Vitamin D

Nutrition
81

I couldn’t find a copy of the article I had mentioned in a previous post (which is odd, since I actually printed it out when I found it) but I did find a bunch of interesting vitamin D articles. Here are the abstracts of some of the better ones.

Optimal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels for multiple health outcomes.

Bischoff-Ferrari HA.
Deptartment of Rheumatology, Institute of Physical Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. heike.bischoff@usz.ch

Recent evidence suggests that higher vitamin D intakes beyond current recommendations may be associated with better health outcomes. In this chapter, evidence is summarized from different studies that evaluate threshold levels for serum 25(OH)D levels in relation to bone mineral density (BMD), lower extremity function, dental health, risk of falls, admission to nursing home, fractures, cancer prevention and incident hypertension. For all endpoints, the most advantageous serum levels for 25(OH)D appeared to be at least 75 nmol/l (30 ng/ml) and for cancer prevention, desirable 25(OH)D levels are between 90-120 nmol/l (36-48 ng/ml). An intake of no less than 1000 IU (25 mcg) of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) per day for all adults may bring at least 50% of the population up to 75 nmol/l. Thus, higher doses of vitamin D are needed to bring most individuals into the desired range. While estimates suggest that 2000 IU vitamin D3 per day may successfully and safely achieve this goal, the implications of 2000 IU or higher doses for the total adult population need to be addressed in future studies.

Vitamin D in preventive medicine: are we ignoring the evidence?

Zittermann A.
Department of Nutrition Science, University of Bonn, Endenicher Allee 11-13, 53115 Bonn, Germany. a.zittermann@uni-bonn.de

Vitamin D is metabolised by a hepatic 25-hydroxylase into 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and by a renal 1alpha-hydroxylase into the vitamin D hormone calcitriol. Calcitriol receptors are present in more than thirty different tissues. Apart from the kidney, several tissues also possess the enzyme 1alpha-hydroxylase, which is able to use circulating 25(OH)D as a substrate. Serum levels of 25(OH)D are the best indicator to assess vitamin D deficiency, insufficiency, hypovitaminosis, adequacy, and toxicity. European children and young adults often have circulating 25(OH)D levels in the insufficiency range during wintertime. Elderly subjects have mean 25(OH)D levels in the insufficiency range throughout the year. In institutionalized subjects 25(OH)D levels are often in the deficiency range. There is now general agreement that a low vitamin D status is involved in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis. Moreover, vitamin D insufficiency can lead to a disturbed muscle function. Epidemiological data also indicate a low vitamin D status in tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, inflammatory bowel diseases, hypertension, and specific types of cancer. Some intervention trials have demonstrated that supplementation with vitamin D or its metabolites is able: (i) to reduce blood pressure in hypertensive patients; (ii) to improve blood glucose levels in diabetics; (iii) to improve symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis. The oral dose necessary to achieve adequate serum 25(OH)D levels is probably much higher than the current recommendations of 5-15 microg/d.

Should we be concerned about the vitamin D status of athletes?

Willis KS, Peterson NJ, Larson-Meyer DE.
Department of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82071, USA.

A surprisingly high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency has recently been reported worldwide. Although very little is known about vitamin D status among athletes, a few studies suggest that poor vitamin D status is also a problem in athletic populations. It is well recognized that vitamin D is necessary for optimal bone health, but emerging evidence is finding that vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of autoimmune diseases and nonskeletal chronic diseases and can also have a profound effect on human immunity, inflammation, and muscle function (in the elderly). Thus, it is likely that compromised vitamin D status can affect an athlete’s overall health and ability to train (i.e., by affecting bone health, innate immunity, and exercise-related immunity and inflammation). Although further research in this area is needed, it is important that sports nutritionists assess vitamin D (as well as calcium) intake and make appropriate recommendations that will help athletes achieve adequate vitamin D status: serum 25(OH)D of at least 75 or 80 nmol/L. These recommendations can include regular safe sun exposure (twice a week between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on the arms and legs for 5-30 min, depending on season, latitude, and skin pigmentation) or dietary supplementation with 1,000-2,000 IU vitamin D3 per day. Although this is significantly higher than what is currently considered the adequate intake, recent research demonstrates these levels to be safe and possibly necessary to maintain adequate 25(OH)D concentrations.

82

FWIW (and that isn’t very much), I’ve been taking 3-4,000 IU/day for the last month or so and I’m as confident as I realistically could be that it’s had a very positive effect on my mood/energy levels and resiliance to stress factors.

To qualify:

  • it’s winter in my part of the world,
  • I usually get ‘run down symptoms’ (I don’t want to say it’s S.A.D 'cause I don’t know) at this time of the year.
  • in the past I have found something like 1-2x 6 mins/week (over 3-4 weeks) on a sunbed has had similar effects.
  • all other aspects of my lifestyle and diet remained constant.
  • bear in mind also that I’ve been indoors during daylight hours for about the last couple years.

I assume that if I lived in a sunnier climate with more free time I wouldn’t need it or see benefit from it, but I thought someone might appreciate my feedback none-the-less.

85

This site has a good deal of info, just go down the left hand side of the page and there are hundreds of articles on vitamins and other non-pharmacutical methods of staying healthy.

V

86

[quote]Hog Ear wrote:
pch2 wrote:
Does anyone take circadian rhythms into consideration when taking Vit D? I keep finding articles linking the importance of the two, but nothing really about the best timing of supplementation.

I take mine in the morning since this is when the most Vit D would naturally be produced via sun light in your body. [/quote]

wouldn’t noon be better, because this is when the sun is highest/brightest?

87

[quote]oark wrote:
Hog Ear wrote:
pch2 wrote:
Does anyone take circadian rhythms into consideration when taking Vit D? I keep finding articles linking the importance of the two, but nothing really about the best timing of supplementation.

I take mine in the morning since this is when the most Vit D would naturally be produced via sun light in your body.

wouldn’t noon be better, because this is when the sun is highest/brightest?

[/quote]

Ah one could argue that it is best taken at night when there is no sunlight thus needed more. This logic follows taking in winter when sunlight is low and needed more.

I don’t think timing is important as Vitamin D is stored in the body. I take mine in the morning for no other reason than convinience.

Vitamin D stored in the human body as calcidiol (25-hydroxy-vitamin D) has a large volume of distribution and a half-life of about 20 to 29 days.[13]Vitamin D The Physicians Desk Reference. 2006 Thompson Healthcare.

88

I’ve been sick too many times this year. Just bought some Carlson’s though I wish I would have read more of the thread and bought from Amazon than Bowden’s site. could have got twice the amount

89

Latest vitamin D news-

The Vitamin D Newsletter

January 20, 2009

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has quietly announced composition of the next vitamin D Food and Nutrition Board (FNB), a committee that will set recommendations for both adequate intake and upper limits well into the next decade. The IOM allows public comments for the next nine days; see the bottom of the hyperlink below. Please take time to comment.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/committeeview.aspx?key=49031

Unfortunately, the scientists who have led the vitamin D revolution for the last ten years are all excluded. The debarred include, but are not limited to, Drs. Vieth, Giovannucci, Garland, Hollis, Heaney, Wagner, Norman, Hankinson, Whitting, Hanley, etc… For example, Dr Hollis actually wrote and received an FDA Investigational New Drug ( IND) for vitamin D in 2003 that has allowed both him and many other investigators to perform vitamin D studies with doses well above the current upper limits. Why is he not on the committee? Dr. Vieth has performed many of the recent upper limit pharmacological dosing studies in humans. Why did the IOM exclude Dr. Vieth?

Has the chair of the new committee, Dr. Catherine Ross, ever published a paper on vitamin D? There is a difference between vitamin D and A. As she is the editor of the Journal of Nutrition, I can only hope she understands the vitamin D revolution. Professor Patsy Brannon has researched nutritional genes affecting the placenta and fetus. Let’s hope she understands vitamin D’s role in brain development. The brains of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of fetuses - developing as you read this - are suffering the devastative damages of gestational vitamin D deficiency.

Where are the investigators who have done the mass of the current work on vitamin D? Certainly, Drs. Aloia and Gallagher are excellent choices but what about the other members; do they understand the paradigm shift? In 2003, was Dr. Abrams a force behind the American Academy of Pediatrics idiotic reduction of the infant vitamin D requirement from 400 IU to 200 IU? Was he against the recent increase back to 400 IU last year? If so, history may record Dr. Abrams as one of the physicians responsible for the current childhood epidemics of autism, asthma, and autoimmune diseases.

Do Dr. Kovacs or Dr. Gallo have any experience in assessing dietary levels of vitamin D? How are these scientists going to represent obstetrics and pediatrics in a manner that protects pregnant women and children from the dangers of vitamin D deficiency? Dr. Jones is a excellent biochemist but again, has he published original data on vitamin D? Has Dr. Rosen? I hope Dr. Manson knows more about vitamin D than her studies with the Women’s Health Initiative indicate, incredibly expensive studies that simply showed meaningless doses of vitamin D are meaningless.
Many of the excluded experts recently criticized the IOM using the strongest language to date:

“Astonishingly, the FNB says that the adequate intake for vitamin D is the same for the largest pregnant woman as for the smallest premature infant (200 IU/d) frightening advice for pregnant women, in light of animal studies that showed that gestational vitamin D deficiency causes both neuronal injury and autistic-like gross morphological changes in the brains of offspring. Furthermore, the FNB s upper limits for a 1-year-old, 9-kg (20 lb) child and a 30-year-old, 135-kg (300 lb) adult are also the same 2,000 IU/d and are based on their selective focus on one flawed study; ample new data from well-conducted clinical trials support raising the upper limit to 10,000 IU. The 1997 FNB recommendations offend the most basic principles of pharmacology and toxicology, leading us to conclude that the current official guidelines and limitations for vitamin D intakes are scientifically indefensible.”

Cannell JJ, Vieth R, Willett W, Zasloff M, Hathcock JN, White JH, Tanumihardjo SA, Larson-Meyer DE, Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Lamberg-Allardt CJ, Lappe JM, Norman AW, Zittermann A, Whiting SJ, Grant WB, Hollis BW, Giovannucci E. Cod liver oil, vitamin A toxicity, frequent respiratory infections, and the vitamin D deficiency epidemic. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2008 Nov;117(11):864-70.

Are these statements the reason the IOM exluded these vitamin D experts? Perhaps the IOM dislikes criticism more than it loves candor? When the new FNB vitamin D recommendations come out next summer, will those recommendations continue to “offend the most basic principles of pharmacology and toxicology?” If any member of the new board disagrees with the consensus of the board, will that scientist be allowed to produce a minority opinion without risking the loss of research grants in the future?

Please take time to tell the IOM your thoughts. Tell them about your personal experience with vitamin D; how vitamin D affected your life and your health and the dose needed to do that.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/FeedBack.aspx?key=49031&type=committee
And send an email to your Congressperson and Senator while you are at it.
http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council

90

Two questions:

  1. There has been criticism of the non liqui-gel versions of Vit-D. Earlier posters are questioning the ability of the body to absorb the product in pill or powder form. At the same time, Life Extension’s D3 in 5000 IU capsules have been praised.

LEF’s 5K IU product is in capsule form (little clear capsules with powder inside). Is the LEF stuff any good, even though it is in powdered form?

  1. Some on-line entities that do lab testing (like the Vit D Council’s site) won’t do testing for customers in California and New York pointing to laws they say mandates that only a person legally sanctioned to dispense prescriptions may order such tests. (In other words - you need a doctor’s prescription to merely test your own body.) Further, they will only return the results to the office of the person who issued the script.

Since the other 48 states have no such rules, I’m thinking it is being misinterpretted or is just plain wrong. Is there any way around this?

I can understand needing a doctor’s prescription to obtain a drug. But, to need a doctor’s prescrition to merely get one of your own body’s parameters measured is asinine. Any thoughts on this? Thanks.

91

Got my bloodwork back today. On 8,000 IUs a day, my level was 67.1 which is about where I want it to be. One interesting thing is that my MONOS level (apparently something that helps fight off severe infections) was zero. After some more research, I believe this is due to the fact I haven’t been sick in over a year since I’ve started taking vitamin D.

Kudos vitamin D, kudos.

94

From what I have seen, and testing to verify, just like the previous posters, most need at least 5000-6000IU a day to reach the upper levels.

95

Check out Dr Micheal Holick’s website for a great video lecture and paper from NEJM on vitamin D deficiency. http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/

http://www.uvadvantage.org/

BTW, I work with physicians who actually do know shit about this sort of thing, and they check vitamin D levels on all new patients. The majority of our patients are chronically low. A couple of longitudinal European studies are also showing correlations between D deficiency and increased heart attacks.

Go for the D3. D2 is ok, but not absorbed as well. I think it’s made by yeast…

Oh, and tanning is more effective w/ the proper bulbs. I can’t recall what Holick recommends, but a good share of tanning beds don’t have the right bulbs to properly stimulate D production. I looked into this last fall but college got the better of me. Living in Idaho, we’re pretty far north of the latitude needed for year round D production, which is about Atlanta or so.

96

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Higgins,

Is that “Monocytes” or “Monocytes absolute” you are referring to?

My “Lymph” is low at “23” and I was wondering if that had something to do with my D intake.

Any thoughts?[/quote]

The test just says MONOS and LYMPHS on those two, LYMPH was a little bit high at 4.5 and the upper range was 4.3 if memory serves me correct (It was .2 over regardless).

No idea if that is what has to do with vitamin d or not.

98

My son has high functioning autism, vit D is reported to help. I’m not going to wait 10 years for the studies to be published, I’m upping his D starting now.

Just found Carlson Labs D Drops (2000IU, 365 doses per bottle) @ Lucky Vitamin for $11.65.

99

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
The recommended doses are effective.[/quote]

Based on what? The FDA guide lines? That would be 400IU/day.

100

In an incredible fit of ego, after posting doses that I had recommended, by “recommended doses” I meant the ones I had referred to, as well as other posters: not the FDA.