Vitamin D Targets Increased

Reader Comments
Back to article

While it is probably reasonable to tell people not to start mega-dosing with vitamin D pills (or any pills for that matter!), there are 2 key points that need to be made.
1. The RDAs that they proposed were based on the lack of standardization of blood Vitamin D level testing. That is completely fair. However, I would have called for standardization FIRST and then randomly sampled the population with an accepted measuring test before making any kind of new recommendation.
2. Regardless of what you eat or drink, it is totally reasonable to tell people NOT to stay shut up indoors all the time. It is absolutely preposterous to extoll the risks of sun exposure, when that really only applies to sunbakers who do it excessively. We're SUPPOSED to be outdoors!! Imagine what the health consequences would be if human beings stayed in a dark room from here to eternity! A mere 5-10 minutes a day of mid-day/afternoon sun exposure is perfectly sound advice. (The anti-sun zealots, to me, are on a par with those who force their children to excessively wash their hands, use disinfectants, etc. for fear of germ exposure. Never being exposured to germs or microbes actually sets you up for a sub-par immune system).
I think it is also responsible that these recommendations were made to remind people that the benefits of high vitamin D levels have not yet been proven in trials. Bone health and (probably) seaonal mood alterations are good reasons for supplementation if you get no sun exposure. But we do need to wait for better studies before making blanket statements about vitamin D's links to most illnesses.

JonathanR of CA 2:21PM December 02, 2010

If one takes the time to read the study you will see that the committee correctly considered UV exposure to be unreliable and a dangerous source of vitamin D because of the known risks for skin cancer. Therefore, 600IU is the amount needed if you have very little sun exposure.

PhillisG of CT 6:24PM November 30, 2010

The point of this study is to give guidance to policy makers, health professionals, the private sector and the public. So they come out with guidelines that only take age into account, not where they live in latitude, size of the person, lifestyles, eating habits, working environment (Inside or outside) and yet they conclude that on average most Americans and Canadian are not vitamin D deficient. How can that be if in 1997 they recommended 1/3 these levels in infants and 1/2 of these levels for everyone else? If we followed their advice then, we all must be deficient, and yet they say we are not, but they concluded we better raise your daily intake……why the inconsistency? My guess is in 13 years they will again raise the daily level two to three times what they are now, and I for one don’t want to risk and waste another 13 years on advice from this panel that consisted “ of 14 scientists who met eight times and reviewed the relevant literature. And made sure that “Anybody who had ever expressed an opinion [on vitamin D] was not allowed anywhere near the panel” This is quite the conclusion to come from a Government supported institute. My serum level is 73 ng/l, I take 1000 IU’s a day and tan 3 to 4 days a week in a smart tan certified salon.. I am not content to just have a level that minimally keeps me from getting rickets and nor should anyone else….

HiFivetomothernature 4:50PM November 30, 2010

I find it comical that someone would question the costs of a study when that very study could in fact link increased Vitamin D intakes with a decrease in many diseases that up till now have primarily been treated with expensive drugs and treatments.....and all at the expense of government and the people who are unfortunate enough to be sick in the first place. It's also proven that you can't get enough Vitamin D from simply your diet....it's a combination of diet, exposure to UVB and for many people supplements as well. I for one am choosing to listen to what makes sense to me, there are many studies that prove causation and correlation (if you ask me) between decreased Vitamin D levels and increased cancers and many other devastating diseases.....and I have reason to believe that there are those that stand to lose plenty if in fact this correlation is true....so I'd rather take my chances by being "proactive" with Vitamin D wherever I can get it.....than being forced to be "reactive" with prescription drugs! I mean really...do we not spend billions & trillions of dollars already on finding a cure....how is this potential cure any less important to research.....we already know it's less expensive??

Carolyn Hughes 2:50PM November 30, 2010

And yet, there are other "Studies" out recently stating no benefit and even damage from consuming more than recommended dosage. I bet those "studies” are funded by.... Take a wild guess!

cordlesspizza of MS 1:59PM November 30, 2010