Report on Vitamin D and calcium

[Guest guest]

http://www.komonews.com/news/health/111021479.html

This appeared on KOMO 4 TV this week and I wondered if Jo, or Vicki, or Dr. K is aware of the new study. I am taking 50,000 per day and am taking between 1,500 and 2,000 mg of calcium. Now what?

Marla

DS: 2-9-05

[Guest guest]

Marla

We've seen it. Dr K e mailed me and asked what I thought about it. Happened to

be talking to Jo at the time so we told him what we thought of it. Here is what

the Vitamin council has to say.

SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif., Dec. 1, 2010 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The

following was released today by the Vitamin D Council:

After 13 years of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of

Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), yesterday recommended that

a three - pound premature infant can 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 (1). 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), 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 the pregnant women 15

micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single 30 minutes 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 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 Heaney at Creighton, or 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? Yesterday, 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.

I, my family, most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of

readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter, 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 (OH)D] is between 50 ng/ml and 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 (2), a doubled risk for

preeclampsia (3), a tripled risk for gestational diabetes (4), and a

quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section (5).

Yesterday, the FNB 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.

Cannell, MD

The Vitamin D

Council<http://globalmessaging2.prnewswire.com/clickthrough/servlet/clickthrough\

?msg_id=6754762 & adr_order=8895 & url=aHR0cDovL3d3dy52aXRhbWluZGNvdW5jaWwub3Jn>

>

> _http://www.komonews.com/news/health/111021479.html_

> (http://www.komonews.com/news/health/111021479.html)

>

> This appeared on KOMO 4 TV this week and I wondered if Jo, or Vicki, or Dr.

> K is aware of the new study. I am taking 50,000 per day and am taking

> between 1,500 and 2,000 mg of calcium. Now what?

>

> Marla

> DS: 2-9-05

>

[Guest guest]

Here are some other opinions

Quotes on the State of Vitamin D Science, Reference to IOM Report

from the D*action Panel of Vitamin D Scientists/Researchers

November 2010

" 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. P.Heaney, MD

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. "

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. 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. "

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.

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. "

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 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 s Cancer Center

>

> _http://www.komonews.com/news/health/111021479.html_

> (http://www.komonews.com/news/health/111021479.html)

>

> This appeared on KOMO 4 TV this week and I wondered if Jo, or Vicki, or Dr.

> K is aware of the new study. I am taking 50,000 per day and am taking

> between 1,500 and 2,000 mg of calcium. Now what?

>

> Marla

> DS: 2-9-05

>