The Miracle of Vitamin D: Sound Science, or Hype?

[groovedaddy]

Imagine a treatment that could build bones, strengthen the immune system and lower the risks of illnesses like diabetes, heart and kidney disease, high blood pressure and cancer.

Some research suggests that such a wonder treatment already exists. It’s vitamin D, a nutrient that the body makes from sunlight and that is also found in fish and fortified milk.

Yet despite the health potential of vitamin D, as many as half of all adults and children are said to have less than optimum levels and as many as 10 percent of children are highly deficient, according to a 2008 report in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

As a result, doctors are increasingly testing their patients’ vitamin D levels and prescribing daily supplements to raise them. According to the lab company Quest Diagnostics, orders for vitamin D tests surged more than 50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2009, up from the same quarter a year earlier. And in 2008, consumers bought $235 million worth of vitamin D supplements, up from $40 million in 2001, according to Nutrition Business Journal.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/the-miracle-of-vitamin-d-sound-science-or-hype/?th&emc=th

[hlthe2b]

1. The dilemma of a very outdated RDA for vitamin D...

and the fact that Vitamin D has a lower threshold for tolerance than many other vitamins--$$$$$ testing. It is way past time for a reconsideration for RDAs for this nutrient, which might well diminish the need for some of this individual testing.

[ret5hd]

3. I'm not sure I understand your meaning. Do you mean the RDA's are too high...

or the RDA's are too low?

[hlthe2b]

6. Way too low...

Predicated not only on the outdated notion that most Americans get considerable vitamin D precursor through sunlight exposure (which is no longer the case for much of the population), but on outdated science on the varied roles of Vitamin D in the body, which underestimates the levels required.

[groovedaddy]

5. I've heard that individual levels can vary from day to day, even hour to hour, rendering

tests suspect, to say the least. Probably the most critical aspect of rendering a deficiency diagnosis are the person's symptoms.

[hlthe2b]

11. There is a barrage of current well-conducted research

that shows much higher levels of vitamin D levels may well be helpful in preventing multiple types of cancer, including prostate, colon, breast and ovarian--as well as helpful in offsetting risk of diabetes, heart disease and many other chronic or autoimmune conditions. These studies, while not fully conclusive for all conditions, are quite compelling. However, they have relied on levels of vitamin D that exceed current RDAs many times. Thus the flurry of physicians ordering serum vitamin D levels, since extremely high levels of supplementation (as might occur when the lay public tries to respond to these new findings) does carry some risk. Serum vitamin D levels do vary and some of the testing is extremely unreliable, but they can be helpful in watching a trend over time. Some vitamins (e.g., C) can be supplemented at extremely high levels with minimal major ill effects for most people--they simply rid the excess in urine. That same extreme level of vitamin D supplementation does have some risk. So, finding the right level of supplementation (which does far exceed the current RDA) for those who are already deficient can take some amount of individualization and professional input. For those at extreme risk of deficiency related issues, testing over time as supplementation occurs to "calibrate" the right levels is not a bad approach.. Current RDA is 400 IU... Supplementation on the order of 2,000-5,000 IU is more in line with what these studies are using and appears to be safe for most, but not necessarily all people... Getting into the 10,000 IU range, which I have seen suggested in some of these "holistic" publications, may not.

However, it still does not change the fact that the RDAs need to be reevaluated so that more people are approaching optimum levels. And... in answer to groovedaddy's question, waiting for symptoms is not going to be the wisest course, given the goal is prevention... Certainly for those living in the upper (northern) 1/2 to 2/3 of the country where sunlight levels are less intense, it is something to consider.

[gateley]

2. K&R -- I'm always inclined to believe in the benefits of vitamins as big Pharma

undoubtedly tries to quash such info. So if it breaks through that barrier, there may be truth to the claims. Worth looking into.

[MorningGlow]

4. I only have anecdotal evidence

My mom, my son, and I were all severely deficient in D, and we were all constantly getting sick, plus had a severe lack of energy, even my young son, who should have been much more active. Now we're all on high doses of D, and we're much healthier, although we do catch viruses from time to time (hey, my kid's in first grade--such a petri dish). The supplements were necessary, as we apparently have an absorption problem. My son drinks nothing but milk and water (doesn't like anything else) and eats cheese ALL the time (ever see a kid eat four cheese sticks in a day? he does, regularly), and spends a lot of time outdoors. My mother is outside CONSTANTLY in the summer (when she was tested). So for us it's not about sun and dairy. We require something more, and D supplements are providing it, as far as I'm concerned.

However, I'm all for more testing. Go for it. If more people can be helped by something as simple as increased doses of vitamins (and personally I think higher doses of many other vitamins could prevent even more types of illness), why shouldn't we be investigating more?

[Warpy]

7. Yes and no

Current thinking is that the RDA for Vitamin D, adjusted for age, were low across the board. Children are getting enough to prevent rickets, but only just, while adults are slightly low across the board.

However, more isn't always better. Megadosing on B vitamins leads to expensive urine, as the body simply eliminates what it doesn't need. Super megadosing on B vitamins can actually lead to serious problems http://www.acu-cell.com/bx2.html . Any good multivitamin will supply every B vitamin your body can utilize even if you're living on unenriched polished rice.

Megadosing vitamin A can be toxic. Research has suggested megadosing vitamin C can lead to the formation of oxalate kidney stones in susceptible people, although that research has been questioned by vitamin proponents.

Taking a multivitamin a day can be good nutritional insurance for people who are on deficiency diets of one type or another, as well as for people who are junk food junkies. However, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. Educate yourself not to cross that line.

[MorningGlow]

9. Nobody said megadosing (at least I didn't in my post)

But I do think that we should test for severe deficiencies and supplement accordingly. Sometimes one multivitamin is not enough--case in point, my family's D deficiency. We're taking much, much more than what you'd get in a multi, but it's monitored by our doctors and our doses are nowhere near toxic levels.

[Chemisse]

14. Vit. D is fat soluble so excess is not urinated out

That is why it can lead to toxicity if too much is taken.

[Speck Tater]

8. I had my annual physical last week and my doc advised me to take 2000 IU vit D.

I'll take his word for it, since I don't see any harm in it, and the upside potential might be significant if the studies are correct.

[Celebration]

10. Before the "T"s are crossed, and the "i"s dotted

the question is one of risk vs. reward. The bottom line is that the potential reward, while not scientifically proven, is huge, and the risk of taking reasonable amounts of Vitamin D supplementation is almost nil. Since it is low cost, it seems like a no brainer.........supplement, and keep levels in the new higher level of normal. But, to each his own.

[tiptoe]

13. "To each his own" Yep! MD rec'd doses. Variable dose response. Vit D3 Safety (w 2yr-"OD" example)

Boosting and maintaining the Innate Immune System (while the CDC and WHO attend to the Adaptive Immune System and recent clinical hard data makes apparent that "Vitamin D is incredibly protective against H1N1")...

Information straight from the mouths of some of the world's leading authorities on Vitamin D (Vieth, Heaney, Garland) using the latest, 97%-of-total-Vitamin-D-scientific knowledge gained in just the last 12 years, i.e. post 1997 IOM standards (...a heads-up on current store-shelf-product nutrition advertising as well as credentialed-but-possibly-unupdated/ignorance-based health-care advice):

Safety & two MD general recommendations: "How Much Vitamin D Should I Take?"

(Vitamin D News)

[HuckleB]

12. Good piece. Thanks for sharing.