|
Home > Archive > Osteoporosis disease > September 2006 > Optimal vitamin D levels in relation to bone mineral density
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Optimal vitamin D levels in relation to bone mineral density
|
|
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-27, 4:29 pm |
| According to a Harvard study optimal circulating vitamin D concentrations in
relation to bone density and other outcomes are between 90-100 nmol/l.
Achieving this level may require much higher level of vitamin D
supplementation than what is rutinely recommended. Personally I have started
to take 50 micrograms daily, and I am going to have my 25(OH)D levels
checked in February or March to make sure that I reach the optimal levels.
Please notice that there is an error in the abstract as 1000 IU is not 40
micrograms but 25 micrograms (40 micrograms equites 1600 IU).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28.
Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for
multiple health outcomes.
Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Dietrich T, Dawson-Hughes B.
Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current
recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes. However,
optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] have not been
defined. This review summarizes evidence from studies that evaluated
thresholds for serum 25(OH)D concentrations in relation to bone mineral
density (BMD), lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls,
fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most advantageous
serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best
are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these
concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes
of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A
comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of
25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest
that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older
adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is
warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D
(cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less
than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L. The implications of higher doses
for the entire adult population should be addressed in future studies. PMID:
16825677
The abstract:
http://tinyurl.com/pud29
The full study in pdf form:
http://tinyurl.com/sx27a
--
Juhana
| |
|
| Have you checked your current vitamin D levels to make sure that you
need supplementation? Have you consulted with an endocrinologist to see
what the pros/cons are and whether he/she recommends the supplementation?
Larry E.
Juhana Harju wrote:
> According to a Harvard study optimal circulating vitamin D concentrations in
> relation to bone density and other outcomes are between 90-100 nmol/l.
> Achieving this level may require much higher level of vitamin D
> supplementation than what is rutinely recommended. Personally I have started
> to take 50 micrograms daily, and I am going to have my 25(OH)D levels
> checked in February or March to make sure that I reach the optimal levels.
>
> Please notice that there is an error in the abstract as 1000 IU is not 40
> micrograms but 25 micrograms (40 micrograms equites 1600 IU).
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28.
> Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for
> multiple health outcomes.
> Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Dietrich T, Dawson-Hughes B.
> Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
>
> Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current
> recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes. However,
> optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] have not been
> defined. This review summarizes evidence from studies that evaluated
> thresholds for serum 25(OH)D concentrations in relation to bone mineral
> density (BMD), lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls,
> fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most advantageous
> serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL), and the best
> are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In most persons, these
> concentrations could not be reached with the currently recommended intakes
> of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for younger and older adults, respectively. A
> comparison of vitamin D intakes with achieved serum concentrations of
> 25(OH)D for the purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest
> that, for bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older
> adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D is
> warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg) vitamin D
> (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D concentrations in no less
> than 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/L. The implications of higher doses
> for the entire adult population should be addressed in future studies. PMID:
> 16825677
>
> The abstract:
> http://tinyurl.com/pud29
>
> The full study in pdf form:
> http://tinyurl.com/sx27a
>
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 2:31 am |
| Larry wrote:
: Have you checked your current vitamin D levels to make sure that you
: need supplementation? Have you consulted with an endocrinologist to
: see what the pros/cons are and whether he/she recommends the
: supplementation?
Hi Larry,
Those are good questions. I checked my 25(OH)D levels in July this year and
they were at a good level (81 nmol/l) due to sun exposure. My current dose
50 micrograms is a dose which was recommended by my doctor. 50 micrograms is
a safe dose in wintertime (my doctor said that also) and I am not aware of
any risks involved in taking that (I have been doing some study about the
subject).
About the pros and cons: I recommend reading the full study I linked. That
would probably answer to some of your questions and doubts. Adequate
supplementation of vitamin D not only reduces fracture risk and improves
bone density, but it also reduces the risk of many cancers and multiple
schlerosis, and it improves immunity and muscle strenght. These are just few
of the many benefits, but I recommend that you do your own study about the
subject.
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: According to a Harvard study optimal circulating vitamin D
:: concentrations in relation to bone density and other outcomes are
:: between 90-100 nmol/l. Achieving this level may require much higher
:: level of vitamin D supplementation than what is rutinely
:: recommended. Personally I have started to take 50 micrograms daily,
:: and I am going to have my 25(OH)D levels checked in February or
:: March to make sure that I reach the optimal levels.
::
:: Please notice that there is an error in the abstract as 1000 IU is
:: not 40 micrograms but 25 micrograms (40 micrograms equites 1600 IU).
::
:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::
:: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28.
:: Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for
:: multiple health outcomes.
:: Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Dietrich T,
:: Dawson-Hughes B. Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public
:: Health, Boston, MA, USA.
::
:: Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current
:: recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes.
:: However, optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D
:: [25(OH)D] have not been defined. This review summarizes evidence
:: from studies that evaluated thresholds for serum 25(OH)D
:: concentrations in relation to bone mineral density (BMD),
:: lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls,
:: fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most
:: advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30
:: ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In
:: most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the
:: currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for
:: younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D
:: intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the
:: purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for
:: bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older
:: adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D
:: is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg)
:: vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D
:: concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75
:: nmol/L. The implications of higher doses for the entire adult
:: population should be addressed in future studies. PMID: 16825677
::
:: The abstract:
:: http://tinyurl.com/pud29
::
:: The full study in pdf form:
:: http://tinyurl.com/sx27a
--
Juhana
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 2:31 am |
| Larry wrote:
: Have you checked your current vitamin D levels to make sure that you
: need supplementation? Have you consulted with an endocrinologist to
: see what the pros/cons are and whether he/she recommends the
: supplementation?
:
: Larry E.
Concerning the safety of taking 50 micrograms you may want to have a look at
this clinical trial where 100 micrograms was considered to be a safe dose.
(Taking 100 micrograms is not a level I am advocating, unless there is a
good reason and it is prescribed by a doctor.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed
adverse effect level.
Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
BACKGROUND: The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences
states that 95 microg vitamin D/d is the lowest observed adverse effect
level (LOAEL). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the efficacy and
safety of prolonged vitamin D3 intakes of 25 and 100 microg (1000 and 4000
IU)/d. Efficacy was based on the lowest serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
concentration achieved by subjects taking vitamin D3; potential toxicity was
monitored by measuring serum calcium concentrations and by calculating
urinary calcium-creatinine ratios. DESIGN: Healthy men and women (n = 61)
aged 41 +/- 9 y (mean +/- SD) were randomly assigned to receive either 25 or
100 microg vitamin D3/d for 2-5 mo, starting between January and February.
Serum 25(OH)D was measured by radioimmunoassay. RESULTS: Baseline serum
25(OH)D was 40.7 +/- 15.4 nmol/L (mean +/- SD). From 3 mo on, serum 25(OH)D
plateaued at 68.7 +/- 16.9 nmol/L in the 25-microg/d group and at 96.4 +/-
14.6 nmol/L in the 100-microg/d group. Summertime serum 25(OH)D
concentrations in 25 comparable subjects not taking vitamin D3 were 46.7 +/-
17.8 nmol/L. The minimum and maximum plateau serum 25(OH)D concentrations in
subjects taking 25 and 100 microg vitamin D3/d were 40 and 100 nmol/L and 69
and 125 nmol/L, respectively. Serum calcium and urinary calcium excretion
did not change significantly at either dosage during the study. CONCLUSIONS:
The 100-microg/d dosage of vitamin D3 effectively increased 25(OH)D to
high-normal concentrations in practically all adults and serum 25(OH)D
remained within the physiologic range; therefore, we consider 100 microg
vitamin D3/d to be a safe intake. PMID: 11157326
http://tinyurl.com/htzgv
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: According to a Harvard study optimal circulating vitamin D
:: concentrations in relation to bone density and other outcomes are
:: between 90-100 nmol/l. Achieving this level may require much higher
:: level of vitamin D supplementation than what is rutinely
:: recommended. Personally I have started to take 50 micrograms daily,
:: and I am going to have my 25(OH)D levels checked in February or
:: March to make sure that I reach the optimal levels.
::
:: Please notice that there is an error in the abstract as 1000 IU is
:: not 40 micrograms but 25 micrograms (40 micrograms equites 1600 IU).
::
:: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
::
:: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28.
:: Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for
:: multiple health outcomes.
:: Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Dietrich T,
:: Dawson-Hughes B. Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public
:: Health, Boston, MA, USA.
::
:: Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current
:: recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes.
:: However, optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D
:: [25(OH)D] have not been defined. This review summarizes evidence
:: from studies that evaluated thresholds for serum 25(OH)D
:: concentrations in relation to bone mineral density (BMD),
:: lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls,
:: fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most
:: advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30
:: ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In
:: most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the
:: currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for
:: younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D
:: intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the
:: purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for
:: bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older
:: adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D
:: is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg)
:: vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D
:: concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75
:: nmol/L. The implications of higher doses for the entire adult
:: population should be addressed in future studies. PMID: 16825677
::
:: The abstract:
:: http://tinyurl.com/pud29
::
:: The full study in pdf form:
:: http://tinyurl.com/sx27a
--
Juhana
| |
| Shirley ann 2006-09-28, 8:31 am |
| My citrate calcium has vitamin D in it.
My MD has me on 1200 mg calcium a day. I take it every 6 hours to get
this much in me.
2 tablets has 400 mg of Vitamin D and 630 mg citrate calcium in it, so
I get 800 mg a day of vitamin D.
My bone density test showed an improvement after 2 years on this amount.
My doctor is an Endocrinologist.
shirleyann
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 8:31 am |
| Shirley ann wrote:
: My citrate calcium has vitamin D in it.
: My MD has me on 1200 mg calcium a day. I take it every 6 hours to get
: this much in me.
:
: 2 tablets has 400 mg of Vitamin D and 630 mg citrate calcium in it,
: so I get 800 mg a day of vitamin D.
800 mg is a toxic dose. I guess you would drop dead if you would take that.
I guess you take 800 µg (micrograms).
: My bone density test showed an improvement after 2 years on this
: amount. My doctor is an Endocrinologist.
:
: shirleyann
--
Juhana
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 8:31 am |
| Juhana Harju wrote:
: Shirley ann wrote:
:: My citrate calcium has vitamin D in it.
:: My MD has me on 1200 mg calcium a day. I take it every 6 hours to get
:: this much in me.
::
:: 2 tablets has 400 mg of Vitamin D and 630 mg citrate calcium in it,
:: so I get 800 mg a day of vitamin D.
:
: 800 mg is a toxic dose. I guess you would drop dead if you would take
: that. I guess you take 800 µg (micrograms).
Now I made a mistake in my correction. I ment to write 800 IU. 800 IU (20
micrograms) is regular dose, but it might not raise the 25(OH)D to optimal
level as vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth well explains in the video lecture
I posted to this group.
:: My bone density test showed an improvement after 2 years on this
:: amount. My doctor is an Endocrinologist.
::
:: shirleyann
--
Juhana
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 4:28 pm |
| Shirley ann wrote:
: My citrate calcium has vitamin D in it.
: My MD has me on 1200 mg calcium a day. I take it every 6 hours to get
: this much in me.
:
: 2 tablets has 400 mg of Vitamin D and 630 mg citrate calcium in it,
: so I get 800 mg a day of vitamin D.
:
: My bone density test showed an improvement after 2 years on this
: amount. My doctor is an Endocrinologist.
Here is another study on optimal 25(OH)D levels and required vitamin D
intakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1706S-9S.
Functional indices of vitamin D status and ramifications of vitamin D
deficiency.
Heaney RP.
Creighton university Medical Center, Omaha, NE 68131, USA.
Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 [25(OH)D3] concentrations are currently
recognized as the functional status indicator for vitamin D. Evidence is
reviewed that shows that serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations of < 80 nmol/L are
associated with reduced calcium absorption, osteoporosis, and increased
fracture risk. For typical older individuals, supplemental oral intakes of
approximately 1300 IU/d are required to reach the *lower end* of the optimal
range. Evidence of substantial problems in routine clinical measurement of
serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations among patients is cited. There is great need
for standardization and improved reproducibility and sensitivity of
measurements of serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations. PMID: 15585791
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1706S
Emphasis mine.
Here is a telling figure from the full study:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1706S/F2
--
Juhana
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-28, 4:28 pm |
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:49:27 +0300, "Juhana Harju"
<spamshantigiriorama.removespam@gmail.com> wrote:
>Larry wrote:
>: Have you checked your current vitamin D levels to make sure that you
>: need supplementation? Have you consulted with an endocrinologist to
>: see what the pros/cons are and whether he/she recommends the
>: supplementation?
>:
>: Larry E.
>
>Concerning the safety of taking 50 micrograms you may want to have a look at
>this clinical trial where 100 micrograms was considered to be a safe dose.
>(Taking 100 micrograms is not a level I am advocating, unless there is a
>good reason and it is prescribed by a doctor.)
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
>Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed
>adverse effect level.
>Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
>Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
>
And in the study
Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ.
Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing
with cholecalciferol.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr.
2003 Nov;78(5):1047.
PMID: 12499343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204>
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/1047> (Erratum)
20 weeks of supplementation at 5500 and 11 000 IU/d of vitamin D3,
starting from a status of relative vitamin D repletion, produced no
elevation of serum calcium above the upper limits of normal in any
subject, and the highest mean 25(OH)D3 values reached were
{approx}160 and {approx}220 nmol/L, respectively, still within normal
limits.
--
Matti Narkia
| |
|
| Routinely recommended doesn't mean it's the right level for you ... or
for anyone else. Kinda like dosages of cholesterol lowering meds ...
everyone needs a different dosage. I'd recommend you don't
self-subscribe based on reading of abstracts.
Larry E.
Juhana Harju wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> : Have you checked your current vitamin D levels to make sure that you
> : need supplementation? Have you consulted with an endocrinologist to
> : see what the pros/cons are and whether he/she recommends the
> : supplementation?
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> Those are good questions. I checked my 25(OH)D levels in July this year and
> they were at a good level (81 nmol/l) due to sun exposure. My current dose
> 50 micrograms is a dose which was recommended by my doctor. 50 micrograms is
> a safe dose in wintertime (my doctor said that also) and I am not aware of
> any risks involved in taking that (I have been doing some study about the
> subject).
>
> About the pros and cons: I recommend reading the full study I linked. That
> would probably answer to some of your questions and doubts. Adequate
> supplementation of vitamin D not only reduces fracture risk and improves
> bone density, but it also reduces the risk of many cancers and multiple
> schlerosis, and it improves immunity and muscle strenght. These are just few
> of the many benefits, but I recommend that you do your own study about the
> subject.
>
> : Juhana Harju wrote:
> :: According to a Harvard study optimal circulating vitamin D
> :: concentrations in relation to bone density and other outcomes are
> :: between 90-100 nmol/l. Achieving this level may require much higher
> :: level of vitamin D supplementation than what is rutinely
> :: recommended. Personally I have started to take 50 micrograms daily,
> :: and I am going to have my 25(OH)D levels checked in February or
> :: March to make sure that I reach the optimal levels.
> ::
> :: Please notice that there is an error in the abstract as 1000 IU is
> :: not 40 micrograms but 25 micrograms (40 micrograms equites 1600 IU).
> ::
> :: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ::
> :: Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jul;84(1):18-28.
> :: Estimation of optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D for
> :: multiple health outcomes.
> :: Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Giovannucci E, Willett WC, Dietrich T,
> :: Dawson-Hughes B. Department of Nutrition, Harvard School of Public
> :: Health, Boston, MA, USA.
> ::
> :: Recent evidence suggests that vitamin D intakes above current
> :: recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes.
> :: However, optimal serum concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D
> :: [25(OH)D] have not been defined. This review summarizes evidence
> :: from studies that evaluated thresholds for serum 25(OH)D
> :: concentrations in relation to bone mineral density (BMD),
> :: lower-extremity function, dental health, and risk of falls,
> :: fractures, and colorectal cancer. For all endpoints, the most
> :: advantageous serum concentrations of 25(OH)D begin at 75 nmol/L (30
> :: ng/mL), and the best are between 90 and 100 nmol/L (36-40 ng/mL). In
> :: most persons, these concentrations could not be reached with the
> :: currently recommended intakes of 200 and 600 IU vitamin D/d for
> :: younger and older adults, respectively. A comparison of vitamin D
> :: intakes with achieved serum concentrations of 25(OH)D for the
> :: purpose of estimating optimal intakes led us to suggest that, for
> :: bone health in younger adults and all studied outcomes in older
> :: adults, an increase in the currently recommended intake of vitamin D
> :: is warranted. An intake for all adults of > or =1000 IU (40 microg)
> :: vitamin D (cholecalciferol)/d is needed to bring vitamin D
> :: concentrations in no less than 50% of the population up to 75
> :: nmol/L. The implications of higher doses for the entire adult
> :: population should be addressed in future studies. PMID: 16825677
> ::
> :: The abstract:
> :: http://tinyurl.com/pud29
> ::
> :: The full study in pdf form:
> :: http://tinyurl.com/sx27a
>
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-28, 4:28 pm |
| Larry wrote:
: Routinely recommended doesn't mean it's the right level for you ... or
: for anyone else. Kinda like dosages of cholesterol lowering meds ...
: everyone needs a different dosage. I'd recommend you don't
: self-subscribe based on reading of abstracts.
:
: Larry E.
As I said I did not self-subscribe but the dose was recommended by my
doctor.
: Juhana Harju wrote:
:: My current dose 50 micrograms is a dose which was recommended by my
:: doctor.
--
Juhana
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-28, 9:28 pm |
| On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:31:48 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>Routinely recommended doesn't mean it's the right level for you ... or
>for anyone else. Kinda like dosages of cholesterol lowering meds ...
>everyone needs a different dosage. I'd recommend you don't
>self-subscribe based on reading of abstracts.
>
Larry, in general you are absolutely right. But the problem with
vitamin D is that until recenty we didn't have any good studies about
its safety and about how much we really need. Have you watched the
online public information lecture by professor Vieth? Juhana gave the
link for that under different title. I watched it today with my wife,
and we were both impressed. Not that it had so much new information
for me, I have followed vitamin D research closely for about 7 years
now, but the presentation was good, and it was nice to see someone to
put all the pieces together in plain language.
The eye opener for me about seven years ago was Vieth's landmark study
Vieth R.
Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and
safety.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):842-56. Review.
PMID: 10232622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842>
In this study Vieth painstakingly carefully proves that 20 minutes of
full body exposure to the sunlight on a sunny summer day corresponds
to the oral intake of 10000-25000 vitamin D. Vieth concludes that
doses at least upto 10000 IU/d are physiological and therefore safe.
Equally important is the follow-up study, which Juhane already
mentioned:
Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed
adverse effect level.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
PMID: 11157326 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/288>
The third study, which explores the effect of various vitamin D doses
upto 11000 IU/d is the one I mentioned earlier:
Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ.
Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing
with cholecalciferol.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr.
2003 Nov;78(5):1047.
PMID: 12499343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204>
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/1047> (Erratum)
As you can see, not only abtracts, but also the full texts of these
studies are freely readable and the links to them are provided above.
I am cancer patient, I was diagnosed 18 years ago, and therefore I
take a bit more vitamin D than would be needed to prevent osteoporosis
for example. During the last 4 winters I have taken in average 4000
IU/d, occasionally even 8000 IU/d without any harmful effects
whatsover. In the summer I take nothing on those sunny days, on which
I have opportunity to near full body sunlight exposure for 10-20
minutes, and 1000-2000 IU on the days I don't have that opportunity,
for example on cloudy or rainy days, or if I'm busy for some reason.
If you have time to see the online lecture and if after that you feel
that you need some more information, here's my suggestion for an
initial reading list of vitamin D studies in addition to those
mentioned above:
Zittermann A.
Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence?
Br J Nutr. 2003 May;89(5):552-72. Review.
PMID: 12720576 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://tinyurl.com/k76jr> (The link is to the abstract, but on that
page there links to free full text HTML and PDF files)
Holick MF.
High prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy and implications for health.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Mar;81(3):353-73. Review.
PMID: 16529140 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16529140>
Heaney RP.
Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Nov;78(5):912-9. Review.
PMID: 14594776 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/912>
Heaney RP.
The Vitamin D requirement in health and disease.
J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;97(1-2):13-9. Epub 2005 Jul 18.
Review.
PMID: 16026981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16026981>
Holick MF.
Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune
diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1678S-88S. Review.
PMID: 15585788 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1678S>
Holick MF.
Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes,
heart disease, and osteoporosis.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;79(3):362-71. Review. Erratum in: Am J Clin
Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):890.
PMID: 14985208 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/362>
Holick MF.
Vitamin D: its role in cancer prevention and treatment.
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):49-59. Epub 2006 Mar 10. Review.
PMID: 16566961 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16566961>
Grant WB.
Epidemiology of disease risks in relation to vitamin D insufficiency.
Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):65-79. Epub 2006 Feb 28. Review.
PMID: 16546242 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16546242>
Raiten DJ, Picciano MF.
Vitamin D and health in the 21st century: bone and beyond. Executive
summary.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1673S-7S. Review.
PMID: 15585787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1673S>
Lin R, White JH.
The pleiotropic actions of vitamin D.
Bioessays. 2004 Jan;26(1):21-8. Review.
PMID: 14696037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=14696037>
Gombart AF, Luong QT, Koeffler HP.
Vitamin D compounds: activity against microbes and cancer.
Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4A):2531-42. Review.
PMID: 16886661 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16886661>
Spina CS, Tangpricha V, Uskokovic M, Adorinic L, Maehr H, Holick MF.
Vitamin D and cancer.
Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4A):2515-24. Review.
PMID: 16886659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16886659>
Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB,
Holick MF.
The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention.
Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Epub 2005 Dec 27. Review.
PMID: 16380576 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16380576>
Giovannucci E.
The epidemiology of vitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality: a
review (United States).
Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Mar;16(2):83-95. Review.
PMID: 15868450 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15868450>
Calvo MS, Whiting SJ, Barton CN.
Vitamin D intake: a global perspective of current status.
J Nutr. 2005 Feb;135(2):310-6. Review.
PMID: 15671233 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/2/310>
--
Matti Narkia
| |
| Shirley ann 2006-09-29, 8:30 am |
| From previous post- those are the readings off the bottle of my Citrate
Calcium + D.
shirleyann
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 8:30 am |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:21:26 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:31:48 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>Larry, in general you are absolutely right. But the problem with
>vitamin D is that until recenty we didn't have any good studies about
>its safety and about how much we really need. Have you watched the
>online public information lecture by professor Vieth? Juhana gave the
>link for that under different title. I watched it today with my wife,
>and we were both impressed. Not that it had so much new information
>for me, I have followed vitamin D research closely for about 7 years
>now, but the presentation was good, and it was nice to see someone to
>put all the pieces together in plain language.
>
>The eye opener for me about seven years ago was Vieth's landmark study
>
>Vieth R.
>Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and
>safety.
>Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):842-56. Review.
>PMID: 10232622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842>
>
>In this study Vieth painstakingly carefully proves that 20 minutes of
>full body exposure to the sunlight on a sunny summer day corresponds
>to the oral intake of 10000-25000 vitamin D. Vieth concludes that
>doses at least upto 10000 IU/d are physiological and therefore safe.
>
>Equally important is the follow-up study, which Juhane already
>mentioned:
>
>Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
>Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed
>adverse effect level.
>Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
>PMID: 11157326 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/288>
>
>The third study, which explores the effect of various vitamin D doses
>upto 11000 IU/d is the one I mentioned earlier:
>
>Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ.
>Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing
>with cholecalciferol.
>Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr.
>2003 Nov;78(5):1047.
>PMID: 12499343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204>
><http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/1047> (Erratum)
>
>As you can see, not only abtracts, but also the full texts of these
>studies are freely readable and the links to them are provided above.
>
>I am cancer patient, I was diagnosed 18 years ago, and therefore I
>take a bit more vitamin D than would be needed to prevent osteoporosis
>for example. During the last 4 winters I have taken in average 4000
>IU/d, occasionally even 8000 IU/d without any harmful effects
>whatsover. In the summer I take nothing on those sunny days, on which
>I have opportunity to near full body sunlight exposure for 10-20
>minutes, and 1000-2000 IU on the days I don't have that opportunity,
>for example on cloudy or rainy days, or if I'm busy for some reason.
>
>If you have time to see the online lecture and if after that you feel
>that you need some more information, here's my suggestion for an
>initial reading list of vitamin D studies in addition to those
>mentioned above:
>
Before starting to read studies it might be a good idea to browse
through the excellent vitamin D web site
Vitamin D Council | Understanding Vitamin D Cholecalciferol
<http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/>
which reviews and summarizes the most important studies. A lot of
useful information!
--
Matti Narkia
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 8:30 am |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 06:13:13 -0400, shirleyann2@webtv.net (Shirley
ann) wrote:
>From previous post- those are the readings off the bottle of my Citrate
>Calcium + D.
>
Calcium doses are measures in milligrams (mg, one thousandth of a
gram), but vitamin D is measured in micrograms (µg or mcg, one
millionth of a gram) or International Units (IU). 1 microgram of
vitamin D is 40 international units. Milligram doses of vitamin D are
highly toxic. If your bottle gave the vitamin D dose as milligrams
(mg) instead of micrograms (µg or mcg), it has had an unfortunate
error.
--
Matti Narkia
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 8:30 am |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:28:33 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:21:26 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
>Before starting to read studies it might be a good idea to browse
>through the excellent vitamin D web site
>
>Vitamin D Council | Understanding Vitamin D Cholecalciferol
><http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/>
>
>which reviews and summarizes the most important studies. A lot of
>useful information!
An excerpt from its main page:
"* If you totally avoid the sun, recent research indicates
you need about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day! Which means
you can't get enough vitamin D from milk (unless you drink
40 glasses a day) or from a multivitamin (unless you take
about 10 tablets a day), neither of which is recommended.
* Most of us make about 20,000 units of vitamin D after
about 20 minutes of summer sun. This is about 100 times
more vitamin D than the government says you need every day.
* The only way to be sure you have adequate levels of
vitamin D in your blood is to regularly go into the sun,
use a sun bed (avoiding sunburn), or, have your physician
administer a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test. Optimal
levels are around 50 ng/ml (125 nm/L).
* If you don't get vitamin D the way Mother Nature
intended, from sunshine, you need to take supplemental
vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol. Since most of us get a lot more
vitamin D from sunshine than we realize, most of us need
about 2,000 units a day extra."
--
Matti Narkia
| |
|
| Abstracts, full-text, or not. Everyone has a different level of serum
vitamin D. You're playing blind if you don't have that measured and
don't have it measured repeatedly each time you try changing the dose.
BTW, certain cancers can raise the level of serum vitamin D. Serum
vitamin D can actually be increased as a result of increased levels of
cell cytokines. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't want to use any
published abstracts or studies to make changes in my intake of ANYTHING
(beyond basic levels of standard vitamins) without a recommendation from
my endocrinologist. Just my 2 cents.
Larry E.
Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:31:48 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Larry, in general you are absolutely right. But the problem with
> vitamin D is that until recenty we didn't have any good studies about
> its safety and about how much we really need. Have you watched the
> online public information lecture by professor Vieth? Juhana gave the
> link for that under different title. I watched it today with my wife,
> and we were both impressed. Not that it had so much new information
> for me, I have followed vitamin D research closely for about 7 years
> now, but the presentation was good, and it was nice to see someone to
> put all the pieces together in plain language.
>
> The eye opener for me about seven years ago was Vieth's landmark study
>
> Vieth R.
> Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and
> safety.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):842-56. Review.
> PMID: 10232622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842>
>
> In this study Vieth painstakingly carefully proves that 20 minutes of
> full body exposure to the sunlight on a sunny summer day corresponds
> to the oral intake of 10000-25000 vitamin D. Vieth concludes that
> doses at least upto 10000 IU/d are physiological and therefore safe.
>
> Equally important is the follow-up study, which Juhane already
> mentioned:
>
> Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
> Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed
> adverse effect level.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
> PMID: 11157326 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/288>
>
> The third study, which explores the effect of various vitamin D doses
> upto 11000 IU/d is the one I mentioned earlier:
>
> Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ.
> Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing
> with cholecalciferol.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr.
> 2003 Nov;78(5):1047.
> PMID: 12499343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204>
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/1047> (Erratum)
>
> As you can see, not only abtracts, but also the full texts of these
> studies are freely readable and the links to them are provided above.
>
> I am cancer patient, I was diagnosed 18 years ago, and therefore I
> take a bit more vitamin D than would be needed to prevent osteoporosis
> for example. During the last 4 winters I have taken in average 4000
> IU/d, occasionally even 8000 IU/d without any harmful effects
> whatsover. In the summer I take nothing on those sunny days, on which
> I have opportunity to near full body sunlight exposure for 10-20
> minutes, and 1000-2000 IU on the days I don't have that opportunity,
> for example on cloudy or rainy days, or if I'm busy for some reason.
>
> If you have time to see the online lecture and if after that you feel
> that you need some more information, here's my suggestion for an
> initial reading list of vitamin D studies in addition to those
> mentioned above:
>
> Zittermann A.
> Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence?
> Br J Nutr. 2003 May;89(5):552-72. Review.
> PMID: 12720576 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://tinyurl.com/k76jr> (The link is to the abstract, but on that
> page there links to free full text HTML and PDF files)
>
> Holick MF.
> High prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy and implications for health.
> Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Mar;81(3):353-73. Review.
> PMID: 16529140 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16529140>
>
> Heaney RP.
> Long-latency deficiency disease: insights from calcium and vitamin D.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Nov;78(5):912-9. Review.
> PMID: 14594776 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/912>
>
> Heaney RP.
> The Vitamin D requirement in health and disease.
> J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005 Oct;97(1-2):13-9. Epub 2005 Jul 18.
> Review.
> PMID: 16026981 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16026981>
>
> Holick MF.
> Sunlight and vitamin D for bone health and prevention of autoimmune
> diseases, cancers, and cardiovascular disease.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1678S-88S. Review.
> PMID: 15585788 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1678S>
>
> Holick MF.
> Vitamin D: importance in the prevention of cancers, type 1 diabetes,
> heart disease, and osteoporosis.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Mar;79(3):362-71. Review. Erratum in: Am J Clin
> Nutr. 2004 May;79(5):890.
> PMID: 14985208 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/79/3/362>
>
> Holick MF.
> Vitamin D: its role in cancer prevention and treatment.
> Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):49-59. Epub 2006 Mar 10. Review.
> PMID: 16566961 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16566961>
>
> Grant WB.
> Epidemiology of disease risks in relation to vitamin D insufficiency.
> Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;92(1):65-79. Epub 2006 Feb 28. Review.
> PMID: 16546242 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16546242>
>
> Raiten DJ, Picciano MF.
> Vitamin D and health in the 21st century: bone and beyond. Executive
> summary.
> Am J Clin Nutr. 2004 Dec;80(6 Suppl):1673S-7S. Review.
> PMID: 15585787 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/6/1673S>
>
> Lin R, White JH.
> The pleiotropic actions of vitamin D.
> Bioessays. 2004 Jan;26(1):21-8. Review.
> PMID: 14696037 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=14696037>
>
> Gombart AF, Luong QT, Koeffler HP.
> Vitamin D compounds: activity against microbes and cancer.
> Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4A):2531-42. Review.
> PMID: 16886661 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16886661>
>
> Spina CS, Tangpricha V, Uskokovic M, Adorinic L, Maehr H, Holick MF.
> Vitamin D and cancer.
> Anticancer Res. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4A):2515-24. Review.
> PMID: 16886659 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16886659>
>
> Garland CF, Garland FC, Gorham ED, Lipkin M, Newmark H, Mohr SB,
> Holick MF.
> The role of vitamin D in cancer prevention.
> Am J Public Health. 2006 Feb;96(2):252-61. Epub 2005 Dec 27. Review.
> PMID: 16380576 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16380576>
>
> Giovannucci E.
> The epidemiology of vitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality: a
> review (United States).
> Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Mar;16(2):83-95. Review.
> PMID: 15868450 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15868450>
>
> Calvo MS, Whiting SJ, Barton CN.
> Vitamin D intake: a global perspective of current status.
> J Nutr. 2005 Feb;135(2):310-6. Review.
> PMID: 15671233 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/135/2/310>
>
>
| |
|
| Look ... you keep quoting abstracts. I keep telling you that they are
worthless unless you use them as input to an overall holistic assessment
of what your body needs and a discussion with your endocrinologist.
Everyone has a different level of vitamin D in their body.
Suit yourself. Hopefully people who read this are smart enough to know
that it is unwise to take a substance into their bodies blindly without
knowing how much your body really needs.
Larry E.
Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:28:33 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> An excerpt from its main page:
>
> "* If you totally avoid the sun, recent research indicates
> you need about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day! Which means
> you can't get enough vitamin D from milk (unless you drink
> 40 glasses a day) or from a multivitamin (unless you take
> about 10 tablets a day), neither of which is recommended.
>
> * Most of us make about 20,000 units of vitamin D after
> about 20 minutes of summer sun. This is about 100 times
> more vitamin D than the government says you need every day.
>
> * The only way to be sure you have adequate levels of
> vitamin D in your blood is to regularly go into the sun,
> use a sun bed (avoiding sunburn), or, have your physician
> administer a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test. Optimal
> levels are around 50 ng/ml (125 nm/L).
>
> * If you don't get vitamin D the way Mother Nature
> intended, from sunshine, you need to take supplemental
> vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol. Since most of us get a lot more
> vitamin D from sunshine than we realize, most of us need
> about 2,000 units a day extra."
>
>
| |
| Juhana Harju 2006-09-29, 4:30 pm |
| Larry wrote:
: Look ... you keep quoting abstracts. I keep telling you that they are
: worthless unless you use them as input to an overall holistic
: assessment of what your body needs and a discussion with your
: endocrinologist. Everyone has a different level of vitamin D in their
: body.
:
: Suit yourself. Hopefully people who read this are smart enough to know
: that it is unwise to take a substance into their bodies blindly
: without knowing how much your body really needs.
:
: Larry E.
I think that you miss the point, Larry. The topic of this thread *is* about
circulating vitamin levels [25(OH)D] in the body and how that translates to
the need to supplement with oral vitamin D. I have also said that I _have_
_had_ my 25(OH)D levels assessed and that I am going to monitor those levels
supervised by my doctor. So it should be clear that I am favoring the
individual assessment of circulating vitamin D levels.
Matti is very knowledgeable about vitamin D, and I think that you are
undermining his expertise in this field. The real risk is not the higher
supplementation Matti and I are suggesting but in having a suboptimal
vitamin D status which affects negatively on bone mineral density, cancer
risk, muscle strength and immunity. Preferrably the increased
supplementation should be based on assessment of blood levels of vitamin D
[25(OH)D].
: Matti Narkia wrote:
:: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:28:33 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi>
:: wrote:
::
::
::: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 04:21:26 +0300, Matti Narkia <mna@mbnet.fi>
::: wrote:
:::
:::
:::: On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:31:48 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
::::
::::
::::: Routinely recommended doesn't mean it's the right level for you
::::: ... or for anyone else. Kinda like dosages of cholesterol
::::: lowering meds ... everyone needs a different dosage. I'd
::::: recommend you don't self-subscribe based on reading of abstracts.
:::::
::::
:::: Larry, in general you are absolutely right. But the problem with
:::: vitamin D is that until recenty we didn't have any good studies
:::: about its safety and about how much we really need. Have you
:::: watched the online public information lecture by professor Vieth?
:::: Juhana gave the link for that under different title. I watched it
:::: today with my wife, and we were both impressed. Not that it had so
:::: much new information for me, I have followed vitamin D research
:::: closely for about 7 years now, but the presentation was good, and
:::: it was nice to see someone to put all the pieces together in plain
:::: language.
::::
:::: The eye opener for me about seven years ago was Vieth's landmark
:::: study
::::
:::: Vieth R.
:::: Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and
:::: safety.
:::: Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 May;69(5):842-56. Review.
:::: PMID: 10232622 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
:::: <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/69/5/842>
::::
:::: In this study Vieth painstakingly carefully proves that 20 minutes
:::: of full body exposure to the sunlight on a sunny summer day
:::: corresponds to the oral intake of 10000-25000 vitamin D. Vieth
:::: concludes that doses at least upto 10000 IU/d are physiological
:::: and therefore safe.
::::
:::: Equally important is the follow-up study, which Juhane already
:::: mentioned:
::::
:::: Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD.
:::: Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest
:::: observed adverse effect level.
:::: Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94.
:::: PMID: 11157326 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
:::: <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/73/2/288>
::::
:::: The third study, which explores the effect of various vitamin D
:::: doses upto 11000 IU/d is the one I mentioned earlier:
::::
:::: Heaney RP, Davies KM, Chen TC, Holick MF, Barger-Lux MJ.
:::: Human serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral
:::: dosing with cholecalciferol.
:::: Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;77(1):204-10. Erratum in: Am J Clin Nutr.
:::: 2003 Nov;78(5):1047.
:::: PMID: 12499343 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
:::: <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204>
:::: <http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/5/1047> (Erratum)
::::
:::: As you can see, not only abtracts, but also the full texts of these
:::: studies are freely readable and the links to them are provided
:::: above.
::::
:::: I am cancer patient, I was diagnosed 18 years ago, and therefore I
:::: take a bit more vitamin D than would be needed to prevent
:::: osteoporosis for example. During the last 4 winters I have taken
:::: in average 4000 IU/d, occasionally even 8000 IU/d without any
:::: harmful effects whatsover. In the summer I take nothing on those
:::: sunny days, on which I have opportunity to near full body sunlight
:::: exposure for 10-20 minutes, and 1000-2000 IU on the days I don't
:::: have that opportunity, for example on cloudy or rainy days, or if
:::: I'm busy for some reason.
::::
:::: If you have time to see the online lecture and if after that you
:::: feel that you need some more information, here's my suggestion for
:::: an initial reading list of vitamin D studies in addition to those
:::: mentioned above:
::::
:::
::: Before starting to read studies it might be a good idea to browse
::: through the excellent vitamin D web site
:::
::: Vitamin D Council | Understanding Vitamin D Cholecalciferol
::: <http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/>
:::
::: which reviews and summarizes the most important studies. A lot of
::: useful information!
::
::
:: An excerpt from its main page:
::
:: "* If you totally avoid the sun, recent research indicates
:: you need about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day! Which means
:: you can't get enough vitamin D from milk (unless you drink
:: 40 glasses a day) or from a multivitamin (unless you take
:: about 10 tablets a day), neither of which is recommended.
::
:: * Most of us make about 20,000 units of vitamin D after
:: about 20 minutes of summer sun. This is about 100 times
:: more vitamin D than the government says you need every day.
::
:: * The only way to be sure you have adequate levels of
:: vitamin D in your blood is to regularly go into the sun,
:: use a sun bed (avoiding sunburn), or, have your physician
:: administer a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test. Optimal
:: levels are around 50 ng/ml (125 nm/L).
::
:: * If you don't get vitamin D the way Mother Nature
:: intended, from sunshine, you need to take supplemental
:: vitamin D3 Cholecalciferol. Since most of us get a lot more
:: vitamin D from sunshine than we realize, most of us need
:: about 2,000 units a day extra."
--
Juhana
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 4:30 pm |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 10:01:22 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>Look ... you keep quoting abstracts. I keep telling you that they are
>worthless unless you use them as input to an overall holistic assessment
>of what your body needs and a discussion with your endocrinologist.
>Everyone has a different level of vitamin D in their body.
>
True, but few, if any of those living in high latitudes have enough of
it during winter. Especially older people are in danger, because their
capacity to produce vitamin D in the skin even in the summer is
severely reduced. But even young people in high latitudes can be
vitamin D deficient or insufficient, see the studies
Lehtonen-Veromaa M, Mottonen T, Irjala K, Karkkainen M,
Lamberg-Allardt C, Hakola P, Viikari J.
Vitamin D intake is low and hypovitaminosis D common in healthy 9- to
15-year-old Finnish girls.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 1999 Sep;53(9):746-51.
PMID: 10509773 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=10509773>
Lamberg-Allardt CJ, Outila TA, Karkkainen MU, Rita HJ, Valsta LM.
Vitamin D deficiency and bone health in healthy adults in Finland:
could this be a concern in other parts of Europe?
J Bone Miner Res. 2001 Nov;16(11):2066-73.
PMID: 11697803 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=11697803>
"... Low vitamin D status was prevalent in these young adults
in northern Europe in winter, although the vitamin D intake met
the recommendation. This probably is not a local problem for
northern Europe, because the natural sources of vitamin D are
scarce and fortification is not very common in Europe, and with
the exception of the southern part of Europe, sunshine is not
very abundant in this part of the world. Thus, the results of
this study indicate that more attention should be focused on
vitamin D status and the sources of vitamin D in these
countries."
Andersen R, Molgaard C, Skovgaard LT, Brot C, Cashman KD, Chabros E,
Charzewska J, Flynn A, Jakobsen J, Karkkainen M, Kiely M,
Lamberg-Allardt C, Moreiras O, Natri AM, O'brien M,
Rogalska-Niedzwiedz M, Ovesen L.
Teenage girls and elderly women living in northern Europe have low
winter vitamin D status.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Apr;59(4):533-41.
PMID: 15714215 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=15714215>
"... CONCLUSION: Vitamin D status is low in northern Europe
during winter. More than one-third of the adolescent girls have
vitamin D status below 25 nmol/l and almost all are below 50
nmol/l. Two-thirds of the elderly community-dwelling women have
vitamin D status below 50 nmol/l. Use of vitamin D supplements
is a significant positive determinant for S-25OHD for both
girls and women (P = 0.001)."
Valimaki VV, Alfthan H, Lehmuskallio E, Loyttyniemi E, Sahi T, Stenman
UH, Suominen H, Valimaki MJ.
Vitamin D status as a determinant of peak bone mass in young Finnish
men.
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004 Jan;89(1):76-80.
PMID: 14715830 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/1/76>
an excerpt:
"... We conclude that vitamin D deficiency is very common in
Finnish young men in the winter, and it may have detrimental
effects on the acquisition of maximal peak bone mass. As in
Finland vitamin D supplementation to infants is now stopped at
the age of 3 yr, it can be asked whether at our latitude it
should be continued from that age onward, not for the
prevention of rickets, but as prophylaxis for osteoporosis."
Since 2003 some food products in Finland have been fortified with
vitamin D. It has helped, but not enough:
Laaksi IT, Ruohola JP, Ylikomi TJ, Auvinen A, Haataja RI, Pihlajamaki
HK, Tuohimaa PJ.
Vitamin D fortification as public health policy: significant
improvement in vitamin D status in young Finnish men.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006 Aug;60(8):1035-8. Epub 2006 Feb 15.
PMID: 16482069 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16482069>
"... CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that national vitamin
D fortification substantially improved the vitamin D status of
young Finnish men. Still, a third remained vitamin D
insufficient."
>Suit yourself.
I do. I wish you would also take some time to read recent related
literature. It's well worth the effort.
Have you watched Dr. Vieth's online lecture?
>Hopefully people who read this are smart enough to know
>that it is unwise to take a substance into their bodies blindly without
>knowing how much your body really needs.
>
Not blindly. Besides, any reasonable dose of vitamin D we take as
supplement in the winter, is still a lot smaller than the amout we get
in 20 minutes on the sunny summer day the swimminsuit. Vitamin D
tests of course give an idea about one's vitamin D status, but they
should be done also in the winter, when vitamin D level is lowest. And
although studies use accurate vitamin D tests, tests used by
commercial laboratories often use cheaper methodology, and frequently
their tests are not properly standardized and calibrated. There is
documented evidence that there can be upto 30% differences in the
results from different laboratories. Everyone knows, how much he
spends time in the sun in the summer, and how much he gets it from
food (not much unless he eats large amounts of fish), and can thus
assess his vitamin D needs, if he is well enough informed about recent
literature. According to current American and European official
recommendations vitamin D doses upto 2000 IU/d are absolutely safe and
wan't harm anyone. Ask any doctor. And according to Vieth any many
other scientists, doses as high as 10000 IU/d are safe as well in the
absence of UVB radiation, for example in the winter in high latitudes.
If everyone living in high latitudes took 2000 IU/d at least in the
winter time, it would have large beneficial effects on health of the
populations living in these latitudes without any harmuful effects at
all.
--
Matti Narkia
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 4:30 pm |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:06 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>Abstracts, full-text, or not. Everyone has a different level of serum
>vitamin D. You're playing blind if you don't have that measured and
>don't have it measured repeatedly each time you try changing the dose.
>BTW, certain cancers can raise the level of serum vitamin D. Serum
>vitamin D can actually be increased as a result of increased levels of
>cell cytokines. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't want to use any
>published abstracts or studies to make changes in my intake of ANYTHING
>(beyond basic levels of standard vitamins) without a recommendation from
>my endocrinologist. Just my 2 cents.
>
That's your opinion. I believe that knowledge is power, and may help
me to live healthier and perhaps even a littel longer.
--
Matti Narkia
| |
|
| And your newfound power can also kill you or do you harm.
This has nothing to do with my opinion. You have to be careful not to
undermedicate or overmedicate your body. You certainly are free to do
whatever you want with your own body, but be careful about what you
suggest to others who might read this. Some will do the proper research
and do the proper due diligence. But others read things on the internet
and take things verbatim. To blindly ingest substances into one's body
.... that have direct and indirect effect on important bodily processes
without the advice of a doctor ... is not a good idea.
Larry E.
Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:04:06 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> That's your opinion. I believe that knowledge is power, and may help
> me to live healthier and perhaps even a littel longer.
>
>
| |
| Matti Narkia 2006-09-29, 9:27 pm |
| On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:18:32 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>And your newfound power can also kill you or do you harm.
>
>This has nothing to do with my opinion. You have to be careful not to
>undermedicate or overmedicate your body. You certainly are free to do
>whatever you want with your own body, but be careful about what you
>suggest to others who might read this. Some will do the proper research
>and do the proper due diligence. But others read things on the internet
>and take things verbatim. To blindly ingest substances into one's body
>... that have direct and indirect effect on important bodily processes
>without the advice of a doctor ... is not a good idea.
>
Larry, have you now watched Dr. Vieth's online lecture? I don't see
any point of continuing this conversation before you update your
knowledge about vitamin D.
--
Matti Narkia
| |
|
| Suit yourself. As long as you don't pull the wool over everyone's eyes.
Larry E.
Matti Narkia wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:18:32 -0400, Larry <larry@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> Larry, have you now watched Dr. Vieth's online lecture? I don't see
> any point of continuing this conversation before you update your
> knowledge about vitamin D.
>
>
|
| |
|
|