Nyt: Extra Vitamin D And Calcium Aren

[plumbago]

Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote.

That is what surprised Dr. Black. “We thought that probably higher is better,” he said.

He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: “I think this report will make people more cautious.”

Looking at that first paragraph, I wonder if I am not reading it right. The first sentence is strange. I don't know why they don't separate the first two increased risks by a comma instead of "and." It makes it seem an amateur piece of writing. In any case, are we to understand that the increased risks for supplemental Vitamin D are:

• 
  
  
• Fractures
  
• the "overall death rate;" and
  
• other diseases?
  
  

I guess this is what frustrates scientists so much about medical and scientific journalism. How vague! "Increased risk of other diseases." And nowhere in the article is it mentioned about how much more vitamin D is necessary to increase the "overall death rate," and "other diseases." There is no mention of any levels whatsoever. As someone who initially questioned suddenly going on 50,000 IUs weekly and its effect on me, I am interested in this study, but the article does not illuminate at all.

[kareng]

I just clicked on your post and this came on GMA.

Open Original Shared Link

I think this applies to people with healthy digestive tracts that are absorbing nutrients. May need to "OD" on a vitamin when you can only absorb part of it.

[Jestgar]

  On 11/30/2010 at 1:20 PM, plumbago said:

I guess this is what frustrates scientists so much about medical and scientific journalism. How vague!

This is a newspaper, not scientific journalism. And the report only addresses bone health, not any other aspects of vitamin D deficiency.

[Skylark]

It's hard to talk about an article from only a quote and no link.

[plumbago]

  On 11/30/2010 at 4:10 PM, Skylark said:

It's hard to talk about an article from only a quote and no link.

Open Original Shared Link

[cassP]

interesting points (from the members... i havent read the article)...

i feel like i have to read EVERYTHING with a healthy dose of skepticism... even stuff written by doctors & scientists.. everybody has a different opinion- and everything is so skewed by the corporate machine. i actually read an essay on NPR the other day that was very biased & poorly argued. there's writers i LOVE on the NYT- and then they'll write one article that i have to yell at...

this whole vit. D thing has been so controversial- i really dont understand it all yet.

[Skylark]

I suspected you had taken the quote out of context. You have glossed over the entire point of the article, that the RDA for vitamin D has been increased and that most Americans get the RDA through diet. The RDA is supposed to be a safe, conservative recommendation that will cause no harm if consumed for a lifetime.

To my way of thinking, the article is actually very good as it points out that we really don't know enough about "normal" vitamin D levels or the safety of supplements. Vitamin D supplementation is a fad, much like beta-carotene was in the '90s. I was a little shocked to read that the 30 ug/dL has been arbitrarily set so high that 80% of the adult population is labeled deficient. By that measure, almost anyone who walks into a doctor's office will be deficient, which flies in the face of common sense. It sure explains why everyone on this board is labeled vitamin D deficient, even those of us who have been gluten-free for plenty of time to heal.

We have known for a long time that the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, K) are toxic at high doses. There is no long-term safety information at all for the intermediate doses people are taking now, and that point is repeated over and over in reviews and scientific studies.

As far as high vitamin D and fractures, high D causes hypercalcemia. Perhaps counter intuitively, hypercalcemia causes bone loss and fracture. That's probably where the risk of fractures comes in. Hypercalcemia causes all sorts of other problems, including irreversible kidney damage and heart arrhythmia. The concern is that if calcium balance is thrown off in small ways that we won't see until millions of people have taken supplements for years, there may be unforseen effects on morbidity and mortality.

[mushroom]

Here is perhaps another aspect to Vitamin D supplementation; this synopsis was just sent to me by a nutritionist I consulted. It suggests that a co-deficiency in vitamin C and D will affect the uptake of D, and that instead of increasing the dose of D she recommends taking liposomal C for several months and then retesting D.

"Humans and guinea pigs cannot make vitamin C. They depend on dietary sources which are depleted by stress, illness, injury, diarrhea (IBS, colitis, Crohn

[plumbago]

  On 11/30/2010 at 6:14 PM, Skylark said:

I suspected you had taken the quote out of context. You have glossed over the entire point of the article, that the RDA for vitamin D has been increased and that most Americans get the RDA through diet. The RDA is supposed to be a safe, conservative recommendation that will cause no harm if consumed for a lifetime.

To my way of thinking, the article is actually very good as it points out that we really don't know enough about "normal" vitamin D levels or the safety of supplements. Vitamin D supplementation is a fad, much like beta-carotene was in the '90s. I was a little shocked to read that the 30 ug/dL has been arbitrarily set so high that 80% of the adult population is labeled deficient. By that measure, almost anyone who walks into a doctor's office will be deficient, which flies in the face of common sense. It sure explains why everyone on this board is labeled vitamin D deficient, even those of us who have been gluten-free for plenty of time to heal.

We have known for a long time that the fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, K) are toxic at high doses. There is no long-term safety information at all for the intermediate doses people are taking now, and that point is repeated over and over in reviews and scientific studies.

As far as high vitamin D and fractures, high D causes hypercalcemia. Perhaps counter intuitively, hypercalcemia causes bone loss and fracture. That's probably where the risk of fractures comes in. Hypercalcemia causes all sorts of other problems, including irreversible kidney damage and heart arrhythmia. The concern is that if calcium balance is thrown off in small ways that we won't see until millions of people have taken supplements for years, there may be unforseen effects on morbidity and mortality.

No, I don't see where in the article it says the RDA for vitamin D has been increased.

[Skylark]

  On 12/1/2010 at 12:52 AM, plumbago said:

No, I don't see where in the article it says the RDA for vitamin D has been increased.

In the column on the left where they show the new RDA.