They did a radio show (haven't listened, but read the excerpt) and received lots of comments (somehow a failed Harrington rod made it in; guess I'm lucky I'm not paralyzed yet....):
http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/archives/radio_shows/672_vitamin_d.php
Hubby went back to his GP, and the GP is not upping his D supplement (right answer! LOL, I can't understand why he needs one at all!). But his GP shared a story about another patient who still keeps coming up low, and he has her up to 8,000 a day! Made me think....wonder...can it be....something is using all that D?????
The health problems caused by not having enough vitamin d are known. However, how much vitamin d the body requires has yet to be established. Vitamin D toxicity is a genuine risk and can mask the symptoms of other diseases and conditions.
Some of the leading researchers of vitamin D suggest that 10,000 IU a day. Most nutritionists think that 1,000 IU would be a good start.
Just a little FYI concerning vitamin D intake: A fair skinned person can make 15,000 IU or more of vitamin D in about 30 minutes of sun exposure......
This is how my daughter(she is a biochemist) explained the whole vitamin D thing to me when I first started doing research about vitamin D and RA...
There are
usually three distinct chemicals that can be referred to as Vitamin D. Two of
those are more commonly referred to as Vitamin D, as you've found, calcidiol and
calcitriol. Depending on what you are reading, and who wrote it these may be
referrd to as one and the same, or rather inconsistently. The reason for the
confusion is historical, in that researchers had a tough time actually
identifying what chemical Vitamin D really was. That's why you will also see it
called Vitamin D3 (it took them three tries).
Calcidiol is the precursor to calcitriol. They differ in one small way.
Calcidiol has two alcohol groups on it (referred to with the suffix -ol in
chemistry) and calcitriol has three alcohol groups. Hence, di-ol and tri-ol.
Calcitriol is made in the body from calcidiol and calcitriol is the active form.
Calcitriol does not work on it's own, it binds to something called (cleverly)
vitamin D receptor (VDR). In combination these two chemicals are capable of
regulating a number of functions including, famously, calcium levels. It is
this combination of calcitriol and VDR that has been implicated in cancer and
RA. This may be the first reason why they do not try to measure calcitriol
levels. Calcitriol when working is complexed by VDR, so measuring the level of
calcitriol would likely give you a false low, since most if not all of it is
tied up.
Next thing is that when the levels of calcitriol are at an adequate level (ie.
high enough for the body to maintain function) the conversion of calcidiol to
calcitriol is shut down, and calcidiol is converted to a third chemical that
begins a process of being broken down to be flushed from the body. So in this
way the level of calcidiol is actually maintained at a rather constant level if
everything is functioning properly. It is a direct indicator of calcitriol
levels. This may be another of the reasons why it is measured as an indicator
of Vitamin D levels. It is this ability to self regulate the conversion of
calcidiol to calcitriol that does not function properly in people with
hypersensitivity. You can think of this like the a thermostat. when the
temperature drops it kicks on the furnace and the house heats up. When you
reach to proper temperature the feedback mechanism turns off the furnace. When
your calcitriol levels get too low it kicks on the conversion of calcidiol to
clacitriol. When you get to the right level, it feeds back and turns off the
conversion and the excess calcidiol gets broken down.
If you had Vitamin D hypersenstitvity disorder you would know it. It's at that
point that I'd imagine you would have to begin to measure the levels of both
calcitriol and calcidiol and any other potential byproducts to figure out where
the breakdown in the feedback mechanism was. At the risk of taking the analogy
too far, what's broken; the thermostat, the furnace, one of the pipes or wires
in between...
Lastly, since your body makes and maintains the level of calcitriol on it's own
it would be difficult to overdose. You would have to drink a whole lot of milk.
So having low calcidiol levels and adequate calcitriol levels would be unique
and would manifest itself in mental changes, calcium deposits in soft tissue,
and general stomach discomfort (nasuea and so forth). However, having too much
calcidiol isn't a problem, since it will just get broken down and cleared out of
your system when your body has the calcitriol it needs, but if your body for
some reason thought it needed some more calcitriol it would have the reserves to
get it. Most supplements from what I have seen provide cholcalciferol, which is
the precursor to calcidiol (I didn't really discuss this). But if all is well,
this will get converted to calcidiol and the rest will take care of itself, as
I've described above, as your body sees fit.
There's a whole lot of difference between suggest and recommend. The term suggest is used because there isn't any sound research data establishing the recommended amounts of Vitamin D.
Granted there are people with a hypersensitivity to Vitamin D and results in a serious health problem. However, most people aren't and thus the greatest of care should be taken in ordering up Vitamin D.
Actually, they are reviews the RDA concerning vitamin D as we speak.
There are a lot of studies out there concerning this. Here's one I happen to have bookmarked.
1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan;85(1):6-18. Links
Risk assessment for vitamin D.Hathcock JN, Shao A, Vieth R, Heaney R.
Council for Responsible Nutrition, Washington, DC 20036-5114, USA.
jhathcock@crnusa.org
The objective of this review was to apply the risk assessment
methodology used by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) to derive a
revised safe Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D. New data
continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond
its role in bone. The intakes associated with those benefits suggest a
need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that
are higher than current levels. A prevailing concern exists, however,
regarding the potential for toxicity related to excessive vitamin D
intakes. The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or
2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as
being too restrictive, thus curtailing research, commercial
development, and optimization of nutritional policy. Human clinical
trial data published subsequent to the establishment of the FNB
vitamin D UL published in 1997 support a significantly higher UL. We
present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human
clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity in
trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose > or = 250
microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of
this value as the UL.
PMID: 17209171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
This is the statement from their website. They are not a govt. or medical research facility.
Other information provided by them lists all the companies associated with them. I'm still skeptical of their findings.
The Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN),
founded in 1973, is a Washington, D.C.-based trade association
representing ingredient suppliers and manufacturers in the dietary
supplement industry. CRN members adhere to a strong code of ethics,
comply with dosage limits and manufacture dietary supplements to high
quality standards under good manufacturing practices. CRN's mission is
to enhance and sustain a climate for our member companies to
responsibly market dietary supplements and their ingredients by
maintaining and improving confidence among consumers, media, government
leaders, regulators, healthcare professionals and other decision makers
with respect to our members’ products.
To each their own...I believe I read somewhere that the decision concerning raising the RDA of vitamin D will be forthcoming in January 2009...
[QUOTE=watchingwolf]
The health problems caused by not having enough vitamin d are known.
[/QUOTE]
Actually that's not known. It's not known wether the lack of vitamin D is a cause or an effect. While it's possible that a lack of vitamin D could trigger health problems, it's equally possible that something about the illness feeds on or depletes vitamin D, (so taking more of is like pouring oil over fire) and that the illness would develop regardless of vitamin D levels. There are two camps on that one.
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/generalscience.htmlPip! posted a link to this on another thread, but I think the whole article should be brought to attention:
Vitamin D Deficiency Study Raises New Questions About Disease And Supplements
ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2008) — Low blood levels of vitamin D have long been associated with disease, and the assumption has been that vitamin D supplements may protect against disease. However, this new research demonstrates that ingested vitamin D is immunosuppressive and that low blood levels of vitamin D may be actually a result of the disease process. Supplementation may make the disease worse.
In a new report Trevor Marshall, Ph.D., professor at Australia’s Murdoch University School of Biological Medicine and Biotechnology, explains how increased vitamin D intake affects much more than just nutrition or bone health. The paper explains how the Vitamin D Nuclear Receptor (VDR) acts in the repression or transcription of hundreds of genes, including genes associated with diseases ranging from cancers to multiple sclerosis.
"The VDR is at the heart of innate immunity, being responsible for expression of most of the antimicrobial peptides, which are the body’s ultimate response to infection," Marshall said.
"Molecular biology is now forcing us to re-think the idea that a low measured value of vitamin D means we simply must add more to our diet. Supplemental vitamin D has been used for decades, and yet the epidemics of chronic disease, such as heart disease and obesity, are just getting worse."
"Our disease model has shown us why low levels of vitamin D are observed in association with major and chronic illness," Marshall added. "Vitamin D is a secosteroid hormone, and the body regulates the production of all it needs. In fact, the use of supplements can be harmful, because they suppress the immune system so that the body cannot fight disease and infection effectively."
Marshall's research has demonstrated how ingested vitamin D can actually block VDR activation, the opposite effect to that of Sunshine. Instead of a positive effect on gene expression, Marshall reported that his own work, as well as the work of others, shows that quite nominal doses of ingested vitamin D can suppress the proper operation of the immune system. It is a different metabolite, a secosteroid hormone called 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, which activates the VDR to regulate the expression of the genes. Under conditions that exist in infection or inflammation, the body automatically regulates its production of all the vitamin D metabolites, including 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the metabolite which is usually measured to indicate vitamin D status.
Vitamin D deficiency, long interpreted as a cause of disease, is more likely the result of the disease process, and increasing intake of vitamin D often makes the disease worse. "Dysregulation of vitamin D has been observed in many chronic diseases, including many thought to be autoimmune," said J.C. Waterhouse, Ph.D., lead author of a book chapter on vitamin D and chronic disease.
"We have found that vitamin D supplementation, even at levels many consider desirable, interferes with recovery in these patients."
"We need to discard the notion that vitamin D affects a disease state in a simple way," Marshall said. "Vitamin D affects the expression of over 1,000 genes, so we should not expect a simplistic cause and effect between vitamin D supplementation and disease. The comprehensive studies are just not showing that supplementary vitamin D makes people healthier."
Journal reference: Marshall TG. Vitamin D discovery outpaces FDA decision making. Bioessays. 2008 Jan 15;30(2):173-182 [Epub ahead of print] Online ISSN: 1521-1878 Print ISSN: 0265-9247 PMID: 18200565
Adapted from materials provided by Autoimmunity Research Foundation, via AlphaGalileo.
Read the article in context:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125223302.htmAccording to the NIH (National Institute of Health) there are is no specific recommendation of Vitamin D for the general population. It is stated that the amounts of Vitamin D required may vary depending upon age, obesity, other health issues, etc.
I have more confidence in their reports as opposed to groups/ organizations, etc. with an agenda to promote just one topic in the promotion of good health or are doing so for the potential of making lotza money.
[QUOTE=watchingwolf]
I have more confidence in their reports as opposed to groups/ organizations, etc. with an agenda to promote just one topic in the promotion of good health or are doing so for the potential of making lotza money.
[/QUOTE]
Then you will love this article (it's long, stick with it...):
http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_strauss/20080213.html
The problem is - the noted researchers that NikkiLynn keeps posting about have all been busted for 'conflicts of interest'. And, amazingly, they are all the ones most pushing for upping the MDR. One of her lead researchers, Holick, was basically fired from BU. He quit before they could get to him. Smart man. He got 0K in research funding from The Tanning Association or whatever they call themselves. But, of course, it didn't interfere with his findings.