Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: Extra Vitamin D and Calcium Aren’t Needed, Report Says page 3

  1. #21
    croí's Avatar
    croí is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz View Post
    Healthy people don't make any money for the drug companies, doctors & hospitals.

    Need I say any more?

    They would make vitamins & supplements illegal if they could.

    Grizz
    You are so right! Just by eating healthy and taking daily vitamins, I know this winter mine and my son's doctor will not be hearing from us!

  2. #22
    Grizz's Avatar
    Grizz is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,879
    Croi,

    This is so disgusting that it makes my BLOOD BOIL !

    A good friend has Diabetes II, and is taking drugs for it. Guess what? His doctor recommends that he eat the "Standard Food Pyramid" that is published by the FDA, GRAINS, BREADS, & HIGH CARB FOODS at the bottom of the pyramid.

    Of course we all know that is the WRONG diet for a diabetic ! High Carb grains are converted directly into sugar to make diabetes even worse.

    EVEN MORE OUTRAGEOUS . . . . The American Diabetes Association recommends the SAME High Carb Diet for diabetes sufferers all over the USA.

    YES, keep them sick ! Keep them on Drugs ! Keep those waiting rooms filled ! Keep them sick for as long as possible.

    Since taking 10,000 IU daily of vitamin D, I recently suffered a chest cold that came & broke up in less than 1 week ! For me this was truly amazing, since I ALWAYS suffer a chest cold for a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks, sometimes even losing my voice.

    The American Medical Association & Drug Companies are EVIL & GREEDY LIARS.

    Grizz

  3. #23
    Grizz's Avatar
    Grizz is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Hilary View Post
    Here is Dr Davis on 'What the Institute of Medicine should have said':
    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/20...ould-have.html

    Broadly speaking he has changed it from 'We don't know, so everything's really fine, and don't do anything until we tell you to' to 'We don't know, but there is obviously something of importance to be known, so we should make it a priority to find out.'
    Dr. Davis also said,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Davis
    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.
    He further said:
    * 5,000 IU to 10,000 IU D3 Gelcaps Daily to achieve correct blood level in most people
    -Proper 25(OH)D Blood Level is 60-70 ng/ml Toxicity overdose > 120-130 ng/ml
    http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/se...el/vitamin%20D

    Grizz

  4. #24
    Katt's Avatar
    Katt is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sanford, FL
    Posts
    316
    I take 5000 IU a day. I do need to get my blood levels tested still, however.
    Start weight: 250 - 06/2009
    Current weight: 199
    Goal: 145

  5. #25
    cillakat's Avatar
    cillakat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,473
    Quote Originally Posted by labbygail View Post
    Science has yet to show that 50-80 ng/ml is better than 30-50. (The Vitamin D council says otherwise, but I'm not convinced by their evidence.)
    Could you clarify what you mean? What are you saying that the Vitamin D Council is saying?

    Katherine



    iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order


  6. #26
    cillakat's Avatar
    cillakat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    4,473
    From The Vitamin D Council's executive director and founder, John Cannell, MD. The empahsis added is mine:

    Today, the food and nutrition board has failed millions

    After 13 years of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the institute of medicine's (IOM) food and nutrition board (FNB), yesterday recommended that a three - pound premature infant can take virtually the same amount of vitamin d as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin d deficiencies: Asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism (1). Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600.

    The FNB also reported that vitamin d toxicity might occur at an intake of 10,000IU /day (250 micrograms), although they could produce no reproducible evidence that 10,000 IU/day has ever caused toxicity in humans and only one poorly conducted study indicating 20,000 IU/day may cause mild elevations in serum calcium but not clinical toxicity.

    Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and the pregnant women 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single 30 minutes dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 iu (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin d input – as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen – is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that god does not know what she is doing.

    Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago.
    They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin d helps: Heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. Tens of millions of pregnant women and their breast-feeding infants are severely vitamin d deficient, resulting in a great increase in the medieval disease, rickets. The FNB report seems to reason that if so many pregnant women have low vitamin d blood levels then it must be ok because such low levels are so common. However, such circular logic simply represents the cave man existence of most modern day pregnant women.

    Hence, if you want to optimize your vitamin d levels – not just optimize the bone effect – supplementing is crucial. But it is almost impossible to significantly raise your vitamin d levels when supplementing at only 600 IU/day (15 micrograms). Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin d; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin d will only increase the vitamin d levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin d to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts -- like 5000 IU/day -- is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin d levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it.

    For example, taking only two of the hundreds of recently published studies, Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to japanese 10 year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin d dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza a as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin d. Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB's new adult recommendations.

    Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin d experts and – after reading these 14 different reports – the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin d researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton, or in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FBN will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not? Yesterday, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a Federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM's FNBb for the release of these 14 reports.

    I, my family, most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter, have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems. My advice: Especially for pregnant women, continue taking 5,000IU/day until your (oh)d] is between 50 ng/ml and 80 ng/ml (the vitamin d blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all american laboratories). Gestational vitamin d deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia (2), a doubled risk for preeclampsia (3), a tripled risk for gestational diabetes (4), and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section (5).

    Yesterday, the FNB failed millions of pregnant women whose as yet unborn babies will pay the price. Let us hope the FNB will comply with the spirit of "transparency" by quickly responding to our freedom of information requests.

    John Cannell, MD
    The Vitamin D Council
    1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
    San Luis Obispo, ca 93401
    (1) cannell jj.. On the aetiology of autism. Acta paediatr. 2010 aug;99(8):1128-30. Epub 2010 may 19.
    (2)karatekin g, kaya a, salihoglu o, balci h, nuhoglu a. Association of subclinical vitamin d deficiency in newborns with acute lower respiratory infection and their mothers. Eur j clin nutr. 2009;63(4):473-7.
    (3) bodnar lm, catov jm, simhan hn, holick mf, powers rw, roberts jm. Maternal vitamin d deficiency increases the risk of preeclampsia. J clin endocrinol metab. 2007;92(9):3517-22.
    (4) zhang c, qiu c, hu fb, david rm, van dam rm, bralley a, williams ma. Maternal plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin d concentrations and the risk for gestational diabetes mellitus. Plos one. 2008;3(11):e3753.
    (5) merewood a, mehta sd, chen tc, bauchner h, holick mf. Association between vitamin d deficiency and primary cesarean section. J clin endocrinol metab. 2009;94(3):940-5.
    Last edited by cillakat; 12-01-2010 at 08:24 AM.



    iherb referral code CIL457- $5 off first order


  7. #27
    croí's Avatar
    croí is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Grizz View Post
    Croi,

    This is so disgusting that it makes my BLOOD BOIL !

    A good friend has Diabetes II, and is taking drugs for it. Guess what? His doctor recommends that he eat the "Standard Food Pyramid" that is published by the FDA, GRAINS, BREADS, & HIGH CARB FOODS at the bottom of the pyramid.

    Of course we all know that is the WRONG diet for a diabetic ! High Carb grains are converted directly into sugar to make diabetes even worse.

    EVEN MORE OUTRAGEOUS . . . . The American Diabetes Association recommends the SAME High Carb Diet for diabetes sufferers all over the USA.

    YES, keep them sick ! Keep them on Drugs ! Keep those waiting rooms filled ! Keep them sick for as long as possible.

    Since taking 10,000 IU daily of vitamin D, I recently suffered a chest cold that came & broke up in less than 1 week ! For me this was truly amazing, since I ALWAYS suffer a chest cold for a minimum of 6 to 8 weeks, sometimes even losing my voice.

    The American Medical Association & Drug Companies are EVIL & GREEDY LIARS.

    Grizz
    +100000!
    I was looking at a jar of oranges for my son seeing what indgridents were in them, and I saw a warning sticker on the label something to the effect of A diet high in vegetables and fruits may cause cancer noted by the American Cancer Society... or something to that effect!!! Seriously? I'm going to have to go back and reread that to make sure I'm not sticking my foot in my mouth, but my original thought was "What were they smoking when they wrote that!?!?!"
    Last edited by croí; 12-01-2010 at 09:08 AM.

  8. #28
    Grizz's Avatar
    Grizz is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,879
    CROI,

    Anything that says "American _ _ _ _ _ _ Association" is simply a lobby for drug companies, or a lobby for doctors designed to RIP OFF the public. We ignore anything that they say. Their only goal is to MAKE MONEY at our expense.

    Grizz

  9. #29
    labbygail's Avatar
    labbygail is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by cillakat View Post
    Could you clarify what you mean? What are you saying that the Vitamin D Council is saying?

    Katherine
    Yeah, I should have guessed that someone would call me out on my laziness to pin it down precisely. Thanks for sharing what the Vitamin D council says. Also, here's Chris Masterjohn's analysis (from the Weston Price Foundation website).

    OPTIMAL VITAMIN D LEVELS
    Are some people pushing their vitamin D levels too high? Has science proven that the minimal acceptable blood level of vitamin D, in the form of 25(OH)D, is above 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L)?

    The answer is “No.” If you’ve been trying to maintain your levels this high because you thought this was the case, I’m sorry to break the news. There is, on the contrary, good evidence that 25(OH)D levels should be at least 30-35 ng/ mL (75-88 nmol/L). Much higher levels may be better, or they could start causing harm, especially in the absence of adequate vitamins A and K2. Once we leave the land of 30-35 ng/mL, however, we enter the land of speculation.

    The idea that science has proven we need to maintain 50 ng/mL as a minimum comes from Dr. John Cannell of the Vitamin D Council. In his article “Am I Vitamin D Deficient?” he writes the following: “Thanks to Bruce Hollis, Robert Heaney, Neil Binkley, and others, we now know the minimal acceptable level. It is 50 ng/ ml (125 nmol/L). In a recent study, Heaney, et al expanded on Bruce Hollis’s seminal work by analyzing five studies in which both the parent compound (cholecalciferol) and 25(OH)D levels were measured. They found that the body does not reliably begin storing cholecalciferol in fat and muscle tissue until 25(OH)D levels get above 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L). The average person starts to store cholecalciferol at 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L), but at 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L) virtually everyone begins to store it for future use. That is, at levels below 50 ng/ml (125 nmol/L), the body uses up vitamin D as fast as you can make it, or take it, indicating chronic substrate starvation—not a good thing. 25(OH)D levels should be between 50–80 ng/ml (125–200 nmol/L), year-round.”

    DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS
    There are a few problems with this argument. To begin with, Drs. Hollis, Heaney, Binkley, and the other authors of this study rightly made very different conclusions from their own data. In the report they wrote for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, they wrote the following: “One could plausibly postulate that the point at which hepatic 25(OH)D production becomes zero-order [this is the point at which the enzymes converting vitamin D to 25(OH) D are saturated with vitamin D] constitutes the definition of the low end of normal status. This value, as suggested in an equation shown in the article, is at a serum 25(OH)D concentration of 88 nmol/L (35.2 ng/mL). It is interesting that this estimate is very close to that produced by previous attempts to define the lower end of the normal range from the relations of serum 25(OH) D to calcium absorption and to serum parathyroid hormone concentration (ie, 75–85 nmol/L, or 30–34 ng/mL).”

    According to the authors of this study, then, the point at which the vitamin D enzymes are saturated and vitamin D “accumulates within the body, both in serum and probably in body fat” is not 40 or 50 ng/mL (100 or 125 nmol/L) but rather 35 ng/mL (88 nmol/L).

    The authors used a statistical approach that pooled together data from several studies. They presented most of their data in Figure 4, and the data from one other study in Figure 5 (see below). They did not determine the point at which vitamin D starts getting stored in body fat in particular individuals. On the contrary, they used a statistical approach to infer the point at which this occurs in their entire study population. Now, if you compare Figures 4 and 5, looking for the point at which the slope of the line dramatically changes, you will see that it changes at a higher level of 25(OH)D in Figure 5. Dr. Cannell seems to have used the data from Figure 5 to say when vitamin D gets stored in body fat in “virtually everyone” as opposed to “the average person,” but in fact the authors stated that they did not use the data from Figure 5 to determine this point because a different and apparently inferior method of measuring vitamin D levels was used in that data set.

    So, we are back to the authors’ original conclusions, that vitamin D saturates its activation enzymes and starts getting stored in body fat when 25(OH)D levels reach 35 ng/mL (88 nmol/L).
    And he goes on.
    For all I know, Cannell might be right; my point is that a single statistical analysis from several studies isn't enough to really convince the knee-jerkers that over 50 ng/ml is better than over 35 ng/ml. That part doesn't really bother me. What does make me sad is that they said, "oh, most people have enough" when most people do have levels below even 35, which seems to be the lowest possible estimate of what consitutes "enough."

    For my part, I take 5000 IU of Vitamin D a day, except when I forget to take my pills. Also, your comment earlier made me reconsider the cod liver oil (you probably don't remember, but you mentioned that liver isn't that plentiful in nature so where would you get that much A from).

  10. #30
    Grizz's Avatar
    Grizz is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,879
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Unignorant View Post
    UnIgnorant,
    That link did not work. It requires a subscription... Here is what the link had to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by Article
    The very high levels of vitamin D that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories — and can be achieved only by taking supplements — are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says. It also concludes that calcium supplements are not needed. The group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine, the committee says in a report that is to be released on Tuesday.

    “For most people, taking extra calcium and vitamin D supplements is not indicated,” said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, a member of the panel and an osteoporosis expert at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute.

    Dr. J. Christopher Gallagher, director of the bone metabolism unit at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb., agreed, adding, “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.”

    Over the past few years, the idea that nearly everyone needs extra calcium and vitamin D — especially vitamin D — has swept the nation.

    With calcium, adolescent girls may be the only group that is getting too little, the panel found. Older women, on the other hand, may take too much, putting themselves at risk for kidney stones. And there is evidence that excess calcium can increase the risk of heart disease, the group wrote.

    As for vitamin D, some prominent doctors have said that most people need supplements or they will be at increased risk for a wide variety of illnesses, including heart disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases.

    And these days more and more people know their vitamin D levels because they are being tested for it as part of routine physical exams.

    “The number of vitamin D tests has exploded,” said Dennis Black, a reviewer of the report who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.

    At the same time, vitamin D sales have soared, growing faster than those of any supplement, according to The Nutrition Business Journal. Sales rose 82 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching $430 million. “Everyone was hoping vitamin D would be kind of a panacea,” Dr. Black said. The report, he added, might quell the craze.

    “I think this will have an impact on a lot of primary care providers,” he said.

    The 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 — nearly 1,000 publications — 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.

    Vitamin D is being added to more and more foods, said Paul R. Thomas of the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health. Not only is it in orange juice and milk, but more is being added to breakfast cereals, and it now can be found in very high doses in supplement pills. Most vitamin D pills, he said, used to contain no more than 1,000 international units of it. Now it is easy to find pills, even in places like Wal-Mart, with 5,000 international units. The committee, though, said people need only 600 international units a day.

    To assess the amounts of vitamin D and calcium people are getting, the panel looked at national data on diets. Most people, they concluded, get enough calcium from the foods they eat, about 1,000 milligrams a day for most adults (1,200 for women ages 51 to 70).

    Vitamin D is more complicated, the group said. In general, most people are not getting enough vitamin D from their diets, but they have enough of the vitamin in their blood, probably because they are also making it naturally after being out in the sun and storing it in their bodies.

    The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and other groups applauded the report. It is “a very balanced set of recommendations,” said Dr. Sundeep Khosla, a Mayo Clinic endocrinologist and the society’s president.

    But Andrew Shao, an executive vice president at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group, said the panel was being overly cautious, especially in its recommendations about vitamin D. He said there was no convincing evidence that people were being harmed by taking supplements, and he said higher levels of vitamin D, in particular, could be beneficial.

    Such claims “are not supported by the available evidence,” the committee wrote. They were based on studies that observed populations and concluded that people with lower levels of the vitamin had more of various diseases. Such studies have been misleading and most scientists agree that they cannot determine cause and effect.

    It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels — 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher — were needed.

    After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was “inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality.”

    Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote.

    That is what surprised Dr. Black. “We thought that probably higher is better,” he said.

    He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: “I think this report will make people more cautious.”
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/...ource=r_health
    This above report, as Cillikat has suggested, is PURE BS. It is simply OUTRAGEOUS ! In fact, the D-Council said,
    Quote Originally Posted by D-Council
    "They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. The FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and — after reading these 14 different reports — the FNB decided to suppress their reports ! ! ! ! "
    Grizz
    Last edited by Grizz; 12-01-2010 at 09:46 AM.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •