Vitamin D supplements may help prevent fractures in people over 65, provided they take enough of the right kind. A new review of clinical trials appears to show a strong dose-dependent effect for vitamin D in lowering the risk for nonvertebral fractures in the elderly.
The lead author of the analysis, Heike A. Bischoff-Ferrari, a professor of medicine at the University of Zurich, said that �vitamin D in a high enough dose is not only beneficial in the frail older population, but it also works in those still living at home and able to take care of themselves.�
The researchers, writing in the March 23 issue of The Archives of Internal Medicine, reviewed 12 randomized trials that together included more than 65,000 subjects. Doses under 400 international units a day had no discernible effect, but for doses larger than that, the pooled data showed a 20 percent reduction in the risk for all nonvertebral fractures, and an 18 percent reduction for broken hips.
The type of vitamin D made a difference. The effect of vitamin D3 was significant, with a 23 percent risk reduction, but there was no significant reduction with vitamin D2. The authors suggest that D3 is more effective in maintaining blood levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the active form that the supplement takes in the body.
I have been following the more vitamin D trend. I can see there is quite a bit of evidence that it could be important to raise the level. It may even be the main cause of autoimmune diseases, although that is somewhat speculative at this point.
I am wondering if there is any evidence that higher amounts of vitamin D-3 in supplement form can cause health problems. The reason I bring it up is someone on Dr. Mercola's blog brought up an alleged problem from the past that indicated this was tried before and it resulted in increased arterial damage or something along those lines. I do not remember it exactly.
I am quite sure we can regulate natural D from the sun.
I am quite sure we can regulate natural D from the sun.
Dan
I don't understand the above statement. How can you regulate D from the sun? The biggest issue about getting your vitamin D from the sun is that once you get to middle age your skin no longer makes vitamin D as it use to.
It really is not correct to say that we get Vtiamin D from the sun. We get vitamin D from our own cellular production mechanisms in the skin. The sun merely triggers this mechanism into function. As skin ages this process declines.
I have never seen any documented evidence or studies that have shown Vitamin D to be dangerous. I think that all the fear mongering on it over the years was largely based in fallacy and ignorance.
Dr Mercola is now saying that vitamin D from Cod liver oil may not be the best idea any more but I don't recall why. Oh yah, something about vitamin D and vitamin A being a problem when taken together.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
The RDA for D3 should be bumped from 400 I.U. to 4000 I.U. (5000 I.U. over 65)
I still think that this level of supplementation may be grossly inadequate for a lot of people. At best it takes weeks and weeks of supplementation to get your levels up at this rate.
More and more evidence is collecting up that high levels, like 60 to 90, perhaps even more, are necessary to defend against chronic disease.
In some countries they don't mess around. They just give yearly injections of mega dosages and be done with it, which is something to think about. When people age compliance becomes a greater issue. Will they actually take the pill on a daily basis. Research indicates that few will unless they forced to., such as in a hospital or nursing home setting. Unlike other prescription drugs compliance with vitamins is much much lower.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
What I meant was our body can regulate vitamin D produced from sun exposure. I am assuming that throughout the history of man kind there has never been a general problem created by too much sun exposure in respect to vitamin D. This is enough evidence for me that vitamin D produced by our body is not going to cause a problem. I am quite sure the same mechanism that produces it, can also stop it if needed.
The more recent method of supplementing with high amounts of vitamin D does not have the long historical safety record that bodily vitamin D production from sun exposure does.
I am not saying there is any problem with this. I am asking if there has been any credible evidence from the past that high doses of supplemental vitamin D could create any type of health problems we should be aware of.
As with the vitamin D and vitamin A problem that occurs when higher levels of vitamin A are used which effectively blocks the use of vitamin D for building bones. This is a good example of what I am talking about.
Sometimes increased dosages of one vitamin or mineral, whatever, can interfere or create a problem due to imbalance. That is the gist of my question.
I am naturally skeptical of any new findings, as human nature is such that we can get too caught up in the excitement, without stepping back and thinking it through.
So basically, does anyone know of drawbacks to high doses of supplemental vitamin D?
Personally, I am currently using 2400 iu a day. Summer is coming and I will be spending a lot of time outdoors, picking off Deer Ticks no doubt. I will likely not take any then. My levels are considered normal by today's standard, which would be low according to the new theory. If I remember right it was 36.
Personally, I am currently using 2400 iu a day. Summer is coming and I will be spending a lot of time outdoors, picking off Deer Ticks no doubt. I will likely not take any then. My levels are considered normal by today's standard, which would be low according to the new theory. If I remember right it was 36.
Dan
That is still way too low, your body uses up about 5000 iu a day before any of the magic starts! Spend some time here:
So basically, does anyone know of drawbacks to high doses of supplemental vitamin D?
There are a few problems for people with overactive parathyroid glands, ie higher blood calcium levels, as well as a few rare diseases. People with poor kidney function can also be susceptible to a build up of calcium in the tissues with higher vitamin D levels. Vitamin D Topic
Quote:
What are the contraindications for high-dose Vitamin D? The main contraindication is the existence of primary hyperparathyroidism - but interestingly, before the occurrence of hyperparathyroidism, vitamin D is preventative because it reduces parathyroid secretion. Individuals with sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, or lymphoma may become hypercalcemic when given increased Vitamin D doses. Some rare individuals are sensitive to Vitamin D at higher doses.
Risk assessment for vitamin D
If you click the image it will download you can then enlarge it to see the dose of vitamin D supplement in relation to adverse events recorded. You won't find anything under 10,000iu/d, Most people will only need around 5000iu/d to attain and maintain a level around 50~60ng 125~150 nmol/l regular 25(OH)D testing twce yearly will enable you to work out how effective your body is at using/making D3 from sunlight/supplements.
Scientists have produced more evidence that vitamin D has an important role in keeping the brain in good working order in later life.
A study of over 3,000 European men aged 40-79 found those with high vitamin D levels performed better on memory and information processing tests.
The University of Manchester team believe vitamin D may protect cells or key signalling pathways in the brain.
The study features in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
Vitamin D May Prevent Fractures in Older Adults
Linear Mode
