"D" is for dubious
Vitamin D can help protect your bones, brain and heart and lower your risk for sickness, disease and even death.
And maybe that's why some people don't want you to have it.
As you've probably heard by now, the Institute of Medicine has unveiled its new recommendations for vitamin D--and they're not just off the mark.
They're dangerous.
Without conducting a single study of its own, the Institute declared that most Americans and Canadians get plenty of vitamin D and don't need supplements, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
And while the Institute claims to have looked at around 1,000 studies to come up with its recommendations, they clearly left a few out:
- A new study out of California finds 30 percent of metabolic syndrome patients are D deficient, and 84 percent of them suffer from insufficient levels.
- The same study, published in Hormone and Metabolic Research, finds even healthy patients with no sign of metabolic syndrome are missing out: Eight percent of them are deficient, and 67 percent have insufficient levels of D.
- A new study of 723 orthopedic patients finds 43 percent to have low levels of vitamin D and 40 percent to be vitamin D deficient, according to The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery.
- A study last year in Pediatrics, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, found 70 percent of all U.S. kids to have low levels of the sunshine vitamin. While the Institute did recommend an increase in D levels for most people, they settled on a bizarre one-size-fits-most formula that makes the unbelievable claim that a 25-pound toddler and a 200-pound middle-aged man should both get the same amount: 600 IU per day.
As far as the Institute's concerned, it doesn't even matter where you live... what color your skin is... or even how often you head outside, all of which can play a role in vitamin D levels--600 is the magic number, except for the very, very young and the very, very old.
But you don't need to be an alternative health radical to realize that's not enough.
Just check in with the Harvard School of Public Health, which responded to the new recommendations by reaffirming its own advice: Between 1,000 and 2,000 IU per day for most people over the age of 2, with some needing up to 4,000 IU per day depending on all those other factors I mentioned.
The bottom line is that vitamin D is the most important single nutrient you could take. Recent studies have found it can help fight depression, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and even the flu--and it's no surprise that all of those conditions are on the rise as our D levels fall to new lows.
So for failing us on one of the biggest and most anticipated nutritional recommendations in recent years, the Institute of Medicine doesn't just get a "D" on this.
They've earned an F.
Printer-friendly versionAbout the author
Edward Martin writes House Calls, a daily letter chronicling the most cutting-edge alternative methods for beating diabetes and cancer, to the latest FDA foul-ups and Big Pharma conspiracies.
You can sign up here.
Email this Article
Comments
Lori
"And maybe that's why some people don't want you to have it." Bingo!! What would happen to pharma profits if everyone were D replete? It's all about money.
Anonymous
I have to agree with YOUR findings. I was a vitamin D deficient candidate, my symptoms: High blood pressure, depression, lack of energy. Since I have resolved my vitamin D issue, my pressure is more stable, I do not feel depressed and my energy levels have tripled. Out of 6 people-friends and family (not including myself) that have asked me what to tell the dr. to look for when running blood labs... 5 out of 6 had levels in the single digit areas. All were either given a prescription for Vitamin D or told to add a supplement OTC. Vitamin D triggers other symptoms that doctors tend to treat vs. eliminating the main issue all together.
vikingstork
DITTO
tony d
I essentially agree with everything you say in this article but come on let's cut out the single-mindedness. Vitamin D is NOT the most the most important single nmutrient you can take, If you make a statement like that, it can apply only to vitamin C. And let us not forget that vitamin D is totally lost without its counter-part, vitamin A. This is like someone concluding that the opposing thumb is what causes humans to be more functional than other animals. What good is a thumb without the other fingers? The myopic, microscopic vision of single nutrient science eventually leads to errors as we now see happening with respect to over- prescribing of calcium and the total lack of focus on the more essential nutrient, Magnesium.
Please take the time and use the full thought process required to treat humans as whole beings rather than an assembly of individual parts acting individually and not in full concert with the counterparts. Please learn to think wholistically.
Lori
Tony - you're right about our myopic thinking but one thing we have to remember about vitamin D is that is not really a "vitamin" at all. It's a pro-hormone that converts to the most potent steroid in the human body. There are over 30 organs and tissues in the body with D3 receptors. To say it's more important than vit C, or that C is more important is really not the point. Vitamin C is abundant in many food sources, while D3 is not (any longer, that is). As a result, D3 needs to be supplemented.
Helen
Do people know that vitamin D can help prevent sinas problems and keep the throat healthy. That was a mirical for me the day I started taking it. I was all stuffed up, evin my ears were stuffed after taking vitamin D for three days I was free from sinas infection and still am years later.
Tom CHHC
In our evolutionary history, mankind has never got enough Vitamin D in food. The only meaningul source is fish liver, and primarily from cod. Even then, you wouldn't get therapeutic levels of D, not enough to raise your blood levels by much.
Nature intends us to get our Vitamin D from the sun. Our evolutinary ancestors were out in the sun a lot more than we are today. Today we put on sunscreen and then take showers as soon as we come in from the sun. One blocks the production D, the other washes it off before it can be absorbed transdermally.
Then there are those who are taking statins to control their cholesterol. Vitamin D is made from a derivative of cholesterol that is on our skin. When we block the production of cholesterol with statins, guess what. We greatly reduce the amount of cholesterol needed for our bodies to produce Vitamin D naturally.
The million dollar question is, do Vitamin D supplements work as well as sun exposure? And the answer is no. We did not evolve getting our Vitamin D dietarily. We got it from being out in the sun. This is how our bodies know how to make D3.
Li Tang
I use sunshine supplement, even in the winter the sunshine is enough for Vit D supply. My VD3 bottle has sit there for long time, I just do not need it.
Lori
Li Tang - have you tested your D3 levels? There's not enough sunshine in the winter, unless one lives very close to the equater, to keep levels at or above 50ng/ml.
Li Tang
I felt the change D3 and sunshine brought to me, so I know I am now having sufficient D3 in my body. The D3 is the natural tranquilizer. I believe even the D3 accumulated in the summer will stay in my body and release slowly all through the winter. The key is to do the outdoor work, not to stay in the office in the day time.
Post new comment