This is from The Vitamin D council I'll edit in a link as soon as it appears on their website.
Quote:
Today, the FNB has failed millions...
3:00 PM PST November 30, 2010
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant 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. 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 10,000 IU/day (250 micrograms/day), 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 a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute 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 (never exposed to the light of the sun) 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, as in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not?
Today, the Vitamin D Council directed our attorney to file a federal Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the IOM's FNB for the release of these 14 reports.
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), 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 5,000 IU/day until your 25(OH)D is between 50-80 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, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
Today, the FNB has 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
"It is important to stress that there is no disagreement in the scientific community about the importance of vitamin D for total body health. Where there is disagreement it is about how much is needed to insure that the bulk of the American population achieves vitamin D's full benefits. There is an impressive body of scientific evidence supporting levels higher than the IOM panel is currently recommending, and for reasons that are not entirely clear, the panel has discounted that evidence. The public needs to know that that evidence exists so that they can make up their own minds. It's helpful in making those decisions, to know that intakes higher than the IOM recommends are safe. For me, that makes the decision easy. Even if the evidence for a higher intake were uncertain (and I don't believe it is), intakes 2-5 times the IOM recommendations would carry a good chance for benefit at essentially no cost and no risk."
"Finally, I believe that the presumption of adequacy should rest with vitamin D intakes needed to achieve the serum 25(OH)D values (i.e., 40�60 ng/mL) that prevailed during the evolution of human physiology. Correspondingly, the burden of proof should fall on those maintaining that there is no preventable disease or dysfunction at lower levels. The IOM has not met that standard."
Dr. Robert P.Heaney, MD
John A Creighton University Professor and Professor of Medicine
Creighton University
"I think that we should encourage people to get their blood level of 25(OH)D tested. For those who worry about the cost of this testing, the solution is not to save money by testing less; the solution is to lower the cost of an over-priced test. While we tend to approach public health problems with 'one-size-fits-all' solutions, I think it would be much better to tailor the vitamin D dose and frequency for each person -- based on their baseline level, response to treatment, and the likelihood that they will take a daily vitamin. For example, for those who have a difficult time remembering to take a daily vitamin D drop or pill, they might aim for weekly treatments or even monthly."
"Vitamin D is a hormone and, just like any other hormone, good health requires a level that is not too low but also not too high This optimal level may differ for different people -- based on lifestyle and genetic factors -- but my guess is the optimal level for most people is a 25(OH)D level around 40 ng/ml."
Carlos Camargo, MD DrPH
Associate Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
"Because most people do not get adequate vitamin D in typical diets, and because of the potential downsides of excessive sun exposure, most people may benefit from vitamin D supplements. Several groups are at risk for vitamin D deficiency or less-than-adequate intakes-in particular, the elderly, dark-skinned individuals, obese individuals, and those who avoid the sun. People who live in more northern latitudes can only make vitamin D from March through September; supplies stored from summer sun exposure must last for many months, and by late winter, most of these individuals may be deficient. Even in sunny climates, many people avoid the sun. Although definitive evidence is not available currently for the optimal level for all conditions related to vitamin D, supplements of at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU per day of vitamin D may be warranted. I suggest not taking more than 2,000 IU per day of vitamin D in supplement form for prolonged times without specific medical reasons until more definitive data are available concerning the benefits and risks. For those at a higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, a larger daily supplement dose, on the order of 3,000-4,000 IU, may be required to achieve adequate blood levels."
Dr. Edward Giovannucci, MD, ScD
Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology
Harvard School of Public Health
"Based largely on observational studies, serum 25(OH)D level-disease outcome for cancers, cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases and falls/fractures, I have published five studies estimating the reduction in all-cause mortality rate and the economic burden of disease in which I assume that mean population level serum 25(OH)D levels double from about 20 ng/ml to about 40 ng/ml. The countries or regions were Canada, the Netherlands, Nordic countries, the U.S., and Western Europe. In these studies, there was an estimated 15-20% reduction in all-cause mortality rate, corresponding to about a two-year increase in life expectancy, and about a 10% reduction in the direct economic burden of disease. There are over 100 diseases for which a beneficial effect of vitamin D has been found or proposed. Since vitamin D is so inexpensive to manufacture, increasing serum 25(OH)D levels is the most effective way to reduce disease rates and increase health status. And, it doesn't require lifestyle modifications."
William B. Grant, Ph.D.
Sunlight, Nutrition, and Health Research Center
"Any increase from the current levels requires, in the short-term, promotion of supplement use (it currently does for those over 50 years of age, but has not been stated emphatically enough). So, say it's the worst-case scenario of 400 IU for everyone up to age 50, and then 800 IU for 50+. We know from intake studies that people cannot get much more than 200 IU per day - there's not enough choice in the marketplace nor levels in existing foods, then that means everyone needs a supplement. According to DRI interpretation, a safe intake is anything between the RDA and the UL."
Once people get used to idea of supplement use, taking 800 IU makes no sense - at least 1,000 IU and then really should target what is needed.
Government and organizations that promote health/prevent disease need to be more engaged in this area.
Hopefully the RDA will be derived from meeting a specific target 25(OH)D - again, even if it's worse case of 50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml), it opens up to need for testing to ensure people are over it.
We can use risk/benefit to our advantage as the risk of taking high doses is highly unlikely even at levels above the UL but certainly at the UL (let's hope for a 5000 IU or more UL). The message can be - there is risk to NOT taking additional vitamin D.
Canadian adults 60-79 years of age have higher 25(OH)D levels than younger adults and the speculation is supplement use- so it is possible to improve levels with multiple strategies of moderate sun exposure, fortified foods and supplement use.
Call for more research into diseases related to D, especially in African American population.
Recognition that in low income groups, supplements are not within easy reach as that $10-$20 purchase is money needed elsewhere- so need ways to distribute. We have a D donation program here with help of DDROPS for infants in low income families. From what I understand, supplements cannot be purchased using food stamps in the US.
Susan J. Whiting, Ph.D.
Professor of Nutrition & Dietetics
University of Saskatchewan
"Hepatitis C recovery is improved with vitamin D and standard of care therapy from 40% to 96% if levels are above 80nmol/l. Also with levels >95nmol/l, influenza rate is reduced by 50%. There is a 90% reduction of post operative infections for hip surgery with 2,000 IU/day."
Gerry Schwalfenberg, MD
Family Practice, Alberta
"I would strongly hope that the IOM opts for a substantial increase in the DRI for vitamin D. There is now substantial and compelling evidence that, in addition to its requirement for skeletal integrity, vitamin D sufficiency reduces the risk of development of a number of cancers, contributes to cardiovascular health, and stimulates immune responses to infectious diseases, all of which are essential for healthy aging. The combination of basic and clinical research supporting a central role for vitamin D in boosting innate immune responses to infection is particularly strong. Several clinical studies have provided evidence for an inverse association between circulating 25-hydroxy D levels and rates of both viral and bacterial infection, and suggest that levels over 38ng/ml are required for optimal protection."
John H. White, PhD
Professor
McGill University
"We recommend implementation of the GrassrootsHealth Call to Action. More specifically, and with additional details, we recommend:
Universal testing of serum 25(OH)D at birth and annually through age 15 years, in nadir month (March in the northern hemisphere)
Testing of all adults every 2 years for serum 25(OH)D, preferably in March
Vitamin D3 intake optimally determined by test results, targeting 40-60 ng/ml
Pending testing, minimum intake for all men, women and children 1 year and older is 2,000 IU/day
Minimum intake of infants should be 1,000 IU/day
Contraindications are rare, but include hypercalcemia, active sarcoidosis, active granulomatous diseases, and Williams Syndrome
Upper limit should be 8,000 IU/day
Future directions likely: Serum 25(OH)D in women at high risk of breast cancer will eventually become 80-85 ng/ml; this may require intakes of 4,000 - 8,000 IU/day of vitamin D and my require some prudent, solar exposure of the body, not to exceed the minimal erythemal dose, generally 5-20 minutes at noon during warm months
Upper limit less than 8000 IU/day - Many persons will require 8,000 IU/day for reducing breast cancer risk, there is no good rationale for a lower UL based on present best evidence."
Cedric F. Garland, Dr. PH, FACE
Professor
University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Moores Cancer Center
Vieth presents a well argued response to the claim that those with higher vitamin D levels in Finland appear to have more aggressive pancreatic cancers..
There are other factors which increase susceptability to pancreatic cancer in Finland such as smoking,lower fruit and vegetable consumption and high glycemic foods leading to diabetes, all of which are high in the Finnish population and at one time also made them the highest pro rata sufferers from heart disease in Europe.
Veith doesnt appear to have considered other factors which increase susceptability to pancreatic cancer in Finland such as smoking,lower fruit and vegetable consumption and high glycemic foods leading to diabetes, all of which are high in the Finnish population and at one time also made them the highest pro rata sufferers from heart disease in Europe.
The Finnish have high levels of heart disease; I read that a few years ago.
There are other factors which increase susceptability to pancreatic cancer in Finland such as smoking,lower fruit and vegetable consumption and high glycemic foods leading to diabetes, all of which are high in the Finnish population and at one time also made them the highest pro rata sufferers from heart disease in Europe.
Yes, whenever looking at associations it's as well to remember there will be many confounding factors.
Correlation does not prove causation
but
every cause will have a correlating outcome.
"Glenville Jones PhD, a panel member on the 14-member committee that determined the new vitamin D guidelines, and who is quoted to say most people "probably don't have vitamin D deficiency," is a scientific advisor for a company developing drugs that mimic vitamin D." -Bill Sardi, Investigative Health Journalist. Bill reveals the dark side of the Food and Nutrition Board's new report.
We wouldn't want people getting vitamin d for free or for next to nothing when there's money to be made from selling expensive synthetic analogues that imitate the natural product would we?
A. Catharine RossProfessor of Nutrition and Occupant of Dorothy FoehrHuck Chair in Nutrition, Pennsylvania State University Steven A. Abrams Professor of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine John F. Aloia Professor, SUNY at StonyBrook, Chief Academic Officer, Winthrop-University Hospital Patsy M. BrannonProfessor, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University Steven K. Clinton Professor, Division of Hematology and Oncology, The Ohio State University Ramon A. Durazo-Arvizu Associate Professor, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine J. Christopher Gallagher Professor of Medicine, Creighton University Medical Center Richard L. Gallo Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics, University of California�San Diego Glenville Jones Head, Department of Biochemistry and Professor of Biochemistry & Medicine, Queens University, Ontario Christopher S. Kovacs Professor of Medicine (Endocrinology), Memorial University of Newfoundland Joann E. Manson Professor of Medicine and the Elizabeth Brigham Professor of Women�s Health, Harvard Medical School Susan T. Mayne Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale School of Public Health Clifford J. Rosen Senior Scientist, Maine Medical Center Research Institute Sue A. Shapses Professor, Department of Nutritional Sciences, Rutgers University
How many leaders in the field of vitamin D research are included?
Well there are a few names I recognise but those are not the people I would regard as lead researchers or the most knowledgeable in Vitamin D research.
Ask a panel of secondraters to produce a report and who would expect anything but a second rate report.
mKay, let's try this again in a more specific fashion.
Who do YOU feel are the leaders in the vit D research leaders and what are their credentials?
__________________
The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease
~Voltaire~
I doubt there is much to be learned from this single study. I am taking 10,000 iu a day, but I will start splitting the dose to 5,000 iu per dose, twice a day.
It is probably better to use it that way regardless.
My doctor caught wind of this study, and has completely reversed her former opinion on D. I am a bit more skeptical, in the face of all of the evidence to the contrary.
I cannot say I have noticed any benefit from taking this, but as it is not a drug, benefits are hard to measure by noticeable effects. Especially since almost all the purported benefits are on the prevention side.
I doubt there is much to be learned from this single study. I am taking 10,000 iu a day, but I will start splitting the dose to 5,000 iu per dose, twice a day.
It is probably better to use it that way regardless.
I'm begining to think there may be some justification in splitting doses into twice daily.
I've been studying the role of gut flora in obesity and encouraging those gut flora associated with lean bodies rather than obesity is important.
One of those more prevalent in obese bodies is Staphylococcus aureus and we know Vitamin d and curcumin have an anti staphylococcus action. So maybe having it in the gut through the day and night directly inhibits pathogenic bacteria?
I fully agree that gut flora plays a role in obesity. I am not sure what bacteria is responsible for that, but I did have it at one time, and now I do not seem to have it, or have less of it.
Incidentally, I have directly treated for Staphylococcus, and Streptococcus. I cannot prove I killed it, but it is something I made an attempt to kill. These two pathogens seem to be in most everyone, to one degree or another.
I have done too many things to know what is responsible for this change in my gut flora, but there is a connection. I do take several antibacterial supplements in addition to Turmeric, so you might be on to something.
I can see no downside to splitting supplement doses, other than it is not as convenient.
no, and I will say, it makes sense what everyone says...that the body makes about 10-15k units in a matter of 20 minutes...so that should give us a heads up on how much we need.
However, there must be other stuff the sun gives us, because vitamin D alone doesn't prevent me from getting sick ever winter (early Oct. here in Houston.)
However, there must be other stuff the sun gives us, because vitamin D alone doesn't prevent me from getting sick ever winter (early Oct. here in Houston.)
Houston is Latitude 29N Vitamin D Calculator
While I have some difficulties with/Questions about this calculator I'm not sure people living at latitude 29 understand what it's like at latitude 52 in WINTER.
however there are other factors that may influence your health.
Effect of Early Particulate Air Pollution Exposure on Obesity in Mice Urban pollution can be detected 250miles downwind of most cities. Do bear in mind that not only do the particles themselves cause inflammation they also generate ozone that blocks/reduces UVB penetration to ground level thus reducing the ability of animals and humans to generate sufficient anti inflammatory vitamin D.
But light pollution is equally bad for animals and humans. Here is a thread on melatonin and circadian rhythm. Melatonin is a potent anti inflammatory agent so having your body flooded with melatonin at night helps repair the damage inflammation causes. Reducing circadian rhythm and lowering the flow of melatonin from 8pm to morning (we can easily reduce the amount of light in our bedrooms and in the bedrooms of our children, we don't have to have nightlights/digital displays or such on all night)
I've cut and pasted from other posts I've made today and equated "INFLAMMATION" with "OBESITY" so you can equate that with "Getting Sick" if you like. How inflammation presents will vary with genetic predisposition. It could be mental or physical and include almost all chronic conditions.
Is there a site that you know of that will calculate wind currents and pollution levels to an address? I'm wanting to move to a new house that has ocean air currents and hopefully less pollution.
Is there a site that you know of that will calculate wind currents and pollution levels to an address? I'm wanting to move to a new house that has ocean air currents and hopefully less pollution.
I've not seen one. I'd also not worry too much. It's very easy to become paranoid about all the possible adverse environmental factors that you can't control, thinking about those that are modifiable and within your immediate control is probably more effective.
Air traffic in 24 hours.wmv (better quality?)
lIGHT POLLUTION AWARENESS
video shows the trend
Persistent Organic Pollutants: A Global Issue
Linear Mode
