Re: Vitamin D Supplementation

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Jeff for posting this. So often, everyone jumps on the Vitamin or Supplement “du jour” bandwagon (and I’ve done my own share of jumping on) only to later find out that the supplement is useless taken out of its’ element (food) or even harmful.

OTOH, there has been so much posted about Vit D, that it sure “feels” like there’s sufficient evidence.

What to think??

On 3/29/10 8:36 PM, " Novick " <jnovickrd@...> wrote:

An important article to read...

Jeff

Vitamin D Supplementation in the Age of Lost Innocence

328 2 March 2010 ls of Internal Medicine Volume 152 • Number 5

" Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested

by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread

use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the

general population remains insufficient. The 2 metaanalyses

in this issue indicate that the randomized trial data

on the cardiovascular effects of high-dose vitamin D supplementation

are very limited (15, 16). In addition, trials

of antioxidant vitamins have taught us that we cannot anticipate

small risks of presumed safe interventions that,

when applied to hundreds of millions of persons, could

result in thousands of detrimental events (22, 23). Conducting

large randomized trials of high-dose vitamin D3

supplementation in general population settings should be a

public health research priority. We must better define the

optimal dose, the real benefits, and the potential harmful

effects of vitamin D supplementation. These trials should

include participants of both sexes and various ages and

races or ethnicities, and measure baseline concentration of

circulating 25(OH)D3 in study participants to determine

whether efficacy or potential harm depends on vitamin D

status. Enthusiasm for vitamin D supplementation must be

tempered by the loss of innocence from trials of antioxidant

supplements that showed not only no health benefit

but also harms. We need to better understand vitamin D’s

benefits and harms so that we can maximize the net health

gains across all segments of the population. "

I agree!

jeff

[Guest guest]

Perhaps it's a both are correct. Vit D can be good for us, without meaning we need to jump on high dose supplementation. Vit D deficiency is a very real possibility for many especially in winter months. But Vit D is hormone like, and fat soluble, two things that should make us cautious about ingesting too much of this good thing. I am not overly concerned about people who test their blood concentrations and manage supplements to some target blood concentration, but for every one of them, how many more just dose up blindly? if a little is good, more is better... right? As with everything moderation...and common sense. JROn Mar 29, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Francesca Skelton wrote:

Thanks to Jeff for posting this. So often, everyone jumps on the Vitamin or Supplement “du jour” bandwagon (and I’ve done my own share of jumping on) only to later find out that the supplement is useless taken out of its’ element (food) or even harmful.

OTOH, there has been so much posted about Vit D, that it sure “feels” like there’s sufficient evidence.

What to think??

On 3/29/10 8:36 PM, " Novick" <jnovickrd > wrote:

An important article to read...

Jeff

Vitamin D Supplementation in the Age of Lost Innocence

328 2 March 2010 ls of Internal Medicine Volume 152 • Number 5

"Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested

by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread

use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the

general population remains insufficient. The 2 metaanalyses

in this issue indicate that the randomized trial data

on the cardiovascular effects of high-dose vitamin D supplementation

are very limited (15, 16). In addition, trials

of antioxidant vitamins have taught us that we cannot anticipate

small risks of presumed safe interventions that,

when applied to hundreds of millions of persons, could

result in thousands of detrimental events (22, 23). Conducting

large randomized trials of high-dose vitamin D3

supplementation in general population settings should be a

public health research priority. We must better define the

optimal dose, the real benefits, and the potential harmful

effects of vitamin D supplementation. These trials should

include participants of both sexes and various ages and

races or ethnicities, and measure baseline concentration of

circulating 25(OH)D3 in study participants to determine

whether efficacy or potential harm depends on vitamin D

status. Enthusiasm for vitamin D supplementation must be

tempered by the loss of innocence from trials of antioxidant

supplements that showed not only no health benefit

but also harms. We need to better understand vitamin D’s

benefits and harms so that we can maximize the net health

gains across all segments of the population."

I agree!

jeff

[Guest guest]

There's a very important difference between the antioxidant vitamin

supplement studies and prudently taking Vitamin D3.

We have accepted laboratory values for 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, just as we do for

other bloodwork, and one can prudently supplement Vitamin D in order to put

onself into the proper range. For example, it is accepted that persons should

not be below 30 or 32 ng/ml on a 25-OH-D blood test. I don't believe that is

being questioned by researchers/scientists, nor the masses of physicians who

have no intention of prescribing " high dose Vit D " for their patients.

If a person has a 25-OH-D blood level of 15 ng/ml, which is quite deficient and

unacceptable, and the person finds by personal experiment that they have to take

2,000 IU just to get to the lowest end of the normal blood range, is that " high

dose Vit D supplementation " , just because the RDA is 400 IU for that person?

In the antioxidant vitamin studies, they were not taking blood tests and having

the subjects take antioxidant vitamins to correct vitamin deficiencies. I

believe they were taking " high dose antioxidant vitamins " ; by high dose I mean

an amount of say Vitamin E that far exceeds what would be supplied by a very

good diet.

Another issue is that when a person exposes a lot of their skin to the sun just

for 10 minutes, their skin can produce huge amounts of Vitamin D compared to the

RDA, so we may be talking about " low RDA " vs. " high dose Vit D " . Here's a quote

from the Vitamin D council:

" The skin produces approximately 10,000 IU vitamin D in response 20–30 minutes

summer sun exposure—50 times more than the US government's recommendation of 200

IU per day " ! http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

There are a lot of individual factors, such as how dark the skin is, race,

latitude, season of the year, time of the day, how much sun exposure a person

gets, how much of the skin is exposed, etc.

We have no way of knowing our 25-OH-D levels unless we test them. It seems

quite prudent to get a 25-OH-D blood test and then, under the advice of a

physician, do what needs to be done to have a normal blood level.

An interesting fact about blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is that the body

does not store any until the blood levels go to at least 40 ng/ml, and in some

cases, 50 ng/ml. Below 40 ng/ml, the body uses all the Vitamin D for its

functions, and doesn't store any......so the risk of toxicity isn't there at

that blood level.

I also find interesting that the Vitamin D data is being generated by very well

respected PhD scientists

That's a lot different than a non-scientist saying, " take 800 IU of Vitamin E

daily and you won't have heart disease " , and then having studies that disprove

this.

Finally, there are few natural food sources of Vitamin D......because it's not a

vitamin, it's a hormone made by the skin upon exposure to UVB. We are not going

to get enough from food. The gov't has artificially added Vitamin D to milk and

some other products. And since it is established in nature to produce huge

amounts of Vitamin D upon sun exposure, and since many of us rarely expose our

skin to the sun, maybe the amounts of Vit D3 that it takes to get a person's

blood level in the normal range make sense.

Bob

>

> An important article to read...

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

> Vitamin D Supplementation in the Age of Lost Innocence

> 328 2 March 2010 ls of Internal Medicine Volume 152 • Number 5

>

>

> " Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested

> by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread

> use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the

> general population remains insufficient. The 2 metaanalyses

> in this issue indicate that the randomized trial data

> on the cardiovascular effects of high-dose vitamin D supplementation

> are very limited (15, 16). In addition, trials

> of antioxidant vitamins have taught us that we cannot anticipate

> small risks of presumed safe interventions that,

> when applied to hundreds of millions of persons, could

> result in thousands of detrimental events (22, 23). Conducting

> large randomized trials of high-dose vitamin D3

> supplementation in general population settings should be a

> public health research priority. We must better define the

> optimal dose, the real benefits, and the potential harmful

> effects of vitamin D supplementation. These trials should

> include participants of both sexes and various ages and

> races or ethnicities, and measure baseline concentration of

> circulating 25(OH)D3 in study participants to determine

> whether efficacy or potential harm depends on vitamin D

> status. Enthusiasm for vitamin D supplementation must be

> tempered by the loss of innocence from trials of antioxidant

> supplements that showed not only no health benefit

> but also harms. We need to better understand vitamin D's

> benefits and harms so that we can maximize the net health

> gains across all segments of the population. "

>

> I agree!

>

> jeff

>

[Guest guest]

My mother says a friend of hers had to

stop taking Vitamin D supplements because she was getting anxious and that

there are studies about Vitamin D and anxiety. Anyone know anything?

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of RJB112

Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 4:09

AM

Subject: [ ] Re:

Vitamin D Supplementation

There's a very important difference between the

antioxidant vitamin

supplement studies and prudently taking Vitamin D3.

We have accepted laboratory values for 25-hydroxy-vitamin D, just as we do for

other bloodwork, and one can prudently supplement Vitamin D in order to put

onself into the proper range. For example, it is accepted that persons should

not be below 30 or 32 ng/ml on a 25-OH-D blood test. I don't believe that is

being questioned by researchers/scientists, nor the masses of physicians

who have no intention of prescribing " high dose Vit D " for their

patients.

If a person has a 25-OH-D blood level of 15 ng/ml, which is quite deficient and

unacceptable, and the person finds by personal experiment that they have to

take 2,000 IU just to get to the lowest end of the normal blood range, is that

" high dose Vit D supplementation " , just because the RDA is 400

IU for that person?

In the antioxidant vitamin studies, they were not taking blood tests and having

the subjects take antioxidant vitamins to correct vitamin deficiencies. I

believe they were taking " high dose antioxidant vitamins " ; by high

dose I mean an amount of say Vitamin E that far exceeds what would be supplied

by a very good diet.

Another issue is that when a person exposes a lot of their skin to the sun just

for 10 minutes, their skin can produce huge amounts of Vitamin D compared to

the RDA, so we may be talking about " low RDA " vs. " high dose Vit

D " . Here's a quote from the Vitamin D council:

" The skin produces approximately 10,000 IU vitamin D in response

20–30 minutes summer sun exposure—50 times more than the US government's

recommendation of 200 IU per day " ! http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

There are a lot of individual factors, such as how dark the skin is, race,

latitude, season of the year, time of the day, how much sun exposure a person

gets, how much of the skin is exposed, etc.

We have no way of knowing our 25-OH-D levels unless we test them. It seems

quite prudent to get a 25-OH-D blood test and then, under the advice of a

physician, do what needs to be done to have a normal blood level.

An interesting fact about blood levels of 25-hydroxy-vitamin D is that the body

does not store any until the blood levels go to at least 40 ng/ml, and in some

cases, 50 ng/ml. Below 40 ng/ml, the body uses all the Vitamin D for its

functions, and doesn't store any......so the risk of toxicity isn't there at

that blood level.

I also find interesting that the Vitamin D data is being generated by very well

respected PhD scientists

That's a lot different than a non-scientist saying, " take 800 IU of

Vitamin E daily and you won't have heart disease " , and then having studies

that disprove this.

Finally, there are few natural food sources of Vitamin D......because it's not

a vitamin, it's a hormone made by the skin upon exposure to UVB. We are not

going to get enough from food. The gov't has artificially added Vitamin D to

milk and some other products. And since it is established in nature to produce

huge amounts of Vitamin D upon sun exposure, and since many of us rarely expose

our skin to the sun, maybe the amounts of Vit D3 that it takes to get a

person's blood level in the normal range make sense.

Bob

>

> An important article to read...

>

> Jeff

>

>

>

> Vitamin D Supplementation in the Age of Lost Innocence

> 328 2 March 2010 ls of Internal Medicine Volume 152 • Number 5

>

>

> " Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested

> by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread

> use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the

> general population remains insufficient. The 2 metaanalyses

> in this issue indicate that the randomized trial data

> on the cardiovascular effects of high-dose vitamin D supplementation

> are very limited (15, 16). In addition, trials

> of antioxidant vitamins have taught us that we cannot anticipate

> small risks of presumed safe interventions that,

> when applied to hundreds of millions of persons, could

> result in thousands of detrimental events (22, 23). Conducting

> large randomized trials of high-dose vitamin D3

> supplementation in general population settings should be a

> public health research priority. We must better define the

> optimal dose, the real benefits, and the potential harmful

> effects of vitamin D supplementation. These trials should

> include participants of both sexes and various ages and

> races or ethnicities, and measure baseline concentration of

> circulating 25(OH)D3 in study participants to determine

> whether efficacy or potential harm depends on vitamin D

> status. Enthusiasm for vitamin D supplementation must be

> tempered by the loss of innocence from trials of antioxidant

> supplements that showed not only no health benefit

> but also harms. We need to better understand vitamin D's

> benefits and harms so that we can maximize the net health

> gains across all segments of the population. "

>

> I agree!

>

> jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

There is no substitute for cod liver oil, however we can take supplemental

vitamin D3 and vitamin A. Please see Bee's recomendations:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/supp1.php#ab

Nan B.

moderator

>

> Hi Bee and all,

>

> I've been on Bee's diet for about 4 months... and even with occasional cheats

I have seen a significant improvement in my health--less muscle aches, better

digestion and mood.

>

> I have a question about a new Vitamin D product featured on Dr. Mercola's

site:

>

> http://products.mercola.com/vitamin-d-spray/?source=nl

>

> I'm curious if it meets Bee's criteria for appropriate vitamin D

supplementation. In other words, would it be an effective substitute for cod

liver oil/fish oil?

>

> Thanks in advance for your response,

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Hi Bee and all,

>

> I've been on Bee's diet for about 4 months... and even with occasional cheats

I have seen a significant improvement in my health--less muscle aches, better

digestion and mood.

>

> I have a question about a new Vitamin D product featured on Dr. Mercola's

site:

>

> http://products.mercola.com/vitamin-d-spray/?source=nl

>

> I'm curious if it meets Bee's criteria for appropriate vitamin D

supplementation. In other words, would it be an effective substitute for cod

liver oil/fish oil?

>

> Thanks in advance for your response,

+++Hi ,

No, it does not meet my criteria at all. There's way too much vitamin D in that

spray, and also Dr. Mercola doesn't recommend taking vitamin A which is needed

in order for vitamin D to be utilized by the body.

There is no substitute for what I recommend, and obviously it is getting results

since so many people on my program are having great successes.

See this article for more information:

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/cod2.php

The best in health, Bee