4 ms·

Vitamin D: A dosing down?

35 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

dejb 16y ago
The actual 'report brief' is a lot better. It's at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-fo... The takeaway is that the maximum daily level intake they have is 4000IU for adults and their recommendation is 600IU.
teilo 16y ago
Things missing in the report brief: What form of Vitamin D? D-3? How does this play into the fact that an adult body in direct summer sunlight produces several thousand units within a half hour?
- Evgeny 16y ago
  I used to take 3000IU in the morning and 3000IU in the evening regularly (but not for a long time - for a few months, maybe 4-5). I can't point and say "i felt better here and here" though. I didn't feel any negative effect too. I'm still taking Vitamin D3 regularly, but often forget, so on average I may take about 10000IU a week. I don't remember the source, but I think a lifeguard on the beach would produce about 8000IU of Vitamin D during a day.
  - teilo 16y ago
    The figures I've seen are much higher than that. By the end of the day, the lifeguard should have produced 20,000IU, but that is mostly because after the concentration reaches about 20,000, the sunlight begins to break down any excess, so it cannot climb higher than that. Interesting chemistry. So it begs the question - where did the "4000IU max intake" figure come from?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
grishas 16y ago
The big problem here is that no one actually really knows just how much vitamin D is necessary. So their claims of X units per day recommended are just as bogus as those claiming 2X or 3X. Until we can actually figure out just where all that vit D is supposed to be used in the body, we're just making it up. (It should be noted that this study only seems concerned with bone growth-- something we are not sure of yet is vitamin D's only function)
robchez 16y ago
Dr Will Davis has a post on the brief. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-institute-of-medicine-should-have.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-institute-of-... Section of Text: Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age. Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health. My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.
- adammichaelc 16y ago
  Here is the vitamin D Council's rebuttal to the IOM's new recommendations, written by John Cannell, an MD and long-time commentary-man on vitamin D science: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vdc-statement-fnb-vitamin-d-report.shtml http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vdc-statement-fnb-vitamin-d-r...
Andrenid 16y ago
I'm a person currently battling Stage IV cancer, with a 30% chance of surviving 3 years, and which I got from a vitamin D deficiency (Advanced Nodular Melanoma). My Vitamin D deficiency was off the charts, attributed to an entire life in front of a computer (to say i'm "pale" would be an understatement, as i'm sure is the same for a lot of us on this site). Every few days a new link is sent to me about "new studies" showing that Vitamin D in 'x' amount or 'y' amount is required/dangerous/whatever. I see one of the best Oncologists in the country about my ongoing treatment, and he has had me on 3000IU a day over the last 6 months, and it has made me feel better in so many ways. Everyone says I look healthier, I have more energy, I sleep better, and I just feel more "alive", even as the cancer eats away at me inside. I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in one what the perfect amount is, or what the limit is, as I don't understand most of it, but 1 thing I know is that the deficiency vs how I feel now is 2 different people, so it's definitely an important health aspect that needs to be better understood.

35 points by MikeCapone 16y ago

dejb 16y ago

The actual 'report brief' is a lot better. It's at http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Calcium-and-Vitamin-D.aspx http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-fo... The takeaway is that the maximum daily level intake they have is 4000IU for adults and their recommendation is 600IU.

teilo 16y ago

Things missing in the report brief: What form of Vitamin D? D-3? How does this play into the fact that an adult body in direct summer sunlight produces several thousand units within a half hour?

Evgeny 16y ago
I used to take 3000IU in the morning and 3000IU in the evening regularly (but not for a long time - for a few months, maybe 4-5). I can't point and say "i felt better here and here" though. I didn't feel any negative effect too. I'm still taking Vitamin D3 regularly, but often forget, so on average I may take about 10000IU a week. I don't remember the source, but I think a lifeguard on the beach would produce about 8000IU of Vitamin D during a day.
- teilo 16y ago
  The figures I've seen are much higher than that. By the end of the day, the lifeguard should have produced 20,000IU, but that is mostly because after the concentration reaches about 20,000, the sunlight begins to break down any excess, so it cannot climb higher than that. Interesting chemistry. So it begs the question - where did the "4000IU max intake" figure come from?
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

grishas 16y ago

The big problem here is that no one actually really knows just how much vitamin D is necessary. So their claims of X units per day recommended are just as bogus as those claiming 2X or 3X. Until we can actually figure out just where all that vit D is supposed to be used in the body, we're just making it up. (It should be noted that this study only seems concerned with bone growth-- something we are not sure of yet is vitamin D's only function)

robchez 16y ago

Dr Will Davis has a post on the brief. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-institute-of-medicine-should-have.html http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-institute-of-... Section of Text: Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age. Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health. My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.

adammichaelc 16y ago
Here is the vitamin D Council's rebuttal to the IOM's new recommendations, written by John Cannell, an MD and long-time commentary-man on vitamin D science: http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vdc-statement-fnb-vitamin-d-report.shtml http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vdc-statement-fnb-vitamin-d-r...

Andrenid 16y ago

I'm a person currently battling Stage IV cancer, with a 30% chance of surviving 3 years, and which I got from a vitamin D deficiency (Advanced Nodular Melanoma). My Vitamin D deficiency was off the charts, attributed to an entire life in front of a computer (to say i'm "pale" would be an understatement, as i'm sure is the same for a lot of us on this site). Every few days a new link is sent to me about "new studies" showing that Vitamin D in 'x' amount or 'y' amount is required/dangerous/whatever. I see one of the best Oncologists in the country about my ongoing treatment, and he has had me on 3000IU a day over the last 6 months, and it has made me feel better in so many ways. Everyone says I look healthier, I have more energy, I sleep better, and I just feel more "alive", even as the cancer eats away at me inside. I'm not knowledgeable enough to weigh in one what the perfect amount is, or what the limit is, as I don't understand most of it, but 1 thing I know is that the deficiency vs how I feel now is 2 different people, so it's definitely an important health aspect that needs to be better understood.