected to reduce case-fatality rates of patients who have breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer by half. There are no unreasonable risks from intake of 2000 IU per day of vitamin D(3), or from a population serum 25(OH)D level of 40 to 60 ng/mL. The time has arrived for nationally coordinated action to substantially increase intake of vitamin D and calcium.

----

These researchers state that at least a hundred thousand cases of breast and colorectal cancers could be prevented each year with serum vitamin D levels of 40 to 60 ng/ml. The National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that any of this would occur.

Each of us must choose (or neglect) which experts and which information we follow.

--John of Ohio

 

As for me...well, associations are known to be wrong a lot of the time. I say we start a group called "Scientists for Truth" that will publish REAL RESULTS on a variety of issues that need attention, but which get shoved aside due to politics. Politics has no place in science-based truth. That's quite obvious in so many arenas these days.

As for me...I'm going to be adding the D3 to my personal regimen because it just makes sense. Maybe there is a whole great big population of healthy happy people out there with perfect body chemistries who eat perfect food and get perfect sleep and perfect exercise. They would also have to live in perfect, pollution-free environments and drink pure water and have only the perfect amount of stress in their lives...the creative kind...not the killing kind like the rest of us have. Maybe THEY don't need supplementation to help them heal.

But maybe I DO.

Thanks for keeping it honest, JOH.

 

It's too bad that on this forum there can't be a normal back and forth about VMS. There is no need to take sides.

Can't we just speak as adults and share information. Because one person posts an article about vitamin D doesn't mean it dismisses anyone elses opinion.

There is also a big difference between taking the RDA which is proven safe and megadosing on any given vitamin so please don't start comparing apples to oranges when discussing this.

As has been said many, many times here we are all capable of making our own decisions on what we ingest so I don't feel it is necessary for posters to be attacked when they find something newsworthy. This same story is running on our 6 o'clock news tonight so it will be big news whether you like it or not.

I may post something which agrees or disagrees with my own opinion but if it is worth considering it is worth posting. I take vitamin D but also like to read all info relevant to it.

 

Caroline I think this debate has been had and the outcome made known. Solari doesn't want people critiquing treatments which have been the solution for others.

 

Thanks for the info Carrie and John!
It's good to have info so we can make an informed decision.

 

amen

 

Caroline, I think the problem is that the RDA's are proven safe in terms of not overdosing, but John has shown that they have been proven UNsafe in terms of people thinking that the RDA is enough, when in many cases, it seems to be not only low, but DANGEROUSLY low.

 

Again, I am not taking sides here, just want an open discussion. People should have their levels checked and if deficient make the necessary adjustments to dosages.

When it comes to Vit. D I take double the RDA but am comfortable with that decision based on what I have read. That is why I like to read both sides (hate that term because it is not about being on one side or the other) to determine my comfort level with any VMS.

 

Caroline,
I agree with everything you said. It is so important to hear both sides. As a layperson, I have no way of determining which "side" is correct. I can only read, ask questions and do my best to make informed decisions.

 

60000 per day for me.

 

I meant 6000.

<insert self-retard comment>

 

2 years at 5000 a day for me...... rarely get a virus now...

its best to look at original reports....the media often doesnt summarize things well at all.....just saying....

6'2" and 185

 

15K almost every day plus direct sunshine as often as possible all summer and even now, still try to be outside for 10 - 20 minutes of sunshine every day which isn't hard considering where I live.
Eventually, my dose will drop down to 5K, maybe in the spring.

Following John's advice, I have raised my levels from 42 to 63 but I am monitored by 3 specialists and ALL agree on my supplementation.
My kidney and liver functions are perfect but once again, it's monitored.
I haven't had any colds, flu, viruses either.
My Lymphatic system is less congested as shown by thermography in July and November.

I think it's very important to have a health professional working "with" you. Some are open minded, others are ... not.
I know some can not afford/do not have health insurance but one can order the Vit. D blood test privately, if they wanted to get a base line.

A study can be spun either way. Even doctors will tell you not to rely on the outcome of one study since it can easily be biased. One would have to read many studies from different sources and follow the funding of the study to see the trend of true data. Not all studies are created equal.