Recommended intake of vitamin D miscalculated by IOM, experts say

Researchers at UC San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates the need by a factor of ten.

In a letter published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at UC San Diego's Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.

"Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially," said Garland. "The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health."


Full article here: http://www.news-medical.net/

Told you so!

My boys (4 and 6) are on 2,000 IU's a day of vitamin D3. Very rarely do they get sick; my eldest has never missed a day of nursery or school and the youngest has only missed 1 day of nursery.

Like so much else in health we just have to figure it out ourselves.

Best

Dillinger

I've decided to board the good ship vitamin D3 after months of picking up every bug going and suffering with low mood so I figured I may have a deficiency and ordered myself some 5000 iu gel capsules,obviously I don't know for sure if I am deficient as I've never been tested but reading lots of articles I figured there's a good chance I am and I'm encouraged by others anecdotal evidence including yours Al of the benefits of supplementing.

Cheers

Paul

I think vitamin D3 isn't a silver bullet but we are pretty much guaranteed to be deficient in the UK in winter (and probably in summer too) if we don't supplement. There are vitamin d receptors throughout our bodies and I just think biology doesn't do that sort of thing for fun. They are there for a reason. I'm sure that reason is related to the normal functioning of the immune system and not just calcium mobilisation.

The study about Nordic kids and how vitamin D3 supplementation reduced their risk of getting Type 1 diabetes (an auto-immune response let's not forget) by about 80% is kind of mind blowing to me. Not as mind blowing as the fact that it was apparently forgotten but that's the wonderful world of medicine we live in.

Speaking of which I need to stock up on some more of this. Do you use iHerb? Another weird thing to me; it is cheaper to import this stuff from the US than buy it on our high streets but there you go...

Best

Dillinger

80% reduction in T1? That IS pretty amazing! Here's a link to the supplements I've ordered.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B004H57BKG/ref=pe_385721_37038051_TE_3p_dp_1

Cheers

Paul

That looks like a good deal Paul; I may switch from my American friends to that...

Speaking of which I've just gone onto iHerb which I've used for ages (and would recommend) where I saw this as a comment on the 2,000 IU vitamin d3 I was about to buy;  "I would have continued to use this product but laws in Norway do not allow this strength of Vit. D to be sold now . . . ( 2013 )"

That is just insane; Norway is just to the west of Finland and here is the Finish study I was talking about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11705562

Look at the risk reduction; 1.0 is no reduction 0.22 is 78% reduction (so almost 80% but not quite fact pickers).

So, of course when you have results like that what to do? I know; ban vitamin D! In Norway!

Funny old world.

Best

Dillinger

graham64 wrote:Researchers at UC San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates the need by a factor of ten.

In a letter published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at UC San Diego's Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.

"Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially," said Garland. "The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health."


Full article here: http://www.news-medical.net/

Many thanks for this Graham and many thanks to Paul and Dillinger for their personal experiences and thoughts.

It's good to share and exchange information  

All the best Jan

l dare not take it l went on it and within 4 weeks under medical supervision it kicked to overdrive l was about 5xs over safe levels taken about 7 months so far to get back to normal levels. Was having bone calcium and all sorts of other problems going on. So my advice is be very careful with vitamins esp. vit D

How much were you taking MID? I've not heard of that type of response before. Although I don't know my serum levels. Perhaps I should check. How did it make you feel?

Best

Dillinger

I take 5000iu of D3 most days. I managed to persuade doctor to test my D3 levels as a friend who is a consultant paediatrician said I should have it tested taking that much a day. It came back within limits. I take vit K2 with it as it makes sure 'excess' goes to your bones and doesn't build up as calcium deposits where it shouldn't.
Incidentally, many of the children my friend sees who have blood tests, come back D deficient and are then on supplements.
Sarah