First let's review, because I haven't posted on this in sometime. Newer readers are certainly welcome to check out my past many posts on VitD. Or, there's three specific ones I did back on December 30, 2008 as part of a dozen posts in a day blitz. Here's the announcement from the 29th, and here's the first post of twelve (yea, I know: broken video links and such), and you can use the navigation links at the top if you want to see what all was produced that day, 12 posts in all; most substantive. And here's the three examples:
- Vitamin D Deficiency and Type 1 Diabetes
- Melanoma, Sun, and Its Synthetic Defeat (Sunscreen)
- Vitamin D Deficiency and All Cancer
And so...Because I did so many posts on Vitamin D in the early days of the blog and it was such a hot topic and so many others blogged about it, my posts on it have been few & far between lately. Essentially, lots of people have been taking their 5-10K IU per day, happy for it, reporting absence of colds, flu and other maladies and just going on about life.
It becomes mundane. I take 4K IU in the summer and 6K IU in the winter and maintain a level of 25(OH)D at about ~75 ng/mL. I've been doing it for a long while. It's not news anymore, nor noteworthy. And I'd venture to say that thousands of readers are doing likewise, equally mundane.
Now while some may call this "progress," I call it covering your ass. While they're willing to say that they were off by 200%, they just can't bring themselves to admit that they fucked up to the tune of thousands of percent. Instead, they hedge on the recommendations by including a "safe upper limit" of 4,000 IU.
In this report, the IOM proposes new reference values that are based on much more information and higher-quality studies than were available when the values for these nutrients were first set in 1997. The IOM finds that the evidence supports a role for vitamin D and calcium in bone health but not in other health conditions. Further, emerging evidence indicates that too much of these nutrients may be harmful, challenging the concept that “more is better.”
Blather. There's no "emerging evidence" that I've seen about negative repercussions for vitamin D intake many magnitudes higher than their recommendations.
As one would expect, media outlets such as WSJ fell right in line. That's the negative spin on it. But just to cover all their bases they had to have an article with a positive spin, at least from the perspective of headline comparisons.
I like Dr. Cannell of The Vitamin D Council, as he's a pretty frank talker. His take on this news is no exception.
After 13 year of silence, the quasi governmental agency, the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), today recommended that a three-pound premature infant take virtually the same amount of vitamin D as a 300 pound pregnant woman. While that 400 IU/day dose is close to adequate for infants, 600 IU/day in pregnant women will do nothing to help the three childhood epidemics most closely associated with gestational and early childhood vitamin D deficiencies: asthma, auto-immune disorders, and, as recently reported in the largest pediatric journal in the world, autism. Professor Bruce Hollis of the Medical University of South Carolina has shown pregnant and lactating women need at least 5,000 IU/day, not 600. [...]
Viewed with different measure, this FNB report recommends that an infant should take 10 micrograms/day (400 IU) and a pregnant woman 15 micrograms/day (600 IU). As a single, 30 minute dose of summer sunshine gives adults more than 10,000 IU (250 micrograms), the FNB is apparently also warning that natural vitamin D input — as occurred from the sun before the widespread use of sunscreen — is dangerous. That is, the FNB is implying that God does not know what she is doing.
Disturbingly, this FNB committee focused on bone health, just like they did 14 years ago. They ignored the thousands of studies from the last ten years that showed higher doses of vitamin D helps: heart health, brain health, breast health, prostate health, pancreatic health, muscle health, nerve health, eye health, immune health, colon health, liver health, mood health, skin health, and especially fetal health. [...]
Pregnant women taking 400 IU/day have the same blood levels as pregnant women not taking vitamin D; that is, 400 IU is a meaninglessly small dose for pregnant women. Even taking 2,000 IU/day of vitamin D will only increase the vitamin D levels of most pregnant women by about 10 points, depending mainly on their weight. Professor Bruce Hollis has shown that 2,000 IU/day does not raise vitamin D to healthy or natural levels in either pregnant or lactating women. Therefore supplementing with higher amounts — like 5000 IU/day — is crucial for those women who want their fetus to enjoy optimal vitamin D levels, and the future health benefits that go along with it. [...]
Professor Urashima and colleagues in Japan, gave 1,200 IU/day of vitamin D3 for six months to Japanese 10-year-olds in a randomized controlled trial. They found vitamin D dramatically reduced the incidence of influenza A as well as the episodes of asthma attacks in the treated kids while the placebo group was not so fortunate. If Dr. Urashima had followed the newest FNB recommendations, it is unlikely that 400 IU/day treatment arm would have done much of anything and some of the treated young teenagers may have come to serious harm without the vitamin D.
Likewise, a randomized controlled prevention trial of adults by Professor Joan Lappe and colleagues at Creighton University, which showed dramatic improvements in the health of internal organs, used more than twice the FNB's new adult recommendations.
Finally, the FNB committee consulted with 14 vitamin D experts and — after reading these 14 different reports — the FNB decided to suppress their reports. Many of these 14 consultants are either famous vitamin D researchers, like Professor Robert Heaney at Creighton or, as in the case of Professor Walter Willett at Harvard, the single best-known nutritionist in the world. So, the FNB will not tell us what Professors Heaney and Willett thought of their new report? Why not?
Indeed, why not? But's it's pretty much the same story everywhere. On the other hand, who cares? You need to get your health information on your own anyway, and you probably should, anyway. I guess that's why I'm not getting worked up about this. As reported here, "vitamin D sales have soared, growing faster than those of any supplement, according to The Nutrition Business Journal. Sales rose 82 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching $430 million."
So, nobody has been listening to the cloistered authorities at "The Institute of Medicine" up to now, anyway. I see no reason to start now.
Cannell, again:
Most of my friends, hundreds of patients, and thousands of readers of the Vitamin D Council newsletter (not to mention myself), have been taking 5,000 IU/day for up to eight years. Not only have they reported no significant side-effects, indeed, they have reported greatly improved health in multiple organ systems.
My advice, especially for pregnant women: continue taking 5,000 IU/day until your 25(OH)D is between 50–80 ng/mL (the vitamin D blood levels obtained by humans who live and work in the sun and the mid-point of the current reference ranges at all American laboratories).
Gestational vitamin D deficiency is not only associated with rickets, but a significantly increased risk of neonatal pneumonia, a doubled risk for preeclampsia, a tripled risk for gestational diabetes, and a quadrupled risk for primary cesarean section.
And what has been your experience with vitamin D, readers?
You might also like
-
More Clues Toward Determining Optimum Vitamin D Levels
- Vitamin K2, Menatetrenone, Weston A. Price Activator X…or Whatever…It’s Amazing
- Unifying Nutrition: Osteoporosis and Atherosclerosis May be Linked: Vitamin K2
-
Vitamin D: Slathering More Sunscreen Equals Buying More Sunscreen, Study Finds
- Vegans and Cry Babies
its mundane and wrote for us now, too. I go with Green Pastures fermented cod liver oil every morning. 4 caps per day. Its just part of routine now. Do i get sick? No. Is it solely because of the D in the fclo? Who knows, but probably not only due to that. Holistic, right? Live strong: eat meat and veg, sleep alot, lift heavy things and you’ll be pretty bullet proof. Top it off with a goodly amount of D and i think its even better. Great post.
Our fifteen-year-old son has Crohn’s disease (active), and never gets a bug. We live in Iowa, so usable sunlight ended in October and won’t return until April-ish. He’s on an immune-suppressant, so, of course the docs always want him to get a flu shot; which he never does.
His blood level for D is standing at 35 ng/mL. He’s been using the recommended dose of Green Pastures fermented CLO for several years. Pretty good, if you ask us.
I’ve been taking 10k IU daily for 6+ years. I keep my levels around 80-85 ng/mL. The evidence for keeping it this high is among the most compelling in all health science.
Other supplements I rank in the top 10:
o resveratrol (best anti-cancer molecule yet discovered)
o magnesium
o K1/K2
o quality fish oil
o CoQ10
o pomegranate extract (standardized for punicalagins)
o pyridoxamine — extremely potent glycation blocker
o B-complex
o melatonin — best protection for the brain
I got a text from my gf the other day saying that she’d just heard a report (I’m assuming it was the same one) on NPR about how vitamin D supplementation can be detrimental. I told her to not pay attention to mainstream health advice and then sent her this passage from Dr. Hollick’s book Vitamin D Solution:
“In my opinion,” proclaims Dr. Hollick, a world renowned researcher and expert on vitamin D, “you could easily take 5,000 IU of vitamin D a day, probably forever. I typically recommend taking 1,000 to 2,000 IU a day – that should be adequate along with a multivitamin that contains 400 IU of vitamin D. I personally take 2,700 IU a day (400 from a multivitamin, another 2000 from a stand alone vitamin D supplement, and 300 from three glasses of milk). We know from my own study that you can take 10,000 IU a day for at least five months without toxicity. You would have to take probably 30,000 to 50,000 IU a day for long periods of time, months or years, to become vitamin D intoxicated.”
I’ve been at 10,000 IU of oil-based caps (Vitamin Shoppe) and drops for 9+ months, and my most recent blood test–which I got today–shows me at 38 (I experimented with drops to see if that helped, it didn’t). I am, as of today, going to 20,000 IU/day. What my experience highlights is that you NEED to get blood tests to see how you respond to supplementation. It is much easier to predict a safe upper limit than to predict an adequate dose…
I have a four-year old daughter who has had asthma for the last year, to the point of hospitalization and daily steroid treatments.
I first read the article about Vitamin D deficiency in children from Health Ranger on Natural News and that increased dosages could be 800% more effective in preventing the flu and reducing asthma symptoms.
I read all I could and upped the entire family’s dosage. My husband and I take 4000 IUs daily and I give my kids the Animal Parade Vit D drops to 1200-1600 IUs daily.
It’s been two months and she no longer needs daily nebulizer treatments. Neither of my kids have gotten sick – not even the typical winter stuffy nose.
It may not “cure” her. But it sure as hell has made a noticeable difference. And for me, any less medication that has to go in her body, the better. And any reduction in illness that could land her with pneumonia and possibly in the hospital is worth it.
My dh and I take 5K IU per day year round. Last time our blood levels were measured, we were in the 70s (I’d have to go check to verify, but we know it was good). We get plenty of sun in the summer without sunscreen. Winters here in Colorado are a bit more of a problem, but that’s why we take our “insurance pill”. We have never been healthier, haven’t had a cold since we’ve been taking our supplement, and don’t burn in the sun. It is truly amazing. Those folks at the IOM/FNB (or whatever they’re called) can go jump in a lake. And the lipophobes can join them!
I’m going to go a bit against the grain here…
Starting from an evolutionary-framework perspective, I am of the opinion that supplementation is unnecessary with a good (Paleo) diet and a good (Paleo), active lifestyle. I guess it’s a “God does know what she’s doing” approach, in the spirit of the quoted article.
I’ve stopped taking Omega 3′s and I’m eating more sardines and other Omega 3 rich foods. I’ve stopped taking Vitamin D, and I’m taking a daily noon-time walk (living in the desert is helpful here) and sun-bathing shirtless on the weekends. Compared to the standard American diet, my meals are giant multi-vitamins in and of themselves.
My gut feeling is that synthesizing Vitamin D naturally from sunlight provides people with far more benefit than popping a little gelcap. 10 – 15 minutes = 10,000 UI, naturally — why bother with a processed, manufactured, ‘corporatized’ 1/2-billion-dollar industry to get your nutrition?
Even winter sunlight on cloudy days will get you a good amount of Vitamin D, and you can get it from your food as well. If I lived in the northern icy-grayness…I’d be more open to supplementing, but even then, I’d probably consider small doses of a Sun lamp over the pills, I’d get as much natural light as possible during the non-winter months, and I’d tweak as much D into my diet as I could stand (especially from liver).
So Vitamin D consumption, or sales, has gone up some 82% between ’08 and 09…were there massive public health benefits corresponding to that?
Supplementation for pregnant women, people with compromised health, etc…I won’t pretend to know about. But for someone who is healthy and living a Paleo lifestyle, I’m not convinced supplementation is needed or desirable.
One problem is that when we age, survival of the species does not require us to manufacture Vit d in our skin efficiently – so we don’t. If you are older i.e. past your reproductive years, no matter how mush sun you get your vit D levels are likely too low. I’ve seen this in my parents in their 70′s – lots of healthy sun exposure in New Zealand (high UV here), yet low vit D blood levels on testing.
Yes I do believe sun is best, but it may not be enough due to genes or age, or people may not get enough due to lifestyle, and weather.
Hi, Julianne. Excellent point re: aging.
I do wonder, though, if even in old age, Vitamin D absorption is much different for someone who has enjoyed a Paleo diet and lifestyle (for, say the latter half of his life) vs. someone who eats wheat, twinkies, little debbie snacks, and washes it down with diet coke, regularly…who gets little to no exercise…and is drugged up on who knows how many pharmaceuticals.
Could it be that living strongly with a Paleo diet and approach to fitness helps us later in life with things like being able to produce Vitamin D? I would like to think so.
I guess we will all find out sooner or later. I’m 51 (sounds so old!), and now past reproductive age. It’s just coming into summer in New Zealand now. Perhaps I’ll try a vit D experiment. Get levels tested now, and then just use the sun all summer in recommended amounts and then retest in 3 months.
Mercola also brought up a good point about vit D and getting it from sun – you shouldn’t shower after sunbathing. But as I don’t use soap – just water this probably wont be a big deal as I wont be washing my skin oils off.
That’s like 29 in Paleo years.
Would love to hear about it if you do that experiment!
Well I don’t feel any older than 29, and still get wolf whistles (at least from a distance!) And I,m stronger and leaner and can do way more push-ups now than I could at 29.
From Wikipedia:
The skin consists of two primary layers: the inner layer called the dermis, composed largely of connective tissue, and the outer, thinner epidermis. The epidermis consists of five strata; from outer to inner they are: the stratum corneum, stratum lucidum, stratum granulosum, stratum spinosum, and stratum basale. Vitamin D is produced in the two innermost strata, the stratum basale and stratum spinosum.
No need to avoid washing after sunbathing.
Thanks, note to self, don’t blindly trust what Mercola says!
Glad I didn’t offend you. Almost didn’t post. My reasoning for posting goes back to when John Boyd was running his rouge op at the pentagon to get the right thing done. He told his small group of disciples something to the effect of “We can never be wrong about the facts. As soon as we make a factual mistake they will use it to marginalized us.”
I see a similar situation with Paleo/low carb. As soon as a practitioner makes a factual mistake they will use it to marginalize the whole approach.
I think you’re fooling yourself, Angelo. That it, unless you live in a hut, work outside most of the day, i.e., a paleo live/work existence.
We can simulate the food by our food choices. Simulating the sun = a pill. Unless… (see foregoing).
We’re all fooling ourselves to some degree, and my opinions on supplementation could very well be my folly.
But based on where I live, how much I’m outdoors (just got back from 2-hour hike with plenty of sunshine), the foods I eat…I’m very comfortable with not taking the pills.
I’m not as confident as you are that we can simulate the sun with a pill. There’s much more going on with exposure to sunlight. People who do decide to supplement, whether it’s Omega 3s or Vitamin D, would probably do well to still make an effort to get those into their food diets & get plenty of real sunshine.
“‘corporatized’ 1/2-billion-dollar industry”
Ah yes, I can hear the vitamin D fat-cats rubbing their paws together and laughing their way to the bank now, “Mu-ha-ha-ha. Mu-ha-ha-ha-ha. Muuuu-ha-ha-ha-ha! $5 hundred million dollars a year!!!”
By way of comparison:
Company | Annual Revenues | Annual Profits
Eli Lilly | $22,800 million | $4,820 million
Merck | $44,000 million | $7,860 million
Pfizer | $66,780 million | $6,130 million
Vitamin D Council | $151 thousand, woo-hoo, a 3-fold increase over the $46k from the year before | n/a
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/sulfur_obesity_alzheimers_muscle_wasting.html
“I believe, first of all, that the distinction between vitamin D3 and vitamin D3-sulfate really matters, and also that the distinction between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 really matters. Vitamin D2 is the plant form of the vitamin — it works similarly to D3 with respect to calcium transport, but it cannot be sulfated. Furthermore, apparently the body is unable to produce vitamin D3 sulfate directly from unsulfated vitamin D3 [Lakdawala1977] (which implies that it produces vitamin D3 sulfate directly from cholesterol sulfate). I am not aware of any other food source besides raw milk that contains vitamin D3 in the sulfated form. So, when studies monitor either vitamin D supplements or vitamin D serum levels, they’re not getting at the crucial aspect for heart protection, which I think is the serum level of vitamin D3 sulfate.”
I have to agree with you Angelo – I fell for this vitamin D supplementation hysteria and signed on for the Grassroots Health vitamin D study so that I could get my levels measured. Even with high levels of supplementation, I still could not get my blood levels any higher than the mid twenties (ng/ml). I also noticed, with cessation of supplementation, that my health suffered for a long time afterward.
Now ‘believers’ will say that this was because the supplementation (though not impacting my blood levels at all) was improving my health and cessation caused a relapse – but in all the years prior to starting high levels of vitamin D supplementation I had enjoyed exceptional health on a low to zero carb, high fat, paleo-inspired diet.
I think Trevor Marshall (who is often lambasted for not being qualified in the field of nutrition) may be correct in that synthetic vitamin D3 supplements may actually suppress the immune response to pathogens and give the impression of being infection/allergy free because people remain symptom-free while the pathogens themselves proliferate. On cessation of supplementation, the immune response to these pathogens (or tissues in the case of allergy/auto-immune disease) kicks back in with a vengeance and you appear to be sicker than before!
I also find it amusing that vitamin D mega-dosers accuse mainstream medical institutions of under-appreciation of the importance of vitamin D when most supplemental forms of vitamin D3 (being touted by the Vitamin D Council and others) are largely manufactured by Big Pharma and its subsidiaries! In fact, many of these vitamin D experts have financial interests in the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vitamin D supplements.
I will trust to nature from now on regards my vitamin D status.
suppress the immune response to pathogens and give the impression of being infection/allergy free because people remain symptom-free while the pathogens themselves proliferate.
Um, you are describing terminal AIDS. So, where are all the hospitalized and/or dead vitamin D users?
I said ‘suppress the immune response’ not decimate it completely! Also depends on the pathogens, of course.
Generally, symptoms such as pain, swelling, inflammation, fever and so on are a direct result of the immune response to a pathogen and not to the pathogens themselves.
Marshall et al have shown that proliferating pathogens take on the form of biofilms (I think that is the term!) rather than distinct free-floating individuals. Often they are relatively innocuous organisms such as Staphylococcus epidermidis and Candida albicans that undergo this transformation, which may eventually develop to infection-causing proportions.
As for you asinine observation, people with AIDS can often last twenty plus years from initial diagnosis until they eventually die. Come back to me when you have been taking high-dose vitamin D pills for that length of time – it seems this fad is still not that old!
No. People can live 20 years with AIDS because of HAART (which not only gives you more time to live when you have full-blown AIDS, but slows the onset of AIDS from HIV). In the beginning, and for people who do not have access to these drugs and treatments, you die months to at most 2 years after a diagnosis of AIDS.
To be honest, I am not a subscriber to the HIV/AIDS hypothesis any more than I am a subscriber to the mega-dosing on synthetic vitamin D idea.
There are instances, in the medical literature, of people who have been mistakenly diagnosed with HIV (later rectified with later tests) and begun anti-retroviral treatments and become sick in line with AIDS progression. Others have been correctly diagnosed with HIV but have refused anti-retroviral treatment and remained healthy and symptom free for very long periods.
This is not surprising when you realise that many retro-viral drugs (especially the early ones) prescribed for HIV/AIDS were originally developed as anti-cancer drugs and were refused a licence due to extreme toxicity – in particular in relation to the immune system!
Sorry Angela, but even in lower latitudes, winter sunlight on cloudy days has a negligible impact on vitamin D levels. Moreover, in older individuals, the effects would be even less.
I do live in the northern greyness (as do millions of others) and supplementation is essential as from about late September until early May the angle of the sun’s rays does not provide the necessary UVB wavelength.
A sun ‘bed’ rather than a ‘lamp’ is a great idea but too expensive and impracticable for many. The health benefits of taking vitamin D supplementation will have to be based on ‘faith’ until adequate randomised controlled trials are conducted. There is little chance of this occurring in the immediate future – no cash in it for Big-Pharma!
If I lived in the desert, I don’t think I would take a supplement, but I don’t so I do!!
Anyone know how Calcium and Magnesium interacts with Vit. D? I’m weary of going above 5000iu ONLY because I tend to get a lot of calcium from milk/cottage cheese, sardines and green leafy veg. I’m guessing I never get more than about 1200mg of Ca. Any info would be helpful. (I’m feeling fine fwiw)
Calcium supplementation is a problem. Vit D maximises calcium absorption from the gut. NZ studies have shown calcium supplementation increases heart disease risk in women.
Foods with calcium probably aren’t an issue, these studies were specifically related to supplements. You also need the co-factors for Vit D, for bones. So magnesium is synergistic with Vit D.
Silicon 8mg
Zinc 10 – 20mg
Boron 3 mg
Magnesium 200 – 400mg
Vitamin K1 from foods like kale
Vitamin K2 100mcg
Vitamin A 250iu (found in calves liver)
Selenium 150mcg (2 -3 brazil nuts per day will give you selenium)
JK, the active metabolite of vitamin D3 (1-alpha dihydroxyvitamin D3) is essential for the optimization and regulation of calcium absorption from the gut and calcium reabsorption from the kidney. 1200 mg/day of calcium seems absolutely fine to me. 5000 IU of vit D per day is probably adequate…the way to be sure is to get your vit D levels checked. This is cheap and easy in the UK, not sure about the USA.
Magnesium is considered a vital co-factor for Vitamin D metabolism (it is necessarily consumed in vit D metabolism). If your magnesium levels are low, your vitamin D metabolism (and the benefits thereof) may be less than optimum. Remember, increasing your vitamin D levels may lower (to a varying degree) your magnesium levels.
About 3 years ago I started supplementing with 10,000iu; I tested my 25(OH)D level about 6 months later, and it came in at 71ng/mL. I dropped to 6000iu, as (almost)per the BW/25*1000 recommendation by Cannell. Another 6 months, and I was at 90ng/mL, but through in 2 weeks in Maui, also.
Now, I’m at 4-6k/day, depending on my exposure. I need to re-test, but really, in the absence of flu, cold, or any indications of URI at all, do I? Maybe, maybe not. My performance markers keep going up also, as does my recovery.
An essential supplement? You bet. Thee only one I recommend to all my clients, regardless of goals/gender/age/level of fitness.
I take 4k – 6k daily depending on sun exposure etc. No colds, illnesses at all in 20 + months since going “Primal”. I also supplement with omega 3 as well.
I don’t know if it’s the meal plan or the supplements… BUT something is working.
* If I do get a hint of an infection I double up to 8-10k IU.
I live in Georgia, and we garden almost year round. I eat a lot of fish, including sardines, like Angelo. I have never taken Vitamin D, and neither did my great-grandfather who lived to be 101. I personally think it’s a gamble either way, but until I am fully convinced I gonna stick with sunshine and fish.
Hi Richard.
Indeed, toxicity signs do not seem to occur until one reaches the 50,000 IU/d level of intake.
One thing that is not often mentioned. Among the elderly (i.e., those aged 65 or above) pre-sunburn full-body exposure to sunlight is equivalent to an oral vitamin D intake of 218 µg (8,700 IU). That is close to 90 percent of what a 20-year-old would produce.
People on average will plateau at 130 nmol/L, after months of 10,000 IU/d supplementation. That is 52 ng/mL. Assuming a normal distribution with a standard deviation of about 20 percent the peak mean (a rough guesstimate), one would expect 68 percent of the population to be in the 42 to 63 ng/mL range. That might be the range most of us should expect to be in at an intake of 10,000 IU/d.
As we know, some people are outliers. A person who is two standard deviations above the mean would be at around 73 ng/mL. Three SDs above the mean would be 83 ng/mL. These are outliers; non-average people.
A couple of posts on the above:
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/02/vitamin-d-levels-sunlight-age-and.html
http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/01/vitamin-d-deficiency-seasonal.html
Richard, not everyone is on board with taking vitamin D supplements. Have you seen what Shane Ellison has to say about it?: The Vitamin D Scam
I guess I’m hedging my bets. I take a teaspoon of Green Pastures fermented cod liver oil each day. FCLO apparently has mostly vitamin D2, which was surprising to me when I found out. I expected it to be D3. It should have about 1,700 IU of D per teaspoon but likely varies from batch to batch.
Who is Shane Ellison?
I clicked the link. The 90s style html had me closing the tab in seconds. Get current, be competitive, or fuck off and I don’t care what you have to say.
….Animated gifs? Is he serious?
Richard, Shane Ellison has been writing about health since 2003 and has written several books. I haven’t read any of his books, but he has a list of articles on the web since 2003 here. The titles give a good indication about his ideas. I first ran across his work on the web in 2006, so I’m surprised you have never heard of him. His basic contention is that most of the vitamin D hype is based on associations and not on clinical trials and therefore it’s better to rely on natural sources of vitamin D like sunshine and food that have kept our ancestors healthy, rather than synthetic pills (either D2 or D3) that do not cover the full spectrum of hormones produced by sunlight. As Jason points out, he doesn’t provide any references in this article but I believe he is a health researcher who does dig into the actual research from what I have seen of his work.
Sorry, the link to Shanes’ article archive must have had a typo. Here’s the URL:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shaneA.htm
Bryan, that guy is just trying to drive traffic to his supplement-slinging affiliate links. And that article is one of the sleaziest, most misleading pieces of crap I’ve ever read. He’s just making shit up!
D3 is not some synthetic resulting from some dark Big Pharma conspiracy — there’s no patent, and it’s made in huge amounts (and very cheaply) from lanolin, available in great quantities as a result of wool production.
For example, here’s a calculation that shearing a single sheep provides enough lanolin substrate to make 2.8 million 1000 IU pills!
http://ask.metafilter.com/138220/Amount-of-D3-in-wool
Sam, I’m not going to defend Shane Ellison, as I think he does have an agenda to make money through peddling health ideas and may get carried away sometimes (I also think this is true of Dr Mercola), but Richard could be accused of the same. I have to agree that I think Shane has over-blown the big-pharma connection and in fact I think big pharma is against vitamin D because it might decrease their drug sales. But I do think caution is in order as there are many co-factors to vitamin D and blood levels of 25(OH)D don’t tell us about their status. Raising blood D without the proper co-factors may be hazardous. That’s why I think sticking with sunshine with a nutrient dense diet is optimal rather than taking refined D pills that don’t have those co-factors.
Shane Ellison doesn’t cite any references in his article. I don’t know what he is referring to when he talks about ‘synthetic vitamin D’, because he deosn’t even name it.
As far as I know, Gary Null took a vitamin D overdose because his contract manufacturer miscalculated how much of it to put in his product. That’s not a problem of vitamin D itself, but Shane Ellison vilifies vitamin D supplements anyway.
Is he perhaps talking about vitamin D2 when referring to synthetic vitamin D.
He is referring to ALL supplemental forms of vitamin D including D3. Shane Ellison was pharmaceutical chemist until he became disillusioned with Big Pharma practices so should know what he is talking about.
As with any supplement, you are getting a very specific form of the substance which is not necessarily identical to the naturally occurring version. Most chemicals come in slightly differing forms called isomers and each isomer will have different effects and may work synergistically with each other.
It is similar to vitamin E supplements in that naturally occurring vitamin E comes in several subfamilies: tocopherol and tocotrienol, each in alpha, beta, gamma and delta forms. Even the best supplemental form will be principally gamma tocopherol.
The whole argument of what should be a desirable serum vitamin D level seems to be the reverse of the cholesterol controversy: With cholesterol the aim is to persuade people that the lower the figure (total and/or LDL) is better and that drugs are the only way to achieve this. With vitamin D, the aim is to persuade people that the higher the level the better (constantly being pushed upwards by the likes of the Vitamin D Council) anywhere from 60ng/ml to 100ng/ml. Since even healthy people who live in equatorial regions and get plenty of sun exposure often do not have levels much higher than mid thirties, on average, the implication is that these prescribed levels can only be achieved with supplementation.
Either way it is playing with lab numbers to sell products.
I’ve left Shane a comment on his blog post Stinky Sulfur Award Warns about Unapproved “Vitamin D” Drug Disguised as Vitamin.
It’s because this supplement contained 2 millions IUs of vitamin D instead of 2 thousands. Manufacturers mistake or low quality control.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/gary-null-and-vitamin-d-toxicity.shtml
There was also a case of death of a child when mother was giving him one box of vitamin D insteand of one pill per day – a case of functional illiteracy.
You have to get tested, otherwise you’re just guessing. You can’t theorise on this, about cod liver oil intake, sun exposure or anything else.
I was on 4000iu for a year. 54 ng/ml.
Then 10,000iu for 6 months. 104 ng/ml.
Last 6 months 5,000iu. 69.1 ng/ml.
Next 6 months, 7,500iu. Target to maintain at around 80 ng/ml.
Get tested and supplement accordingly.
Cheap and easy to take, always with fat containing meal. Probably the most important supplement to have. Certainly on cost effectiveness.
Unless you are an equatorial beach bum, you won’t be getting enough from the sun.
Know your levels. It’s worth the cost.
It was vitamin D that brought me to this site, and helped me in my improvement.
I live in sunny India, so I don’t need that much supplementation. I take a spoon of Cod Liver oil to get my level up. I do keep a 5000IU supplement, to use sometimes, when I feel like it.
It has helped a lot. There has been no sicknesses in my family since we started supplementing, since July last year, more than a year ago. My son used to fall sick very often before starting. Now he is the least sick child in the whole colony. Unfortunately other people who have seen the effects will still not spend the small amount of money on it. Most are richer than us.
Good to know, Anand. You’ve always been a prolific commenter and I really appreciate your contributions.
I always roll my eyes when people start suggesting nefarious motives from the vitamin D industry. Puh-leeze! You can certainly over pay for the stuff, but my family of 4 spends about $20 a YEAR on vitamin D. After vitamin C, is there any cheaper vitamin or supplement?
Where are all these skeptics when it comes to the various offering from Big Pharma? There’s been studies that show many 20 & 40 year-old generics are just as effective as the latest Big Pharma offering for the vast majority of patients, where are all the skeptical news reports on Big Pharma? All they ever do is complain we overpay relative to the rest of the world. That we might not even need the stuff is never considered.
When I first tested, I was at 25 ng/mL (or whatever it is in the U.S.). I took 4,000IU a day for 3 months, and retested. I went {sarcasm} all the way up{/sarc.} to 27. {eye roll}. Following Hollick? Cannell? someone I trust, I went to 10,000IU a day plus 50,000 once a week. Four mouths later, nicely up to 72. (And my doc says fat people need more, because the fat cells sequester a LOT of D. But once they get the level up, it stays up pretty well.) Dropped back down to 10,000IU. Got the 5,000IU capsules at LEF.org and take two. Finally got my husband taking ‘em too!
IOM is ‘touthed’ as beinga group of experts etc etc etc
Experts are just ‘drips under pressure’
Under pressure from whom you may well ask?
Perhaps under pressure from Big Pharma……
Big Pharma has done its utmost to bury Vitamin C
It seems to be trying to do the same with Vitamin D
Come on guys…. if something as simple as the ‘sunshine vitamin’ can alleviate and even ‘cure’ certain conditions…. well then that puts paid to the necessity of consuming large amounts of toxic drugs and may even put some pharma companies out of business YEH !!!!!
Putting Big Pharma out of business… why do you think we keep fighting the drug war??
http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/
Vit D has never been a big deal in France, but it was only prescribed to pregnants and infants. At the birth of my son 6 years ago, we got a 200 000 IU (no typo) vial to give him at once, so the toxicity of vit D can not be that big, if giving such doses to infants is standard practice here. Where it gets schizophrenic though, is when I buy the only prescription free Vit D that is not combined with Calcium or Fluor that we can get here ZymaD 10000 IU/ml. The pharmacists insisting that I be careful of not overdoing it is funny as hell, as a bottle contains only 10ml, so a maximum of 100 000 IU. I weight more than 120kg and they are afraid I overdose, but small children get up to 200 000 IU in one go and it doesn’t bother them.
Another observation I made, last year I had to visit 7 or 8 pharmacies in my town to find the ZymaD, this year they had on stock in at least 4 pharmacies. What the difference a year makes!
Has anyone here done a vitamin D blood test following a summer of significant sun intake and no supplementation?
Also, any thoughts on this Chris Masterjohn article about high vitamin D levels? http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/are-some-people-pushing-their-vitamin-d-levels-too-high.html
I think that article makes a lot of sense, and is based on sound science.
One thing that I would add is that there is a lot of variation among humans, and that variation may include seasonal patterns.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we were to find out that certain people can do quite well during the winter with low levels (i.e., are “designed” to withstand them), while others need high levels throughout the year.
One thing is clear – the levels produced through sun exposure are dramatically higher than those recommended by health authorities. Trying to stick to the latter is definitely unnatural.
Ned,
re: Seasonal patterns. If you spent the summer in vitamin D storage mode (in the sun a lot), any idea as to how quickly your levels would begin to drop off? For example if you were at 50 ng/ml in September, would you still likely be above 25 ng/ml as you exit winter and begin getting good sunlight?
I’d say about 3 months, which is the time it takes for the vit D “battery” to be charged. But this should vary widely across different people.
I’m getting a man-crush on Chris.
We don’t get any vitamin D from the sun if it’s lower than 45 degrees in the sky. If your shadow is longer than you, then there’s no vitamin D produced by the skin. Of course there must be other benefits from sunlight, regardless of the declination, so it’s good to be outside, whatever time of year.
So you guys who are out in the autumn sun, even at midday, are fooling yourself that you are topping up on vitamin D, unless you live in the tropics.
Here in England, where I live, there is no vitamin D produced at all, between September and April, because of the northerly latitude.
Our summers have been so bad of late, that the UK population will be more deficient than usual.
I’m not going to wait around for the definitive proof of what the optimum level should be. Life’s too short. I’m aiming to maintain at 75-80 ng/ml until I know different. I have a good intake of K2 and A, so I’m not concerned on that score.
Empirically, I’ve not had a bad chest infection or virus for 5+ years. I hope this continues to be the case. I believe that vitamin D supplementation helps.
“We don’t get any vitamin D from the sun if it’s lower than 45 degrees in the sky.”
What’s your basis for this?
It relates to the angle at which UVB radiation strikes the earth at the latitudes that the likes of UK & NZ sit at. With the sun below 45deg during solar noon (tall shadows), UVB will refract at an angle where it will miss the surface of the earth. Above 45deg (short shadows), UVB strike increases allowing vitamin D synthesis (allowing for other factors such as clarity of the atmosphere, etc).
Can’ find a scientific reference. Drs. Cannell and Holick have both mentioned this in radio interviews.
I’m skeptical of this claim. Doctors are not physicists.
I did a little googling but didn’t come up with anything definitive either. There’s this http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/optics/refr.html which shows the refractive angle getting nonlinear near the grazing angle, but 45 degrees is nowhere near grazing angle.
The refractive coefficient of air is quite low, n = 1.0003. This is magnified by different layers the light has to pass through, but I just don’t see the effect being so extreme for UVB when it has a much more marginal effect on visible light.
The Sun is visible at sunset on the ocean, ie ~90 degrees, but it appears to turn red as the higher wavelength yellows are refracted away from us. So at some lower angle of incidence the same must happen to UVB. But I am rather doubtful that that angle is 45 degrees.
I could be totally wrong, of course, but until I see some convincing source I’m not buying it.
Wait a sec, what the hell was I (and especially you) thinking?
When light travels from lower to higher density it is bent towards the normal (perpendicular), therefore UVB would refract towards the Earth (normal) more than visible light.
Not sure exactly what the point of contention is, but if you want to get an idea of the amount of sun you need to get a decent dose of Vit. D there’s always this calculator: http://nadir.nilu.no/~olaeng/fastrt/VitD-ez_quartMED.html
If you live at northern latitudes you aren’t going to get enough Vitamin D. In fact, you can test Bill’s assertion by selecting a time of day during which your shadow would be longer than you are tall and seeing how long you’d have to stand outside to get a decent dose.
I do hope that Richard or somebody else can provide a definitive answer on the angle of the sun’s rays issue.
It’s not that important to me personally. Even in midsummer I get very little opportunity to be out in the sunshine between 10:00am and 2:00pm. So I’ll just keep supplementing.
It’s pretty simple. The steeper the angle, the more UVB gets filtered by the ozone, and the less D you will produce. I don’t think this has anything to do with angle of refraction, it has to do with the total cross section of ozone light has to pass through to get to you. I don’t know if your shadow is an accurate indicator of this but why use your shadow when you can use accurately calculated/measured UV index calculators like the one I linked?
Using my basic stats as a test subject (blond caucasian, latitude of 40 degrees), I can get the recommended dose of D in 5 minutes on June 22 at noon (sun highest in the sky at noon all year), and in 1hr 46mins on Dec 22 at noon (sun lowest in the sky at noon all year). Since it is very impractical/unhealthy for me to stand around uncovered for two hours at noon in December, I cannot achieve the recommended dose of Vitamin D via sunlight in the winter months. During the summer, it’s relatively easy, provided I can take my shirt off at lunch.
One other thing to note is that this calculator is using the following assumptions about your goals/methods: face, hands and arms at least every other day to obtain sufficient vitamin D, equivalent of 25 micrograms vitamin D.
So if you want more D, you need to be out for longer or expose more skin.
Thanks pfw,
I was just skeptical that there was no UVB above 45 degrees. These things are usually linear so that if one can see visible light one ought to be getting some invisible light also.
If it is caused by the ozone layer being effectively thicker at higher angles of incidence that actually makes sense.
Really just hypothetical. Where I live (50 degrees) days like today are already practically non-existent and the Sun really just goes away for about 3 months. I can’t imagine what it would be like in, say, Stockholm.
I’ve had a great improvement in my glucose tolerance (by OGTT) since supplementing with 5,000iu/day of Vit D3. Full story HERE. I also supplement with Vit K2 to minimise inappropriate calcification.
As I have annual kidney ultrasound scans (after having had a uric acid stone removed in 2002), I know that I have not developed any kidney stones and my serum calcium level is in the middle of the Reference Range.
Supplementing with Vit D reduces insulin resistance:
Vitamin D supplementation reduces insulin resistance in South Asian women living in New Zealand who are insulin resistant and vitamin D deficient – a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.
von Hurst PR, Stonehouse W, Coad J.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19781131
The study notes: IR was most improved when endpoint serum 25(OH)D reached > or = 80 nmol/l.
Supplements were 4000iu per day
Cheers Julianne. That one slipped through the net when I was searching PubMed for studies on “Vitamin D3″. I’ll add it.
RDA of Vitamin D Raised Today // Dec 4, 2010 at 15:18
[...] liked this post from the Free the Animal blog: "The Institute of Medicine Vitamin D FAIL" Here's Dr. Cannell's response to the IOM's Food and Nutrition Board from his informative [...]
Richard,
Been lurking for a while. Appreciate the brutal honesty and bluntness… its much needed.
I’ve been working as a nurse in the medical weight loss (not surgery and not HCG) for the past 2 years.
I’ve been recommending Vitamin D to all my patients within the last year. Quite a few of them are on prescription strength 25,000-50,000 IU’s per week. The patients that do heed my advice seem to respond well to vitamin D. Here’s some of what I hear:
- a better sense of well-being
- better energy
- possibly that its helping to prevent weight regain
- decrease in ADD symptoms in a patients child
- decrease in asthma symptoms in a child (http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20100303/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-asthma)
For myself, I’ve been taking 5,000 IU per day for the last year or so and about a month ago, my level was 71. I’m supposed to shoot for 80-90 per my naturopath.
By the way, it would be nice to hear your thoughts on the whole HCG diet craze thats going on.
Thoughts?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/06/18/aje.kwq120.full
Peter of Hyperlipid has posted about what can cause a positive association between increasing serum 25(OH)D and the relative risk of certain cancers (and how to rectify the problem) on Vitamin D and UV fluctuations.
That and Efficacy of different doses and time intervals of oral vitamin D supplementation with or without calcium in elderly nursing home residents. is why I supplement daily.
Thanks Nigel, much appreciated.
I have the Carlson D3 drops (2000K) and New Chapter cold pressed Salmon oil (500mg). But everytime I take them with my breakfast, even at these small doses, I get a pretty immediate and severe mood change. A bad one. Like my brain takes on a very foul depressed mood. I’ve pretty much given up on them. Anybody got an explanation for my reaction? ~susan
The salmon oil may be rancid…how fresh is it, have you kept it refrigerated, and do you have confidence in your supplier?
It says not to refrigerate it. New Chapter is a pretty well respected brand. It has an antioxidant stability system and says it doesn’t expire until 7/11. I have had this reaction to other brands as well. I am like the canary in the coalmine of supplements.
Susan,
if you’re very sensitive to gluten, the Carlson drops could be the problem. See the Glutenzap forum for more info.
Browsing the internet it seems others also have a depressive reaction to fish oil and theorize it is the boost in acetylcholine. I don’t think it’s gluten cuz I can eat pizza and feel quite happy. I also have a ‘depressive’ reaction to caffeine and chocolate which are also supposed to be ‘feel good’ substances, so maybe my brain is not liking whatever this stuff is boosting.
I don’t see anything about Carlson drops on that forum… the bottle says they are gluten free, is this actually not true?
Canibais e Reis » Blog Archive » Vitamina D: controvérsia sobre o parecer do Institute of Medicine do Canadá sobre Vitamina D // Dec 5, 2010 at 11:34
[...] Wrong, Wrong (ANH) What the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said (Heart Scan Blog) The Institute of Medicine Vitamin D FAIL (Free The [...]
I’m sorry to hijack the thread, but perhaps its not a 100% hijacking:
Richard, what do you think of fish oil supplementation? I’ve been taking around 2.4g of total EPA+DHA from PharmaNutrients everyday for a year due to the The following Robb Wolf post
However, I just across THIS POST and now I’m not so sure what to think. I consider myself a smart consumer of health information.
A little help would be vastly appreciated!
Well considering that that post is only a month or so old, thats not exactly accurate. What i meant to say was that I have been supplementing for a year, but increased it to 2.4g due to that post recently.
I used to take a high dose of fish oil and then it became ineffective after about 3 months. Another nutritionist said I should be taking vit C 1000mg and vit E 500iu per day (As per “The Omega 3 connection ” Andrew Stoll) He recommends a high dose for mental health – bipolar etc.
I did this and the effectiveness immediately improved. I’ve been thinking about this ever since.
My current thinking based on what a number of excellent bloggers have been saying and other sources is that:
1. Omega 3 : 6 ratio is important
2. However – PUFAs are very unstable and should be kept at a minimum in the diet (oxidation)
3. Therefore – keep your Omega 6 as low as possible, but you do need some as it is an essential fat, and the building block of eicosanoid hormones
4. Balance this with good quality omega 3 that has been tested for oxidation, or eat fresh salmon several times week
If your omega 6 intake is 4 g per day, you only need 2000mg omega 3 to balance. This is found in a good serve of salmon 150 – 200 g (1400mg EPA=DHA per 100g farmed salmon)
Paul Jaminet’s Perfect Health book outlines this whole issue really well.
I don’t really know how to think about effectiveness. I have 15% bodyfat, am 5 feet 10 inches, and only 145 lbs. So I’m probably not suffering from MAJOR inflammation and other symptoms. I also don’t have any autoimmune disorders. Therefore, I just supplement due to all I’ve read on paleo blogs among other places.
I really don’t know what to make of it. I take a little fish oil, about 1g each of CLO and Salmon, and 500mg krill. Some days I skip it.
It’s hard to for me to get excited about the oxidative impact of a couple grams of n-3 PUFAs per day when people are ingesting tens of grams of n-6 PUFAs a day in corn oil, soybean oil, and other “vegetable” oils (actually a misnomer…they’re seed oils, and I’m starting a campaign to call them by their real name).
There’s about a gram of corn oil in one single tortilla chip. That’s over half a gram of n-6 PUFA per chip!
Even a paleo eater is getting significant PUFA intake…250g of pork, containing a low-end estimate of 42g of pork fat, will have over 3 grams of PUFA, mostly n-6 unless grass-fed. (Most animal fats are 4%-9% PUFA.) So I guess I’m not seeing where the hysteria over 2g of n-3 fats from supplementation comes in…
…particularly when they’re not being oxidized by deep-frying or other cooking, as occurs in most foods.
When I had the issues with fish oil, this was before I ate paleo, but was on a lowish omega 6 pufa diet. The problem was I needed the fish oil for joint inflammation and menstrual pain. I was taking 6 – 8 grams a day (not 2 grams)- no wonder it sucked the antioxidant E and C from my body after doing this for 3 months.
When I switched to paleo foods it eliminated the need for lots of oil as these other issues disappeared.
You are right though the average person gets way to much n-6 fatty acids which add to oxidative stress in the body.
I recently started taking 5,000 IU/day, sometimes 10,000. Two weeks ago I started getting cold/flu like symptoms. I bumped the dose up to 30,000-50,000 IU/day for 3 days. The symptoms subsided and the cold/flu never materialized.
This is enough to convince me to try this method for the next couple of years to identify a trend. I usually catch whatever bug is going around and it sticks . . . around. As a matter of fact, I started getting a scratchy throat today so here we go again.
BTW, the IOM never ceases to amaze me. One day I read a report like “The Future of Nursing” paper released last October. Then they release something like this and I just scratch my head. They seem to be all about the controlling interests. A true authority would let science prevail and the chips fall where they may.
Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa (ninjiom-hk.cwahi.net) may be another choice. i know alot of people use it, its also non alcoholic, though it’s effectiveness is not as good as alcohol based cough medicine, but it’s still good to use on not so serious scratchy throat.
Are You Vitamin D Deficient? | Soil to Sustenance // Dec 20, 2010 at 07:41
[...] A couple of weeks ago, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a 999 page report with updated recommendations for vitamin D intake. The report impressively tripled the recommended intake of vitamin D from 200 IU per day to 600 IU. On the surface this seems like a significant change; however to the researchers, health practitioners, and pundits I pay attention to, this change is still inadequate (see here, here, and here). [...]
Vitamin D, Part 1: The “English Disease” and me « Urocyon's Meanderings // Mar 23, 2011 at 12:13
[...] Then, a couple of months ago IIRC, I ran across an update post at Free the Animal, A Most Successful Self-Experiement: Over 18 Months Soap and Shampoo Free (which is more meta/philosophical). In the comments, some interesting discussion of vitamin D came up, and I looked at some of his earlier posts concerning it, including The Institute of Medicine Vitamin D FAIL. [...]
12 months ago I started to take a vitamin D supplement, prior to this my health was questionable with frequent bouts of cold and flu throughout a typical year. Since taking vit. D there has been no illness, no feeling unwell whatsoever. Say no more…that reminds me must order some more!