Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.
Of course, some idiots in positions of medical responsibility, who should know better, still refuse to acknowledge the problem:
But Mary France Picciano, a senior nutrition scientist in the National Institutes of Health's Office of Dietary Supplements, is skeptical that the dip is as deep or widespread as suggested, noting that there's disagreement on how much vitamin D is needed. She notes that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) defines insufficiency as less than11 nanograms per milliliter.
It sounds as though stupidity might be a prerequisite for working at the Institute of Medicine, and there's obviously some question about the qualifications of some of the senior employees at the National Institutes of Health, in their Office of Dietary Supplements. For the rest of us, though, we seem to be making progress with this problem.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex, when I looked at the article I noticed that it isn't the latest SA issue, it says "March 29, 2009".
Also, the updated IOM Vit D guidelines were supposed to be published in May of this year, but when I looked for them, the IOM site now says they should be available in Oct/Nov 2010.
There almost seems to be an "anti-bandwagon" affect with Vit. D amongst the "Old Guard". And it's not just that it's the latest "fad", lots of scientific evidence is accumulating. I truly don't understand why the resistance.
Rosie
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time………Thomas Edison
Thanks for pointing that out. I got that lead from The Renegade Neurologist's blog, dated July 4, 2010, (as of today, it's the third entry from the top, in that blog). I just assumed, (obviously incorrectly), that he posted up-to-date information, so I looked up the article, and didn't even bother to check the date. Sorry about that.
l notice that he has added information from Dr. Cannell's Vitamin D Council, since I last visited.
Rosie wrote:There almost seems to be an "anti-bandwagon" affect with Vit. D amongst the "Old Guard". And it's not just that it's the latest "fad", lots of scientific evidence is accumulating. I truly don't understand why the resistance.
I'm beginning to think that such behavior is simply their default response - they're against anything and everything that appears to be contrary to their existing, "established" mindset. In their minds, "established" science is not to be challenged. Period.
Or, maybe they belong to the same club as Kim's GI doctor, and they simply refuse to learn anything new, they're just not as candid and as honest about it as Kim's doctor.
Thanks for correcting my mistake.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Very interesting. This obviously has implications for all the IBDs.
Thanks for the link.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
More good news about Vitamin D........it may help to prevent Parkinson's Disease:
A population study from Finland found that the participants with the lowest levels of vitamin D were three times as likely to develop Parkinson’s.
Conversely, the Finnish volunteers with the highest vitamin D blood levels were two-thirds (67 percent) less likely to develop the brain disease.
This info is from the Vital Choice newletter. Vital Choice is a company in WA state that sells sustainable seafood (salmon, tuna, etc.) that has 1/3 the amount of heavy metals as other seafood. I order from them.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
I keep on reading about the importance of vitamin D. I decided to take a closer look how much I take every day. It is 6,6 mcg, the same as 252 IE. According to the official guidelines this should be enough. But I have my doubts. Of course I get some vitamin D from sun light. Only I have a very sensitive skin (sun allergy) so on sunny days I always use a cream with a high sun protector (factor 30). Here and there I have read, the sun cream does not only prevent the skin burning but also the vitamin D production. Would it be wise to enhance my daily vitamin D doses. To what level?
harma
ps, also (almost) daily I eat one portion of fat fish (salmon, mackerel)
Have you ever had your vitamin D blood level checked? The correct test is a test for 25-Hydroxy-D, or 25(OH)D.
You are correct, 6.6 mcg is only equivalent to about 252 IU. Groningen is located at the same latitude as Edmonton, Alberta, in Canada, at about 53 degrees north. I live at a latitude of slightly over 30 degrees north, and I am taking 2,500 IU daily, during the summer. From November through about April, I take 4,500 IU. I just checked with my doctor's office, and my 25(OH)D test results from last week are not back, yet, so I can't tell you what my level is, but I'll post it as soon as I receive it.
The point is, I'm taking roughly 10 times as much vitamin D supplement as you, and I get a reasonable amount of sun most days, and I have never used any sunscreen in my life. You are almost twice as far from the equator as I am. At your latitude, you would probably need to take almost twice as much vitamin D as I do, in order to obtain the same blood level of 25(OH)D. I don't know exactly how much you should be taking, but unless you have tested your blood level of 25(OH)D, and found the result to be well up in the recommended range, IMO, you should be taking somewhere between 10 and 20 times as much as you are taking now. IOW, if I were in your shoes, I would be taking somewhere between 66 and 132 mcg of vitamin D3, daily, and during the fall and winter, I would increase the dose to somewhere between 132 and 264 mcg. I'm not saying that you have to do that, I'm just saying what I would do, if I lived in Groningen.
I didn't allow for your daily fish allotment, though, because I have no idea how much vitamin D you might be getting from that. I always ignore any vitamin D that I get from food, in my calculations of my intake of vitamin D, but I don't normally eat fish. I do eat foods that are supposed to be high in vitamin D - I just don't include their value in my calculations. Maybe someone else can shed some light on how much vitamin D you might be getting from the fish, but I doubt that it would be significantly more than the vitamin D that I get from my usual diet.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex thank you for your reply, last visit I talked with my GI about a vit D level test, but he was not open to it (it was not useful he said because I was already taking vit d supplements) I will call my PCP and see if it is possible to get a blood test. The advance of the Dutch system is, is that all medical costs are covered by health insurance, I never have to worry about my medications bills, I even never see them. The down side is, doctors only want to sign for medical test if they see the need for it. I think osteoporoses will be a good reason to have my vit d level tested.
Also I will enhance my vit d intake to the levels you advised Tex.
catfish (3 oz.) - 570
red (sockeye) salmon, canned, 1/4 cup - 480
pink salmon, canned, 1/4 cup -290
shrimp, 3 oz. cooked - 170
tuna, light, canned - 130
Harma, you are probably getting even more, if you are eating fresh fish and larger amounts.
I would guess that the minimum supplement for you in the winter might be between 2000 and 3000 IUs.
And don't forget - it has to be vitamin D3, not D2.
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
The longitude/latitude for my town is 42 degrees north. I take 3,000 units of vit. D3 daily in the summer and 5,000 units in the winter. I don't eat fish anymore. It's high in histamines. I had my vit. D level taken in June and it was 62.5. The acceptable range is considered 32-100, though I think they are recommending a level above 50.
Gloria
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
Harma Gloria Polly and Tex. This has been good thread on the vitamin D3 issue. I am scheduled for lab work next week and have had the doctor add a vitamin D test. As mentioned in another post I was running on empty last November with a count of 2. After 12 weeks on 50,000 IUs my levels went to 28. My PCP recommended only 1,000 IU's a day after that. My plan is to have it measured now in the middle of summer and again in December.
I wonder if the low D3 levels would contribute to the development of MC or Crohns. It was in November that my symptoms really started to develop.
Tex I believe that you were thinking I should take between 6000 - 8000 IU's depending on the time of year.
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
It sounds as though stupidity might be a prerequisite for working at the Institute of Medicine, and there's obviously some question about the qualifications of some of the senior employees at the National Institutes of Health, in their Office of Dietary Supplements. For the rest of us, though, we seem to be making progress with this problem.
Sorry about that.
