Visit the Microscopic Colitis Foundation Website
"How Much Vitamin D is Enough?"
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
"How Much Vitamin D is Enough?"
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
Hi Joan,
Boy, this report was all over the news today. I have a lot of questions about their conclusions. For one thing the report is from a bone doc, who is mainly interested in vitamin D/calcium as they relate to bone health. I can't wait to read Dr. Cannell's response (Of the Vitamin D Council). That should be FUN!!!
Love,
Polly
Boy, this report was all over the news today. I have a lot of questions about their conclusions. For one thing the report is from a bone doc, who is mainly interested in vitamin D/calcium as they relate to bone health. I can't wait to read Dr. Cannell's response (Of the Vitamin D Council). That should be FUN!!!
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
D + B
I had a severe deficiency of B12 and D from my MC. I give myself a B12 shot -1ml every month and take 1,000iu's of D every day. It makes me feel so much better. My DR checks these vitamin levels when I have my yearly bloodwork. The B12 & D deficiency is caused from my inability to tolerate beef and dairy.
I know nothing about the credentials of the so-called "prestigious" Institute of Medicine, but the arguments that I see thrown about in this debate are hauntingly similar to the arguments made by the "celiac snobs" in their preemptive strikes to attempt to suppress the rapidly-growing gluten-free movement, and it's associated non-celiac gluten-sensitivity concept. Yep, it's interesting how all the nay-sayers have come out of the woodwork to jump on this and try to suppress the movement before it has a chance to blossom. If they can discourage enough people from increasing their vitamin D intake, before it has a chance of reducing disease in the world, then they can still turn this around. If enough people take enough vitamin D, however, then eventually the statistics are going to show that it is effective, and the cat will be out of the bag, so the "Establishment" is going to have to suppress the vitamin D movement rather quickly, if they are going to effectively nip it in the bud.
I haven't figured out what the Institute of Medicine has to gain from the conclusions of this report, but I'm sure of one thing - the health and well-being of the general population of this country was not a high priority on the list of reasons why they reached those conclusions. For example, the denial of the claim that there is widespread vitamin insufficiency was simply resolved by lowering the threshold for 25(OH)D sufficiency from 30 ng to 20ng, because "20 nanograms is adequate for bone health". Somehow, I'm nor reassured by that statement. There is more to the human body than bones, and I'll bet a GF cookie that it's a lot easier to maintain "adequate bone health" at 30 ng of 25(OH)D, than it is at 20 ng. If I wanted to "just get by", I could cheat and scrimp on a lot of things, but what's the point of it?
Yes, it will be very interesting to see what Dr. Cannell has to say about this. I seriously doubt that he will support their position, to say the least.
Love,
Tex
I haven't figured out what the Institute of Medicine has to gain from the conclusions of this report, but I'm sure of one thing - the health and well-being of the general population of this country was not a high priority on the list of reasons why they reached those conclusions. For example, the denial of the claim that there is widespread vitamin insufficiency was simply resolved by lowering the threshold for 25(OH)D sufficiency from 30 ng to 20ng, because "20 nanograms is adequate for bone health". Somehow, I'm nor reassured by that statement. There is more to the human body than bones, and I'll bet a GF cookie that it's a lot easier to maintain "adequate bone health" at 30 ng of 25(OH)D, than it is at 20 ng. If I wanted to "just get by", I could cheat and scrimp on a lot of things, but what's the point of it?
Yes, it will be very interesting to see what Dr. Cannell has to say about this. I seriously doubt that he will support their position, to say the least.
Love,
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.
Here's the email response I received from Dr. Cannell
Today, the FNB has failed millions...
3:00 PM PST November 30, 2010
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant 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. 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/day), 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 a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute 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 (never exposed to the light of the sun) 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 Robert Heaney at Creighton or, as 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?
Today, 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.
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), 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 25(OH)D is between 50-80 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, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
Today, the FNB has 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.
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
3:00 PM PST November 30, 2010
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant 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. 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/day), 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 a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute 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 (never exposed to the light of the sun) 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 Robert Heaney at Creighton or, as 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?
Today, 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.
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), 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 25(OH)D is between 50-80 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, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
Today, the FNB has 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.
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
1241 Johnson Avenue, #134
Here, here, Dr. Cannell! It will be interesting to see those 14 reports. But Tex, the million dollar question, as you say, is "what is the motive behind this"? You don't think our "esteemed" pharamaceutical industry had anything to do with it, do you? They seem to have most of the money and power in the health care arena. And the most to lose if everyone takes adequate vitamin D. Oh my, I am jaded and cynical, aren't I? But not without reason.
Love,
Polly
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
Polly,
I can't help but wonder exactly who wields the power at the FNB. What are their backgrounds, and who holds the hoops that they choose to jump through? I agree with you, it would be very interesting to see exactly how they're connected with the pharmaceutical industry, (or any other special interest groups, for that matter), and it would surely be particularly enlightening to be able to see a detailed accounting of their sources of income, and the amounts of income from those respective sources. Something is definitely rotten, and it ain't in Denmark.
Dr. Cannells first example is a beauty. For the FNB to claim that an adult, (especially a pregnant female), needs only 50% more vitamin D than a tiny infant, is absolutely ludicrous. That alone shows that their recommendations are totally decoupled from reality. What were they thinking? Are they really brazen enough to think that they will be able to shove such garbage down the throats of the American public, and get away with it? This is the information age. That BS may have worked in the past, but these days, virtually everyone has access to information which contains the truth, if they choose to pursue it, and that goes a long way toward leveling the playing field. I'm guessing that the "prestigious" Institute of Medicine will be a lot less prestigious, before this is over.
Love,
Tex
I can't help but wonder exactly who wields the power at the FNB. What are their backgrounds, and who holds the hoops that they choose to jump through? I agree with you, it would be very interesting to see exactly how they're connected with the pharmaceutical industry, (or any other special interest groups, for that matter), and it would surely be particularly enlightening to be able to see a detailed accounting of their sources of income, and the amounts of income from those respective sources. Something is definitely rotten, and it ain't in Denmark.
Dr. Cannells first example is a beauty. For the FNB to claim that an adult, (especially a pregnant female), needs only 50% more vitamin D than a tiny infant, is absolutely ludicrous. That alone shows that their recommendations are totally decoupled from reality. What were they thinking? Are they really brazen enough to think that they will be able to shove such garbage down the throats of the American public, and get away with it? This is the information age. That BS may have worked in the past, but these days, virtually everyone has access to information which contains the truth, if they choose to pursue it, and that goes a long way toward leveling the playing field. I'm guessing that the "prestigious" Institute of Medicine will be a lot less prestigious, before this is over.
Love,
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.
-
MBombardier
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:44 am
- Location: Vancouver, WA
Thank God for the internet. When I think about all the things my mother suffered before she died, all the things my father is suffering, with four types of cancer, hypothyroidism, lactose intolerance (more than likely gluten-intolerance, though I would never convince him of that), and even my brother, diagnosed with congestive heart failure at age 49... What an amazing resource for education and information that the powers that be (follow the money) would otherwise stifle and conceal from us.
Marliss Bombardier
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Just to spite those pompous know-it-alls, I'm gonna bump up my vitamin D supplement dose by another 1,000 IUs. That'll show 'em.
Actually, I restocked my vitamin D supply this morning, and I noticed that since the 5,000 IU capsules are available, I can take one of them for about two-thirds of the cost of taking 2 of the 2,000 IU capsules, (which I was taking before), so I'll just take one of the 5K capsules each day, and save the difference. I also get another 500 IU of vitamin D3 from my multivitamin, (which would be close enough to meeting their guidelines, by itself), but I'm not nearly as concerned about an overdose as the miscreants over at the FNB.
Here's what really chaps my butt, though. That vitamin D capsule will cost me around 6 cents per day, and I have no doubt that it will provide far more benefits for my long-term health, than virtually all of the prescription medications that I am ever likely to take, many of which cost more than a hundred times as much, and the FNB wants me to stop taking those 6-cent pills.
Well, they're not the only ones dishing out advice - I have some advice for them, too. Unfortunately, though, I can't print in on a family discussion board, so you'll have to use your imagination.
Tex
Actually, I restocked my vitamin D supply this morning, and I noticed that since the 5,000 IU capsules are available, I can take one of them for about two-thirds of the cost of taking 2 of the 2,000 IU capsules, (which I was taking before), so I'll just take one of the 5K capsules each day, and save the difference. I also get another 500 IU of vitamin D3 from my multivitamin, (which would be close enough to meeting their guidelines, by itself), but I'm not nearly as concerned about an overdose as the miscreants over at the FNB.
Here's what really chaps my butt, though. That vitamin D capsule will cost me around 6 cents per day, and I have no doubt that it will provide far more benefits for my long-term health, than virtually all of the prescription medications that I am ever likely to take, many of which cost more than a hundred times as much, and the FNB wants me to stop taking those 6-cent pills.
Well, they're not the only ones dishing out advice - I have some advice for them, too. Unfortunately, though, I can't print in on a family discussion board, so you'll have to use your imagination.
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, I'm sorry I'll have to miss your "advice". I'll bet cowboys can be quite "colorful" when dishing it out! I couldn't agree with you more, of course.
Most of those knowledgeable about vitamin D are upset by the report. Dr. Andrew Weil is trying to be positive, by saying that the studies that the IOM used were flawed and that at least they are beginning to recommend increased doses. However, he states that he will still recommend a minimum of 2000 IUs per day.
I'll look forward to Dr. Cannell's analysis of those reports, once he gets them. I'm sure he'll have plenty to say.
What gets me the most is that there really is no good evidence for vitamin D overdose, so why the hell do they constantly bring that up? I mean, if the sun naturally gives us 10,000 IUs per 15-20 min., what's the fuss? Is the sun wrong, for pete's sake???????????? GRRRRRRRRRR. These IOM members must belong to the Flat Earth Society!
Love,
Polly
Most of those knowledgeable about vitamin D are upset by the report. Dr. Andrew Weil is trying to be positive, by saying that the studies that the IOM used were flawed and that at least they are beginning to recommend increased doses. However, he states that he will still recommend a minimum of 2000 IUs per day.
I'll look forward to Dr. Cannell's analysis of those reports, once he gets them. I'm sure he'll have plenty to say.
What gets me the most is that there really is no good evidence for vitamin D overdose, so why the hell do they constantly bring that up? I mean, if the sun naturally gives us 10,000 IUs per 15-20 min., what's the fuss? Is the sun wrong, for pete's sake???????????? GRRRRRRRRRR. These IOM members must belong to the Flat Earth Society!
Love,
Polly
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused.
-
MBombardier
- Rockhopper Penguin
- Posts: 1523
- Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 10:44 am
- Location: Vancouver, WA
Flat Earth Society . In rebellion to this report, I finally ordered my D3 yesterday--Healthy Origins 5,000 IU capsules for a whopping 4 cents per day. I had my Vitamin D checked in the spring and it was 48.6 ng/mL, which is not quite enough (though the lab thought so, of course). But then I had to stop taking my Blue Ice fermented cod liver/butter oil because it was upsetting my stomach and no doubt after the cold summer we had my Vitamin D levels are down even more. So I am looking forward to what the Vitamin D supplement may do for me in terms of feeling better.
. In rebellion to this report, I finally ordered my D3 yesterday--Healthy Origins 5,000 IU capsules for a whopping 4 cents per day. I had my Vitamin D checked in the spring and it was 48.6 ng/mL, which is not quite enough (though the lab thought so, of course). But then I had to stop taking my Blue Ice fermented cod liver/butter oil because it was upsetting my stomach and no doubt after the cold summer we had my Vitamin D levels are down even more. So I am looking forward to what the Vitamin D supplement may do for me in terms of feeling better.Marliss Bombardier
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Dum spiro, spero -- While I breathe, I hope
Psoriasis - the dark ages
Hashimoto's Thyroiditis - Dec 2001
Collagenous Colitis - Sept 2010
Granuloma Annulare - June 2011
Dr Mercola
DISCLAIMER: I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV.
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan
LDN July 18, 2014
Joan