Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is Vitamin D suppilmentation really necessary?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is Vitamin D suppilmentation really necessary?

    According to a recent review of evidence:
    "[A] 14-member expert committee was convened by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit scientific body, at the request of the United States and Canadian governments. It was asked to examine the available data ó nearly 1,000 publications ó to determine how much vitamin D and calcium people were getting, how much was needed for optimal health and how much was too much.

    The two nutrients work together for bone health.

    Bone health, though, is only one of the benefits that have been attributed to vitamin D, and there is not enough good evidence to support most other claims, the committee said.

    Some labs have started reporting levels of less than 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood as a deficiency. With that as a standard, 80 percent of the population would be deemed deficient of vitamin D, Dr. Rosen said. Most people need to take supplements to reach levels above 30 nanograms per milliliter, he added.

    But, the committee concluded, a level of 20 to 30 nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/he...emc=rss&src=ig

    And the MDA community says what?

    Armbar

  • #2
    I stopped reading after "Government"
    I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

    Comment


    • #3
      If their sole focus for the study is bone health, maybe that's the right level. But our bodies use Vit. D for more than just bones...

      But I see that IOM also claims they don't think Vitamin D matters for other health conditions, which really shocks me. I mean, just last week the same organization said increased Vit. D could help with pancreatic cancer, so that seems a bit odd to me!

      The upper limits they recommend are still pretty high at 4,000 IU, so even according to them it's OK to get at least that much more than they think you need:
      http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2010...takes-for.html
      "Trust me, you will soon enter a magical land full of delicious steakflowers, with butterbacons fluttering around over the extremely rompable grass and hillsides."

      Comment


      • #4
        This is the third thread on this same recent article. I think most of these types of threads should go under "research" not nutrition, anyway, but that's hardly a big deal.
        carl's cave

        Comment


        • #5
          Wow, lots of Vitamin D talk today. Posted this earlier in Bane's journal, but here is Dr. Kurt Harris' take from his excellent PāNu blog:

          If you are like most people most of the time, UV as your sole source will not be practical. Ideally, get your 25(OH)D level and ionized calcium measured, and if it is less than 40 ng/ml, take 8000 iu/day for two months and measure it again. If 40-50, take 6000 iu/day. Any day you get full-dose sun, skip the oral dose. If still below 50 ng/ml, add 2000 iu/day with each two month increment until your interval two month reading is above 50 ng/ml. Once you are stabilized above 50ng/ml, check your levels annually

          If you donít want to medicalize your diet this much, you could take 4000 iu/day every day. You could skip the pills on days with sun, or not. You will not get hypercalcemic on this unless you already have primary hyperparathyroidism or some other confounding disease. I would recommend 25 (OH)D levels at least yearly, though.
          http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2...vitamin-d.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Lots of good info in this thread.
            Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
            Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
            Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

            Comment

            Working...
            X