new vit D article, IOM guidelines

Article:
78 Million Americans No Longer Need Vitamin D ... Maybe
Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience Bad Medicine ColumnistDate: 24 October 2012 Time: 05:01 PM ET


http://www.livescience.com/24258-vitamin-d-guidelines-confusion.html


anybody have any thoughts?

Report post

26 replies. Join the discussion

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Who gains financially from keeping vitamin D3 levels BELOW the level that human DNA is set to maintain if we lived naked outdoor lives as HUMAN DNA evolved to function best with?

What has resulted from the advice issued by health professionals to reduce fat (particularly saturated) consumption?
Most people here have a normal amount of COMMON SENSE.
If you told them to remove brake fluid from their cars braking system and rely on self-control and will-power to regulate vehicle speed, they would be able to predict what the result would be.
The passage of fat through the digestive tract governs release of satiety hormones controlling appetite via our sense of hunger and fullness.

So why, when health professionals (those with a vested financial interest in profiting from our ill health) told people to reduce fat intake did we take any notice and what in practice has been the result of low fat diets on obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease rates?

When you've nothing better to do plot the mortality rates from CVD against saturated fat consumption
Photobucket

If saturated fat is associated with heart disease would we predict what actually happens in practice?

Who profits from giving us inaccurate information?

If we know naturally human DNA in populations living at hunter gatherer's regulate 25(OH)D level to achieve equilibrium above 100nmol/l 40ng/ml and generally at above 50ng/ml 125nmol/l should sensible humans follow what has traditionally been associated with human survival or follow the advice from those who profit from humans requiring ever more medical interventions/drugs throughout the years?

Report post

So True , they try to misleads people to be sick, and they can sell more drugs.

Report post

ted, common sense isn't common anymore - didn't anyone think of the vitamin d ramifications when we were scared out of our minds into using high spf's at all times? hmmmmm.....

supplements can be very dangerous too - too much of one thing will skew another.....but there's no way to prove anything because it's a billion dollar unregulated industry selling 'hope' in a bottle.....i'm more afraid of supplement companies than pharmaceuticals!!!!

it's only after many of us were scared into taking high doses of calcium for osteo that we are ONLY just now starting to find out the negative side effects of calcium supplementation from news articles popping up everywhere.....and guess what? WE paid these supplement companies to be in a research group they really don't want to have!!!

i threw out all my supplements 2 years ago, except d, and am about to throw that out too.....taking all the supplements in the right way did nothing for me but get me sick - and when i complained to my doctors, none of them could take me seriously because there's 'no data'.....and my blood tests always came out 'fine'....

but quite frankly, my 'common sense' is telling me that supplements are just chemicals - chemicals that would make any blood test 'look' normal - but my body and declining osteo scores certainly showed me another....i'm a firm believer in the saying 'if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck!' ha ha ha

after years of asking my doctors (none of which could answer) the common sense question 'if all the calcium i'm taking isn't going in my bones, where's it going and why am i still taking calcium at all?' (AND YES I TOOK EVERYTHING CORRECTLY)

well, i finally got my answer when i passed a painful kidney stone 2 years ago, amongst other issues that started just few months after taking calcium! it took a few months to get my system back to normal too - but i feel so much better not taking calcium - and you know what? my blood tests are just fine with drinking a cup of milk in the morning and a yogurt at night - that's it!

i wonder what's going to happen now after years taking all this vitamin d....a 'fat' soluble vitamin that cannot be absorbed without fat - is that why so many of us are taking high doses of d, because we don't consume enough of the 'right fat'?

like that lady used to say on that commercial when i was a little girl (can't remember what it was for) but i'll never forget the slogan:

'IT'S NOT NICE TO FOOL WITH MOTHER NATURE!'......ha ha ha ha ha ha.....

Report post

I don't think there is a conspiracy afoot. But if the only tool in your belt is a hammer, you do tend to look at the whole world as a nail. We constantly see studies linking one item in isolation to a disease, and often overlook others.

A political scientist would look at Ted's graph for example, and conclude that living in a former USSR country is a risk factor for heart disease related to poverty and the inability to find, let alone afford eating at a McDonalds! Come back in 20 years and that relationship may disappear.

I see rheumatologists treating rheumatoid arthritis patients with steroids recommending bisphosphonates to reduce their risk of steroid induced osteoorotic fractures, and their dentiists telling those same patients to never take them because they will prevent the dentist from making money doing tooth extractions and posts? OR is the dentist only concerned about the tool in his belt, (dental health), and not looking at the rest of the patient?

Sometimes promoting what is good for us and making money providing it are in perfect harmony. I think sometimes we are too quick to assign guilt by association. It would be like saying that laws against murder violate the first amendment to the US constitituion's separation clause, because "thou shalt not kill" is in the Bible.

Report post

Hey did anyone notice that the embed code for the vitamin D infographic doesn't work, on this article? I would like to use it and I've gone over the HTML and can't find the problem. Can anyone HELP please! It's in the last sentence of the Para: D's Source and Purpose.

Report post

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110606112807.htm

I read this and thought it was very important to share. You need to know your Vitamin D level to know how this appies to you. I am paying special attention to this one. The following is from the article.

"You are seven times more likely to respond to bisphosphonates if your 25-Hydroxy vitamin D level is 33 ng/ml and above. If you want to see a particular outcome from this treatment, then maybe 20 to 30 is not appropriate," said Richard Bockman, M.D., Ph.D., chief of the Endocrine Service at Hospital for Special Surgery, who directed the study. "When you see a seven times greater effect, that is pretty impressive."

Report post

@ i passed a painful kidney stone 2 years ago, amongst other issues that started just few months after taking calcium! it took a few months to get my system back to normal too

No Risk of Calcium Overload with Mega Vitamin D
"feel free to use a few thousand international units to 7,000 international units of vitamin D safely in patients with normal liver and kidney functions

Is it likely using amounts of cholecalciferol (a biologically identical to the human form of vitamin D3 molecule) about half that normally in human skin given full body UVB exposure, is likely to be harmful?

Is using the word MEGA when referring to vitamin D intakes significantly lower than necessary to bring 25(OH)D up to the natural level at which human milk is vitamin D replete and vitamin D functions best as an anti inflammatory agent, an accurate use of the term?.

Report post

thanks for all the responses,

this out take from the article:

"The Loyola-led study primarily examined the effect of the new vitamin D recommendations on people with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease in adults is linked to low vitamin D levels.

The study found that death rates from chronic kidney disease were essentially the same for people with vitamin D levels anywhere in the range of 20 to 40 ng/ml and that only those patients with very low levels of vitamin D had the highest risk of death.

So the IOM's lowering of the guidelines to 20 ng/ml hasn't worsened the death rate from chronic kidney disease. But in calculating this, using data from a large national health survey, the Loyola team could infer the number of Americans with no chronic kidney disease and with a vitamin D level smack in between 20 and 30 ng/ml. That's the 78.7 million."

it nicely sums up exactly how the interpretation of the research is skewed.

by no means am i inferring that there is a conspiracy, just bad lazy, and irresponsible people that have the influence and authority to make bad science, and claims thereof, taking something out of context and incorrectly applying and misusing it.
------------------
this is the first article i saw:

Nearly 80 million Americans won't need vitamin D supplements under new guidelines
Posted: 24 Oct 2012 02:52 PM PDT
Nearly 80 million Americans would no longer need to take vitamin D supplements under new Institute of Medicine guidelines, according to a new study.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121024175229.htm?utm_source=fe edburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fhealth_medici ne%2Fvitamin_d+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Health+%26+Medicine+News+--+Vitamin+D%29


original source:

Journal Reference:
Holly Kramer, Chris Sempos, Guichan Cao, Amy Luke, David Shoham, Richard Cooper, Ramon Durazo-Arvizu. Mortality Rates Across 25-Hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) Levels among Adults with and without Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate <60 ml/min/1.73 m2: The Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. PLoS ONE, 2012; 7 (10): e47458 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047458

------------------------
and heres a link
a link that explains the IOM updates in 2010:

http://updates.pain-topics.org/2010/12/new-iom-report-snubs-vitamin-d-resea rch.html

its a bit confusing because they upped the recommended dosage but lowered the blood reference range for :"healthy adults", with a disclaimer of course.............

any more thoughts /reactions??

thanks

Report post

Thanks dxa! You remind me of Sherlock Holmes when you say "I don't think there is a conspiracy afoot." It's interesting how our minds tend to come up with conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, I'm not that imaginative; but I understand the need to find a villain in life, at times, especially when things aren't going your way. Sometimes we just need to trust ppl and that includes those we don't normally want to trust. It takes an awful lot of energy/time/ingenuity to come up with a very complicated scheme to fool patients, so I just don't think it happens all that often.

I'd rather stick to...did Oswald kill JFK, or is Hitler still alive, both wildly imaginative, but fun to ruminate over.

Report post

@ I don't think there is a conspiracy afoot
Nor do I. It's just the way the world works. Those with power exploit it and when you have hierarchical organizations and professions those at the top have to power and influence and those at the bottom had better keep their mouths shut about scams and dishonesty at the top if they want to get on. I don't know what it's like in the USA but in the UK hospitals health authorities and the medical profession generally simply don't tolerate whistleblowers.
We've currently got a scandal with one of our (now deceased) pop celebrities being exposed as a pervert but because he was associated with fame and money no one in any of the health facilities in which he (volunteered) blew the whistle or not loud enough for anyone to hear.

Exactly the same thing happens with consensus medical opinion.
It will continue to lag about 30 years behind the research (unless drug companies offer huge inducements to change) because while health professionals are making money out the current situation their is no incentive to change.
The only way change will happen is when the public are as well informed as the health professionals and threaten legal action against those who lag behind the information that is readily available online or do what I do and avoid going to doctors by preventing illness occurring in the first place by improving immune function.

We constantly see studies linking one item in isolation to a disease, and often overlook others.
Precisely why the current model for medical research is so flawed.
Anyone who attempts to conclude anything about the effects of changes in vitamin d status without correcting magnesium deficiency or imbalance in the omega 3 <> omega 6 ratio is not measuring the full potential of the vitamin.

But it's not just that

Where's the Missing Data?
Ben Goldacre: What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe


Evidence-Based Medicine: Neither Good Evidence nor Good Medicine

A political scientist would look at Ted's graph for example, and conclude that living in a former USSR country is a risk factor for heart disease related to poverty and the inability to find, let alone afford eating at a McDonalds! Come back in 20 years and that relationship may disappear.
Absolutely but history often gets the facts wrong and current low fat policy originated from work presented in a similar graph for the Seven Countries Study
Photobucket
If we now know that the evidence used originally didn't stack up and Correlation isn’t causation. then we should re-examine the case against saturated fat.
Dietary saturated fat and fibre and risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality

Report post

@ faylou any more thoughts /reactions??

Do remember this study was done in people with kidney disease.

Many people with kidney disease are advised not to supplement with magnesium.
Is it possible people who are magnesium deficient don't see the benefit from optimal vitamin D levels because they are not able to convert Calcidiol to Calcitriol as efficiently as those who are not magnesium deficient?

It is reasonable to take conclusions about effects of higher vitamin D levels on people who have kidney disease and assume they apply equally to people with fully functioning kidneys who are also MAGNESIUM replete and have ideal omega 3<> omega 6 ratios?

Report post

hi ted, "Do remember this study was done in people with kidney disease. "

i know, that's what the point is..... : )

but, question to you, can you explain more about the omega3/6 you are referring to? thanks

"It is reasonable to take conclusions about effects of higher vitamin D levels on people who have kidney disease and assume they apply equally to people with fully functioning kidneys who are also MAGNESIUM replete and have ideal omega 3<> omega 6 ratios?"

"Anyone who attempts to conclude anything about the effects of changes in vitamin d status without correcting magnesium deficiency or imbalance in the omega 3 <> omega 6 ratio is not measuring the full potential of the vitamin. "

Report post

Sorry to have MISTYPED what I meant to write and forgot to PREVIEW the post.

I meant to ask the question
"Is it reasonable to take conclusions about effects of higher vitamin D levels on people who have kidney disease and assume they apply equally to people with fully functioning kidneys who are also MAGNESIUM replete and have ideal omega 3<> omega 6 ratios?"

There is a big difference between the statement IT IS and IS IT ...? Hopefully some of you noticed the ? at the end.

I've got to go shopping now so haven't time to give a fully detailed explanation hopefully I'll come back later today.
But in the mean time you should be able to work out from this image why having 15~20 times more omega 6 in the body may overwhelm the ability of Omega 3 to resolve inflammation.
PhotobucketResolution of Adipose Tissue Inflammation Ana González-Périz and Joan Clària

The link it takes you to the abstract but at the top of the page is a link to a FULL TEXT PDF

If (like me) you don't understand all the details, it's still worth skimming through the headings and learning what you can because inflammation is a key feature of many chronic conditions and understanding how to resolve or control it generally improves matters, particularly chronic pain.

We also have to be aware that it isn't just Vitamin D that activates the VDR
Vitamin D receptor: key roles in bone mineral pathophysiology, molecular mechanism of action, and novel nutritional ligands.

Report post

Hey Ted...can you look at this post copied and pasted here: Hey did anyone notice that the embed code for the vitamin D infographic doesn't work, on this article? I would like to use it and I've gone over the HTML and can't find the problem. Can anyone HELP please! It's in the last sentence of the Para: D's Source and Purpose.

Do you know what the problem is with the HTML on this infographic????

Report post

There's something wrong with the html code but I've tried reconstructing it and it still doesn't work.

I've also tried putting my own code up to the link. That works but I haven't yet found a way of presenting the HTML in a way that allows you to simply cut and paste that html code.

It may be simpler to use my usual technique which is to use a Screengrab program to capture images
save to "my pictures" and then
upload to PHOTOBUCKET and
then cut and paste the HTML CODE they provide.
I usually then change the URL from the PHOTOBUCKET URL to the site the image came from
and paste the site name or article name so people know where it came from in between >< towards the end of the HTML code.

Report post

I disagree with the study.

As PART of my ongoing, successful treatment for osteoporosis, I will continue to take 5950 IU of Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) each day. My most recent Vitamin D 25-OH level (on 12/15/2011) was 52 ng/mL (reference range - 30-100 ng/mL). I am outside almost every day as well.

Report post

Hey Ted thanks, I never thought about using the HTML from Photobucket. I'll try that. I played around with the HTML but it didn't work. If you could post your HTML, I can still use with out copy and pasting it, but that's up to you

Thanks!

Report post

Photobucket

Report post

Ted no need to post your HTML, got it from photobucket Thanks!

Report post

@ Ted no need to post your HTML, got it from photobucket Thanks!
But does it help or does it confuse?
Who knows?
Vitamin D4 in Mushrooms
What does vitamin D4 do in humans?

And how many sundried shitake mushrooms can one eat daily?

At £1.65 for 125g Ocado Exclusive Shiitake Mushrooms (these aren't sun dried and it's the sun exposure (UVB) that generates the vit d.) it's going to be a lot more expensive than £4.50 for 377 x 5000iu/ servings.

We must never forget human DNA is set to produce 10,000iu VITAMIN D3 in just a few minutes FULL BODY MIDDAY NONBURNING SUN EXPOSURE.

Only go against nature at your peril.

Health professionals may think they are smarter than GOD but I doubt it.

Report post

This discussion is closed to replies. We close all discussions after 90 days.

If there's something you'd like to discuss, click below to start a new discussion.

Things you can do

Support NOF

Help the National Osteoporosis Foundation reach its goals and support people like yourself by making a donation today.

Donate to the National Osteoporosis Foundation

Learn more about osteoporosis awareness and prevention

Discussion topics

Links and resources from NOF

Community leaders

Disclaimer

The National Osteoporosis Foundation would like to remind visitors and community members that the views and opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of NOF. Please consult your personal healthcare provider regarding any medical information that is shared on this site.