Bad information from the Institute of Medicine on Vitamin D....
Today's Post: Tuesday, 11-30-2010
The Institute of Medicine, the health section of the National Academy of Sciences, just released its awaited report on recommended amounts of vitamin D.
They flunked & flunked badly.
Despite ample information that has found vitamin D in levels higher than that to be both more necessary and beneficial than for just bone building, &
that since the earlier guidelines were written people today are dramatically more sedentary and outside in sunny weather dramatically less than they were;
AND people drank more vitamin D fortified milk then,
they saw no reason to do more than a token 200 iu increase.
Despite the co-author of the report, Joann Manson of Harvard Medical School, having what looks like good credentials, she somehow missed the information that people who work or play outside during the summer routinely get over 10,000 iu a day of vitamin D from the sun exposure or that it’s been reported that the human body will use at least 3,000 iu of vitamin D3 if it is available.
Further, the people who gathered her information apparently missed the study that found that 1700 iu of vitamin D3 a day produced a good health result while, 1,000 & under did not.
Even worse, this report also left alone the recommendations for calcium supplementation which recent research found WERE problematic. It seems that other than a few hundred mg in a multivitamin, it may only be safe to get your calcium intake from food. Research recently found that with calcium, the sudden release from supplements tended to calcify the arteries of people taking it.
Since that produces high blood pressure and a dramatically increased risk of heart attack, that seems as under-informed on a supplement that is now overdone as their less than complete information on vitamin D which clearly is needed by most people in amounts double to triple their “new” recommendation.
It gets worse than that, intake of vitamin D3 of at least double or triple their recommendation has been found to REDUCE calcification of the blood vessels by some researchers. It seems they forgot to notice that research. Oops !!
One news article about this study even said that amounts of vitamin D over 10,000 iu a day “are known to cause kidney damage” or kidney stones over 2,000 iu a day. Since to the best of my knowledge this has never been reported before; and I’ve heard no, repeat no, reports -- ever -- of summertime lifeguards who routinely get more than 20,000 iu of vitamin D every day all summer getting kidney damage from it, this is simple scare tactic. At the very least, if such studies exist, the Institute of Medicine these studies should have been given the news organizations as imperative to include. None did so of the several that I saw.
Since the real study of vitamin D supplementation is new, to be conservative, I favor taking 10,000 iu a day or less of vitamin D3 for people without a definite medical condition it would help and who are not being monitored for their actual blood level of vitamin D3.
And, given how much many young people get in the summer with no harm, to me that looks extra conservative.
Suggesting an upper limit of 4,000 iu a day instead just being extra careful, is being either cowardly or simply so badly informed as to be totally incorrect.
For example, the Wikipedia article says that the level that causes problems is 100,000 iu of vitamin D3 on a sustained basis, NOT 10,000.
This study also said that average Americans have adequate blood levels of vitamin D. Even given their low, 20 nanogram cutoff, this is probably incorrect.
Though readers of this blog and in some well educated and health oriented communities might have such levels, the average teen and young adult today drinks soft drinks instead of milk, many don’t even take a basic multivitamin, and they stay inside playing video games instead of going outside -- plus most people also go to school or work inside and get there in a car – NOT by walking or bicycling outside. Further, most of these people eat hamburgers instead of vitamin D rich foods like wild caught salmon.
They might be only 40 to 48% of the population. But their average blood levels of vitamin D levels are virtually certain to be less than 20 nanograms. They appear to have been left out of the data used in this report.
The news article said that the Institute of Medicine, the health section of the National Academy of Sciences, was “prestigious.” If they continue publishing conclusions that ignore easily found facts, THAT won’t last long. And, the fact that the co-author of this piece, Dr. Joann Manson, is with the Harvard Medical School, doesn’t reflect very well on Harvard or its medical school either.
Despite a multitude of findings that many aspects of health are helped by having blood levels of vitamin D of at least 30 to 50 nanograms, all the Institute of Medicine said was that at least 20 nanograms is adequate for bone health. Even that may be wrong. Less than 25% of Americans today yet get enough exercise to maintain bone strength. And, today a new study was released showing that being obese WEAKENS bones while close to 50% of Americans are obese. It seems that fat displaces stronger tissue even INSIDE the bones of fat people and that this weakens the bones MORE than the extra weight strengthens them!
The news organizations at least did include some researchers who know more.
For example, Dr. Cedric Garland of the University of California, San Diego said "This is a stunning disappointment," and added that the risk of colon cancer in particular could be reduced dramatically if people took enough vitamin D.
The jury IS still out on more wide ranging anticancer effects, and even if they exist they are likely less than the FOODS & SPICES listed in the book Anti-Cancer.
But if vitamin D3 levels of at least 2,000 iu a day or more DO prevent some cancers, and prevent many autoimmune diseases, improve bone density, reduce calcification of the arteries, reduce the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, strengthen the immune systems of people, AND make many people far less depressed, and more, to me it this report borders on seriously deficient reporting.
I was NOT impressed with this report and think that no one else should be either or take it at all seriously.
Lastly, this report and its glaring flaws is a very strong argument that no governmental agency should set limits on nutrients.
If, as just happened with calcium, some real problems are revealed, these should be publicized.
But, given that such “official” reports on nutrient levels are biased and leave out relevant and findable information, bureaucratic rulings and restrictions based on them should be avoided completely.
Today's Post: Tuesday, 11-30-2010
The Institute of Medicine, the health section of the National Academy of Sciences, just released its awaited report on recommended amounts of vitamin D.
They flunked & flunked badly.
Despite ample information that has found vitamin D in levels higher than that to be both more necessary and beneficial than for just bone building, &
that since the earlier guidelines were written people today are dramatically more sedentary and outside in sunny weather dramatically less than they were;
AND people drank more vitamin D fortified milk then,
they saw no reason to do more than a token 200 iu increase.
Despite the co-author of the report, Joann Manson of Harvard Medical School, having what looks like good credentials, she somehow missed the information that people who work or play outside during the summer routinely get over 10,000 iu a day of vitamin D from the sun exposure or that it’s been reported that the human body will use at least 3,000 iu of vitamin D3 if it is available.
Further, the people who gathered her information apparently missed the study that found that 1700 iu of vitamin D3 a day produced a good health result while, 1,000 & under did not.
Even worse, this report also left alone the recommendations for calcium supplementation which recent research found WERE problematic. It seems that other than a few hundred mg in a multivitamin, it may only be safe to get your calcium intake from food. Research recently found that with calcium, the sudden release from supplements tended to calcify the arteries of people taking it.
Since that produces high blood pressure and a dramatically increased risk of heart attack, that seems as under-informed on a supplement that is now overdone as their less than complete information on vitamin D which clearly is needed by most people in amounts double to triple their “new” recommendation.
It gets worse than that, intake of vitamin D3 of at least double or triple their recommendation has been found to REDUCE calcification of the blood vessels by some researchers. It seems they forgot to notice that research. Oops !!
One news article about this study even said that amounts of vitamin D over 10,000 iu a day “are known to cause kidney damage” or kidney stones over 2,000 iu a day. Since to the best of my knowledge this has never been reported before; and I’ve heard no, repeat no, reports -- ever -- of summertime lifeguards who routinely get more than 20,000 iu of vitamin D every day all summer getting kidney damage from it, this is simple scare tactic. At the very least, if such studies exist, the Institute of Medicine these studies should have been given the news organizations as imperative to include. None did so of the several that I saw.
Since the real study of vitamin D supplementation is new, to be conservative, I favor taking 10,000 iu a day or less of vitamin D3 for people without a definite medical condition it would help and who are not being monitored for their actual blood level of vitamin D3.
And, given how much many young people get in the summer with no harm, to me that looks extra conservative.
Suggesting an upper limit of 4,000 iu a day instead just being extra careful, is being either cowardly or simply so badly informed as to be totally incorrect.
For example, the Wikipedia article says that the level that causes problems is 100,000 iu of vitamin D3 on a sustained basis, NOT 10,000.
This study also said that average Americans have adequate blood levels of vitamin D. Even given their low, 20 nanogram cutoff, this is probably incorrect.
Though readers of this blog and in some well educated and health oriented communities might have such levels, the average teen and young adult today drinks soft drinks instead of milk, many don’t even take a basic multivitamin, and they stay inside playing video games instead of going outside -- plus most people also go to school or work inside and get there in a car – NOT by walking or bicycling outside. Further, most of these people eat hamburgers instead of vitamin D rich foods like wild caught salmon.
They might be only 40 to 48% of the population. But their average blood levels of vitamin D levels are virtually certain to be less than 20 nanograms. They appear to have been left out of the data used in this report.
The news article said that the Institute of Medicine, the health section of the National Academy of Sciences, was “prestigious.” If they continue publishing conclusions that ignore easily found facts, THAT won’t last long. And, the fact that the co-author of this piece, Dr. Joann Manson, is with the Harvard Medical School, doesn’t reflect very well on Harvard or its medical school either.
Despite a multitude of findings that many aspects of health are helped by having blood levels of vitamin D of at least 30 to 50 nanograms, all the Institute of Medicine said was that at least 20 nanograms is adequate for bone health. Even that may be wrong. Less than 25% of Americans today yet get enough exercise to maintain bone strength. And, today a new study was released showing that being obese WEAKENS bones while close to 50% of Americans are obese. It seems that fat displaces stronger tissue even INSIDE the bones of fat people and that this weakens the bones MORE than the extra weight strengthens them!
The news organizations at least did include some researchers who know more.
For example, Dr. Cedric Garland of the University of California, San Diego said "This is a stunning disappointment," and added that the risk of colon cancer in particular could be reduced dramatically if people took enough vitamin D.
The jury IS still out on more wide ranging anticancer effects, and even if they exist they are likely less than the FOODS & SPICES listed in the book Anti-Cancer.
But if vitamin D3 levels of at least 2,000 iu a day or more DO prevent some cancers, and prevent many autoimmune diseases, improve bone density, reduce calcification of the arteries, reduce the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease, strengthen the immune systems of people, AND make many people far less depressed, and more, to me it this report borders on seriously deficient reporting.
I was NOT impressed with this report and think that no one else should be either or take it at all seriously.
Lastly, this report and its glaring flaws is a very strong argument that no governmental agency should set limits on nutrients.
If, as just happened with calcium, some real problems are revealed, these should be publicized.
But, given that such “official” reports on nutrient levels are biased and leave out relevant and findable information, bureaucratic rulings and restrictions based on them should be avoided completely.
Labels: health benefits of vitamin D, The Institute of Medicine report on vitamin D is horribly flawed and incorrect, the level of vitamin D people need is still more than twice the "new" recommendation
posted by David at 1:54 PM
1 Comments:
I just got an email saying that researchers recently found that a shortage of vitamin D increases the risks of diabetes,high blood pressure, and a kind of blood-vessel inflammation that tends to cause heart attacks.
In that same email, it pointed out that another reason people are deficient today in vitamin D is the widespread use of sunblock in the last few years due to fears of sun caused skin cancers.
Lastly, if vitamin D shortage tends to cause heart disease, it would make sense that patients who have survived heart attacks or been diagnosed with heart disease would be likely to be deficient in vitamin D. And one cardiologist in sunny community found exactly that. Consistently, she has found that 80% of her heart patients are deficient in vitamin D!
Post a Comment
<< Home