Re: NYTimes.com: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements

[Guest guest]

'Twas written,

> Most people do not need extra calcium or vitamin D, and too much could cause

harm, a report said.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html?emc=eta1

Funny, I recall an equally hand-wringing story from the NYT, posted here about a

year or so ago, about how many of us were in peril because we weren't getting

enough vitamin D, and how supplementation of vitamin D would improve our

athletic performance. At the bottom of the new article, however:

" But Shao...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. "

Regards,

s

Ardmore, PA

[Guest guest]

Most people do not need extra calcium or vitamin D, and too much could cause

harm, a report said.

http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 11/30/health/ 30vitamin. html?emc= eta1

Funny, I recall an equally hand-wringing story from the NYT, posted here about

a year or so ago, about how many of us were in peril because we weren't getting

enough vitamin D, and how supplementation of vitamin D would improve our

athletic performance.

----------

Colleagues,

We're walking a lot of tightropes like this. Maybe the best example: oxygen is

toxic. Too little and we're dead; but the same is true if we get too much (plus

the flash fires are a real pain).

Here's to all things in moderation...

Plisk

Excelsior Sports - Derby CT

www.excelsiorsports.com

Prepare To Be A Champion!

[Guest guest]

They say most people don't need the D, yet over half of the people tested

are shown to be in the sub-optimal range.

If in doubt, get the test done. If low, then you can consider

supplementation. I've heard of no reports of adverse affects from

supplementing to increase levels to the higher end of the 'normal' range.

Of course going well over that range would cause issues, but no one is

suggesting that.

The Vit D council at www.grassrootshealth.net has a lot of information and

is preparing a response to this article.

-----------

Buddy A. Touchinsky, D.C.

www.drtouchinsky.com

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Plisk <ssp67047@...> wrote:

>

>

> Most people do not need extra calcium or vitamin D, and too much could

> cause

> harm, a report said.

> http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 11/30/health/ 30vitamin. html?emc= eta1

> Funny, I recall an equally hand-wringing story from the NYT, posted here

> about

> a year or so ago, about how many of us were in peril because we weren't

> getting

> enough vitamin D, and how supplementation of vitamin D would improve our

> athletic performance.

> ----------

>

> Colleagues,

>

> We're walking a lot of tightropes like this. Maybe the best example: oxygen

> is

> toxic. Too little and we're dead; but the same is true if we get too much

> (plus

> the flash fires are a real pain).

>

> Here's to all things in moderation...

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports - Derby CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

When discussing what is suboptimal range it is important to ask: suboptimal for

what?. According to the available science the only scientifically proven

benefit is for prevention of ricketts and bone disease and that level is between

20-30.

Labs are reporting 20-30 as insufficient. All the studies I have read

concerning the benefits of Vitamin D are observational and are assuming a

benefit. While observational studies are a good starting point towards forming a

scientific hypothesis they are not science. The hypothesis remains to be

proven.

As with our previous discussion on the benefits of wine, the studies concerning

wine are observational and it has been assumed (but not proven) that resveratrol

is reason for the benefit.

The following is from the very scientists who have dedicated their lifes work

to research of Bone and minerals

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct. USA

****************************************

Questions about vitamin D and calcium supplements

Joe Lorenzo

Farmington, CT, USA

* Professor of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, UConn

Health Center

* Director of Bone Biology Research, UConn Health Center

New England Musculoskeletal Institute

Specialty: * Endocrinology Osteoporosis and Metabolic Bone Disease

Posted Thu, Dec 2 2010 2:11 PM by Dr. ph Lorenzo

American Society for Bone and Mineral Research

" The message is that there are known " knowns. " There are things we know that we

know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know

we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not

know we don't know. "

Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense

Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a growing trend by health care

providers to be concerned about deficiencies in vitamin D and calcium. It has

long been established that these nutrients are vital for bone health. However,

a large body of data has also demonstrated inverse correlations between levels

of vitamin D and the incidence of a large number of conditions including cancer,

cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immune and infectious disorders

neuropsychological functioning and physical performance. The development of

reliable assays for serum 25 (OH) vitamin D levels has allowed a more accurate

estimation of total body vitamin D stores and facilitated the development of

" cut-points " in the serum levels of 25 (OH) vitamin D. These were identified by

a variety of criteria and used to define states of sufficiency, insufficiency

and deficiency. Both calcium and vitamin D supplements are readily available.

Almost all pharmacies currently stock both and it is relatively easy in the

United States to obtain vitamin D preparations, without a prescription,

containing as much as 5,000 IUs of vitamin D3. It has also recently been

conventional wisdom that these supplements were without significant risk.

Now, the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences

has released a report on dietary reference intake recommendations for calcium

and vitamin D that call into question many of our previously widely held views

about these agents. The committee, which produced the report, reviewed over 1000

published papers on this topic, held public hearings and called upon numerous

experts in this field. Some of their conclusions are the following:

1) The recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for calcium per day should range from

700 mg for individuals 1-3 years old to 1200 mg per day for 51 to 70 year old

females and all individuals greater than 71 years old. Pregnant or lactating

females aged 14 to 18 years old were assigned an RDA of 1300 mg per day. The

RDA is an estimation of the amount of supplement that needs to be consumed to

fully meet the needs of 97.5% of the population. The upper safe level of intake

for calcium ranged from 2000 to 3000 mg per day. It was not clear to the

committee that supplementation above the RDA provided additional benefit.

2) The RDA for vitamin D supplementation was designated as 600 IUs for all

groups except individuals greater than 71 years old who were given an RDA of 800

IUs per day. The upper daily level of intake for vitamin D was designated to

range from 1000 units for 0 to 6 month old infants to 4000 units for all

individuals greater than 9 years old.

3) The report found no conclusive evidence to support the use of vitamin D

supplementation to prevent or treat any condition other than the promotion of

bone health. While the committee found reports that vitamin D may be of

importance for other health reasons, they concluded that the current data did

not substantiate such claims. However, it also did not rule them out.

4) The committee stated that they were concerned that " a considerable

over-estimation of the levels of vitamin D deficiency in the North American

population now exists due to the use by some of cut-points for serum 25 (OH)

vitamin D levels that greatly exceed the levels identified in the report as

consistent with the available data " . The committee's review of the data

" suggests that persons are at risk of deficiency at serum 25 (OH) vitamin D

levels of below 30 nmol/L (12 ng/mL). Some, but not all, persons are potentially

at risk for inadequacy at serum 25 (OH) vitamin D levels between 30 and 50

nmol/L (12 and 20 ng/mL). Practically all persons are sufficient at serum 25

(OH) vitamin D levels of at least 50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL). Serum 25 (OH) vitamin D

concentrations above 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) are not consistently associated with

increased benefit. There may be reason for concern at serum 25OHD levels above

125 nmol/L (50 ng/mL) " .

Clearly, these recommendations will provoke much discussion as they challenge

many beliefs about these supplements. In the coming weeks a number of additional

organizations, including the Professional Practice Committee of the ASBMR, will

weigh in on these supplements. Whatever the final consensus view is or even if a

consensus is ever possible will depend on additional studies that are designed

to more clearly define the risks and benefits of the use of these supplements by

the general population.

Joe Lorenzo

Farmington, CT, USA

Posted Thu, Dec 2 2010 2:11 PM by Dr. ph Lorenzo

________________________________

From: " Buddy A. Touchinsky, D.C. " <dr.touchinsky@...>

Supertraining

Sent: Fri, December 3, 2010 8:28:09 AM

Subject: Re: Re: NYTimes.com: Report Questions Need for 2 Diet

Supplements

They say most people don't need the D, yet over half of the people tested

are shown to be in the sub-optimal range.

If in doubt, get the test done. If low, then you can consider

supplementation. I've heard of no reports of adverse affects from

supplementing to increase levels to the higher end of the 'normal' range.

Of course going well over that range would cause issues, but no one is

suggesting that.

The Vit D council at www.grassrootshealth.net has a lot of information and

is preparing a response to this article.

-----------

Buddy A. Touchinsky, D.C.

www.drtouchinsky.com

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Plisk <ssp67047@...> wrote:

>

>

> Most people do not need extra calcium or vitamin D, and too much could

> cause

> harm, a report said.

> http://www.nytimes. com/2010/ 11/30/health/ 30vitamin. html?emc= eta1

> Funny, I recall an equally hand-wringing story from the NYT, posted here

> about

> a year or so ago, about how many of us were in peril because we weren't

> getting

> enough vitamin D, and how supplementation of vitamin D would improve our

> athletic performance.

> ----------

>

> Colleagues,

>

> We're walking a lot of tightropes like this. Maybe the best example: oxygen

> is

> toxic. Too little and we're dead; but the same is true if we get too much

> (plus

> the flash fires are a real pain).

>

> Here's to all things in moderation...

>

> Plisk

> Excelsior Sports - Derby CT

> www.excelsiorsports.com

> Prepare To Be A Champion!

>

>

>