https://www.douglaslabs.com/pdf/nutri...%20(11-07).pdf

Very interesting, and informative. Thanks for posting it.

Dan

I'm surprised anyone should find a totally inacurate article from 2007 remotely useful or interesting.
It's amazing that anyone who doesn't understand the units vitamin d is dispensed in can get stuff published.
The idiot who wrote that actually meant to say 1000iu daily but as we know that 5000iu/daily is required to get the average US adult to meet their daily vitamin d requirement we know that is rubbish.



We can all see what happens in practice when people take just 1000iu/daily/D3.
Look at the line of people taking 1000iu/d. Do any of them get over 40ng/ml to meet daily needs?
Who is trying to keep the population vitamin d insufficient.

5000IU= 125mcg
4000iu=100mcg
1000mcg=1mg
so 1mg = 40,000iu
and 1000mg = 40,000,000iu
and 4000mg = 160,000,000iu

Now who really thinks it's sensible to take that much vitamin d daily?

The article does actually say which I agree with. but you can see from the links I've provided that it's 5000iu/d that will be required by most people.

I was talking about the historical development of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis as a blanket disease/condition based on bone density testing. I uppose if you knew that already, it would not be that intereting to yourself.

There was nothing about the vitamin D part particularly interesting. I did not even notice that they listed a particular dosage, but since it was from three year ago, it was outdated information anyway.

Dan