Vitamin D Consenus

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, Heather McDougall, carolve

Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:01 pm

Here is the joint consensus statement from the British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society.

It came out in September of this year and is very similar to the IOM report

http://www.sunsmart.org.uk/prod_consump ... 052628.pdf

I am including the summary of each

Regards
Jeff

1) Here is the joint consensus statement from the British Association of Dermatologists, Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society and the Primary Care Dermatology Society.

Summary

• Everyone needs vitamin D, which is essential for good bone health. Low levels are linked to bone conditions such as rickets in children, and osteomalacia and osteoporosis in adults.

• There is currently no standard definition of an ‘optimal’ level of vitamin D. The consensus is that levels of 25(OH)D below 25nmol/L indicate ‘deficiency’. Some have argued that this level is conservative. Raising the definition of “deficiency” or “sufficiency” to higher levels is inappropriate until results from randomised trials can show that maintaining such levels has clear health benefits and no health risks.

• The evidence suggesting that vitamin D might protect against cancer, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other chronic diseases is still inconclusive. Some studies have suggested that high levels of vitamin D are associated with a reduced risk of bowel cancer although the mechanism has yet to be elucidated. For other cancers, the evidence is inconsistent or limited. Even for bowel cancer, it is too early to say if vitamin D directly protects against this cancer or if it reflects another aspect of our health.

• Sun exposure is the main source of vitamin D, but excessive sun exposure is the main cause of skin cancer, including melanoma, the fastest rising type of cancer in the UK. Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.

• It is impractical to offer a one-size-fits-all recommendation for the amount of sun exposure that people need to make sufficient vitamin D, because this varies according to a number of environmental, physical and personal factors.

• The time required to make sufficient vitamin D is typically short and less than the amount of time needed for skin to redden and burn. Regularly going outside for a matter of minutes around the middle of the day without sunscreen should be enough. When it comes to sun exposure, little and often is best, and the more skin that is exposed, the greater the chance of making sufficient vitamin D before burning. However, people should get to know their own skin to understand how long they can spend outside before risking sunburn under different conditions.

• Vitamin D supplements, fortified fat spreads and dietary sources such as oily fish (including salmon, trout and sardines) can be useful for helping to maintain sufficient levels of vitamin D. These sources are particularly important during the winter and among people at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, young children, older people, darker-skinned people, those who wear whole-body coverings, those living in institutions, skin cancer patients and those who avoid the sun. People at risk of low sun exposure should take a 10 microgram supplement of vitamin D a day (7 micrograms a day for children aged 6 months to 5 years), which is the Government- recommended dose.

• There is not enough evidence to support a recommendation for food fortification or widespread vitamin D supplementation for the general population. Unlike vitamin D produced in the skin, there is the potential that vitamin D from supplements and fortificants could build up to toxic levels and there is not enough evidence about the possible risks of raised vitamin D blood levels in the general population over a long period of time.


2) The IOM Report

The full report can be viewed for free here and/or purchased here

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13050

the PR
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpin ... rdID=13050

Nov. 30, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

IOM Report Sets New Dietary Intake Levels for Calcium and Vitamin D To Maintain Health and Avoid Risks Associated With Excess

WASHINGTON — Most Americans and Canadians up to age 70 need no more than 600 international units (IUs) of vitamin D per day to maintain health, and those 71 and older may need as much as 800 IUs, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. The amount of calcium needed ranges, based on age, from 700 to 1,300 milligrams per day, according to the report, which updates the nutritional reference values known as Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for these interrelated nutrients.

The report's recommendations take into account nearly 1,000 published studies as well as testimony from scientists and stakeholders. A large amount of evidence, which formed the basis of the new intake values, confirms the roles of calcium and vitamin D in promoting skeletal growth and maintenance and the amounts needed to avoid poor bone health. The committee that wrote the report also reviewed hundreds of studies and reports on other possible health effects of vitamin D, such as protection against cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes. While these studies point to possibilities that warrant further investigation, they have yielded conflicting and mixed results and do not offer the evidence needed to confirm that vitamin D has these effects. Rigorous trials that yield consistent results are vital for reaching conclusions, as past experiences have shown. Vitamin E, for example, was believed to protect against heart disease before further studies disproved it.

"There is abundant science to confidently state how much vitamin D and calcium people need," said committee chair Catharine Ross, professor and Dorothy Foehr Huck Chair, department of nutritional sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "We scrutinized the evidence, looking for indications of beneficial effects at all levels of intake. Amounts higher than those specified in this report are not necessary to maintain bone health."

The science on calcium's role in bone health shows that 700 milligrams per day meets the needs of almost all children ages 1 through 3, and 1,000 milligrams daily is appropriate for almost all children ages 4 through 8. Adolescents ages 9 through 18 require no more than 1,300 milligrams per day. For practically all adults ages 19 through 50 and for men until age 71, 1,000 milligrams covers daily calcium needs. Women starting at age 51 and both men and women age 71 and older need no more than 1,200 milligrams per day.

As for vitamin D, 600 IUs daily meets the needs of almost everyone in the United States and Canada, although people 71 and older may require as much as 800 IUs per day because of potential physical and behavioral changes related to aging.

The majority of Americans and Canadians are getting enough vitamin D and calcium, the committee determined from reviewing national surveys of blood levels. Some adolescent girls may not get quite enough calcium, and there is a greater chance that elderly individuals may fall short of the necessary amounts of calcium and vitamin D. These individuals should increase their intake of foods containing these nutrients and possibly take a supplement.

Confusion about the amount of vitamin D necessary to ward off deficiency has arisen in recent years as tests that measure levels in patients' blood have become widely used. The measurements of sufficiency and deficiency — the cutpoints — that clinical laboratories use to report test results have not been based on rigorous scientific studies and are not standardized. This lack of agreement means the same individual could be declared deficient or sufficient depending on which laboratory reads the test. There may be an overestimation of the number of people with vitamin D deficiency because many labs appear to be using cutpoints that are higher than the evidence indicates are appropriate. Based on available data, almost all individuals get sufficient vitamin D when their blood levels are at or above 20 nanograms per milliliter as it is measured in America, or 50 nanomoles per liter as measured in Canada.

Although sunlight triggers the natural production of vitamin D in skin and contributes to people's vitamin D levels, individuals' sun exposure varies greatly and many people are told to minimize their exposure, so the committee assumed minimal sun exposure to establish the DRIs. The new intake levels for vitamin D cover the needs of individuals who get little sun.

Greater amounts of food fortification and rising rates of supplement use have increased the chances that people consume high amounts of these nutrients. Getting too much calcium from dietary supplements has been associated with kidney stones, while excessive vitamin D can damage the kidneys and heart. Evidence about other possible risks associated with routine vitamin D supplementation is still tentative, and most studies have focused on very high doses taken short term rather than on routine, long-term consumption of large amounts. However, some signals suggest there are greater risks of death and chronic disease associated with long-term high vitamin D intake, which informed the committee's conclusions about levels that consumers should not exceed.

Upper intake levels represent the upper safe boundary and should not be misunderstood as amounts people need or should strive to consume. The upper intake levels for vitamin D are 2,500 IUs per day for children ages 1 through 3; 3,000 IUs daily for children 4 through 8 years old; and 4,000 IUs daily for all others. The upper intake levels for calcium are 2,500 milligrams per day from age 1 through 8; 3,000 milligrams daily from age 9 through 18; 2,500 milligrams daily from age 19 through 50; and 2,000 milligrams per day for all other age groups.

"While it is too early to make definitive statements about the risks associated with routine high doses of vitamin D and calcium, people don't need more than the amounts established in this report," Ross said. "Past cases such as hormone replacement therapy and high doses of beta carotene remind us that some therapies that seemed to show promise for treating or preventing health problems ultimately did not work out and even caused harm. This is why it is appropriate to approach emerging evidence about an intervention cautiously, but with an open mind."

The new DRIs are based on much more information and higher-quality study results than were available when the DRIs for these nutrients were first set in 1997. At that time, limitations in the evidence resulted in intake levels called Adequate Intakes, which are rougher estimations of people's requirements than the new values. The old and new DRIs reflect different calculations and are not directly comparable.

The study was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Defense, and Health Canada. Established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Medicine provides independent, objective, evidence-based advice to policymakers, health professionals, the private sector, and the public. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org. A committee roster follows.

Contacts:
Christine Stencel, Senior Media Relations Officer
Christopher White, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138; e-mail news@nas.edu
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Acura » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:15 am

Jeff,

A while ago you had quoted Dr holick as Vit D expert. However, his recommendation is to maintain OH(25) levels between 50-70. But according to this consensus report, they don't recommed this high level, instead the commitee's recommendation is to avoid deficiency which they put it at below 27. your comments?
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:33 am

Chimichanga wrote:Jeff,

A while ago you had quoted Dr holick as Vit D expert. However, his recommendation is to maintain OH(25) levels between 50-70. But according to this consensus report, they don't recommed this high level, instead the commitee's recommendation is to avoid deficiency which they put it at below 27. your comments?


Good question.

My comments about Holick stand but are not a full endorsement of everything he says, as in the case with Dr Nortin Hadler, Dr Luigi Fontana, etc. All of them are experts whose opinions we should consider but I don't endorse everything any one of them recommends. In regard to Holick, I have always referred to him in regard to his recommendations and endorsements of adequate sunshine being enough and the difference between D2 & D3 (and how both can be equally effective). I’ve also referred to his treatment protocol in regard to true Vit D deficiency. I don’t agree with his recommended blood levels or his general recommendations to supplement.

The IOM committee (as well as the European groups) raised some important points about the validity and accuracy of many of the cut-offs, the testing methods used, the variance of the labs, the studies finding high levels of deficiencies and especially the quality of the studies relating vitamin D to other health consequences. In other words, most of the hooplah on vitamin d is based on some pretty shakey science. I pointed some of this out in a discussion on Vitamin D and cancer in the Lounge.

Considering the European Consensus is virtually identical to the IOM report, we need to give a fair amount of weight to these recommendations.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:08 pm

Medical News & Perspectives
IOM Endorses Vitamin D, Calcium Only for Bone Health, Dispels Deficiency Claims
Anita Slomski
JAMA. 2011;305(5):453-456.

If widespread deficiency of vitamin D is a “silent epidemic” plaguing North America, as some researchers have warned, then a recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) report has just restored us to good health. The majority of persons in the United States and Canada are getting enough vitamin D and calcium to maintain bone health, concluded a committee of 14 scientists charged by the US and Canadian governments with updating the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for the 2 interrelated nutrients.

And in a blow to a growing number of claims that vitamin D can help protect against other conditions—such as cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, immune dysfunction, multiple sclerosis, and preeclampsia in pregnancy, to name just a few—the IOM committee flatly declared that “the data just aren't there” to recommend that people consume higher amounts of vitamin D or calcium.

After reviewing nearly 1000 studies on 25 health outcomes, the IOM committee did, however, recommend a higher vitamin D intake—a threefold increase for some age groups—compared with the levels set by the IOM in 1997. To maintain bone health, the new requirements are for 600 IU of itamin D daily, although individuals aged 71 years or older may need up to 800 IU if they are not physically active or have significant declines in kidney function affecting their vitamin D metabolism. In 1997, the IOM recommended 200 IU daily for individuals up to age 50 years, 400 IU for those aged 51 to 70 years, and 600 IU for those aged 71 years or older.

Potential Indicators of Adverse Outcomes Associated With Excess Intake of Calcium and Vitamin D
---------------------------------------------
Calcium
• Hypercalcemia
• Hypercalciuria
• Vascular and soft-tissue calcification
• Nephrolithiasis (kidney stones)
• Prostate cancer
• Interactions with iron and zinc
• Constipation
Vitamin D
• Intoxication and related hypercalcemia and hypercalciuria
• Serum calcium
• Measures in infants: retarded growth, hypercalcemia
• Emerging evidence for all-cause mortality, cancer, cardiovascular risk, falls, and fractures
---------------------------------------------
Source: Ross AC, Taylor CL, Yaktine AL, Del Valle HB, eds. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.

A recent Institute of Medicine report on recommended intake levels for calcium and vitamin D also cautions that excessive intake can have adverse effects.

The calcium requirements did not change appreciably from the earlier recommendations. North Americans need from 700 to 1300 mg/d of calcium depending on age, according to the new IOM report.

The committee also set upper daily intake levels of 4000 IU of vitamin D for adults and children aged 9 years or older—double the level from 1997—and 2500 to 3000 mg/d of calcium depending on age. These nutrient amounts represent the upper safe boundaries, not amounts that people should aim to consume, the committee stressed.

The new statement marks the first time the IOM has set Recommended Dietary Allowances—a measure for nutrient intake that meets the needs of 97.5% of the population—for calcium and vitamin D. In 1997, when there weren't nearly as many studies on the 2 nutrients, the IOM set an Adequate Intake range, which estimates sufficient levels of the nutrients for 50% of the population.

Most individuals can achieve the recommended amounts of calcium through diet alone, although some girls aged 9 to 18 years are falling short of the 1300 mg/d, the IOM committee said. Postmenopausal women are also at risk for not consuming the recommended 1200 mg/d of calcium through diet, but many take calcium supplements—and may be getting too much calcium. “Many physicians have incorrectly interpreted women's total 1200-milligram intake of calcium as the amount they should be getting in a supplement,” said Bess Dawson-Hughes, MD, senior scientist and director of the Bone Metabolism Laboratory at the Jean Mayer US Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, in Boston. “Most people get at least 600 milligrams and up to 900 milligrams of calcium from their diets. If they are also taking a 1200-milligram supplement, they may be beyond the 2000-milligram safe upper limit for calcium.” The IOM committee found that 5% of women older than 51 years had a calcium intake above the upper limit, putting them at risk for kidney stones and possibly cardiovascular disease.

CAUTIOUS APPROACH

Although most North Americans get a quarter to a third of their vitamin D through incidental skin synthesis from sunlight, the IOM committee took a “markedly cautious approach” in setting its new levels for vitamin D based on sunlight exposure. “Recommending that people rely on sun exposure as a source of vitamin D is a problem because of the known risk of UV-induced skin cancer and because the ways in which sun exposure contributes to our overall status of vitamin D are not well understood,” said A. Catharine Ross, PhD, chair of the IOM committee and professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University. Getting enough vitamin D from diet alone is problematic, Ross acknowledged, yet most individuals have adequate levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, the serum marker for vitamin D, because sun exposure is substantially contributing to those levels.

So why the claims that North Americans have widespread vitamin D deficiency? The answer lies in the lack of consensus on how to define adequate serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. According to the IOM committee, vitamin D deficiency occurs at 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels below 12 ng/mL and inadequate vitamin D at 12 to 20 ng/mL. “We think 20 ng/mL meets the needs of essentially all of the healthy population, and we found no evidence that going higher confers additional benefit,” said Ross.

Yet specialty societies such as the National Osteoporosis Foundation and the International Osteoporosis Foundation cite serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of 30 ng/mL as the threshold for adequate vitamin D. “These groups recommend 800 to 1000 IU of vitamin D daily for those older than 60, and the American Geriatric Society recommends at least 800 IU per day for older persons on evidence from randomized clinical trials that there is a reduced risk of fractures and falls at this intake level,” said Dawson-Hughes, who was a member of the 1997 IOM committee.

She noted also that some people get no effective sun exposure, and others could also benefit from higher amounts of vitamin D. In particular, dark-skinned individuals synthesize less vitamin D from sunlight exposure than lighter-skinned people, and obese people have lower serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and respond less to vitamin D supplements than do people of normal weight. “The committee set the upper limit at 4000 IU, so there is no downside to individuals increasing their daily vitamin D intake to 1000 IU,” said Dawson-Hughes.

Others advocate even higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels for all individuals. Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, professor of medicine, physiology, and biophysics at Boston University School of Medicine, wants all his patients to have 25-hydroxyvitamin D serum levels between 40 and 60 ng/mL. “There is wide variability in the assay—values can be off by 15% to 20%—and I want to make sure my patients are above 30 ng/mL,” said Holick, who has described vitamin D deficiency among individuals in the United States as a “silent epidemic.” Holick, who was also on the 1997 IOM committee, maintains that a serum level of up to 100 “is perfectly safe. Lifeguards can get up to 100 ng/mL without any [adverse] consequences. In our experience, the higher your 25(OH)D [25-hydroxyvitamin D], the greater your bone density and strength in the muscles in the shoulder and hip girdle areas.”

The IOM committee disagrees. “There is evidence that higher levels of serum vitamin D at about 40 ng/mL are associated with all-cause mortality, fractures, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer,” said Ross. “Above 10 000 IU of vitamin D, there is clear evidence of risk, and because we are making long-term recommendations that may stand for many years, we were cautious in choosing 4000 IU as the upper limit.”

MANY REMAIN DEFICIENT

But even assuming that 20 ng/mL is the threshold for adequate serum levels of vitamin D, as the IOM committee contends, a significant portion of the US population remains deficient in vitamin D, said Michal L. Melamed, MD, MHS, assistant professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, in Bronx, NY. Analyzing data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2001-2004, Melamed found that 50% of non-Hispanic black children and teenagers had serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of less than 15 ng/mL, as did 9% of all children and teens studied. And 61% had vitamin D insufficiency, at 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels of 15 to 29 ng/mL (Kumar J et al. Pediatrics. 2009;124[3]:e362-e370). “Other research using NHANES data shows that 25% of adult men have less than 20 ng/mL, and close to 35% of women are vitamin D deficient at less than 20 ng/mL,” said Melamed (Looker A et al. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008;88[6]:1519-1527).

Holick points to his own prospective study of pregnant women, who received an average of 600 IU of vitamin D daily during pregnancy (Lee JM et al. Clin Pediatr [Phila ]. 2007;46[1]:42-44). “At the time they gave birth, 76% of moms and 81% of newborns were vitamin D deficient at less than 20 ng/mL,” he says.

Melamed maintains that most individuals can benefit from a vitamin D supplement, especially during the winter in northern latitudes. “You simply cannot get 600 IU from diet unless you eat salmon three times a day and drink 2 gallons of milk each day,” said Melamed, who plans to continue prescribing 800 to 1000 IU of vitamin D for her patients. Holick goes further, recommending 1000 IU of vitamin D per day for children and 2000 to 3000 IU for adults.

That some laboratories use clinical reference values above 30 ng/mL as the cut point for adequate vitamin D was also worrisome to the IOM committee, which declared an “urgent need” to standardize the assay and develop consensus reference values. “There is no central authority to set standards for these tests, and some labs are declaring people deficient in vitamin D when their blood levels would suggest they are not,” said Ross.

Nor should physicians routinely order the assay for all their patients, according to the committee.

“In the last couple of years we’ve seen a dramatic increase in the vitamin D assay as part of routine medical care, and this is probably to a great degree unnecessary,” said oncologist Steven K. Clinton, MD, PhD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University and member of the IOM committee. “Physicians should judge the risk of low vitamin D in each individual patient and then decide whether the assay should be ordered.” Clinton also stressed that the IOM's recommendations are for the general, healthy population and do not pertain to people with medical conditions that can cause malabsorption of vitamin D and calcium.

In evaluating vitamin D's “purported” role in preventing numerous diseases, the IOM committee said the paucity of randomized clinical trials and conflicting evidence from observational studies led it to conclude that the nutrient's links to outcomes other than bone health is “best described as hypotheses of emerging interest.” Added Ross, “We describe the biological plausibility that vitamin D may have an effect on certain cancers, for example, and we know that in animal models there are some good data. But we were not able to take the currently available clinical data and use that information to define DRIs.”
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Acura » Sat Feb 05, 2011 4:30 pm

In light of all of this information coming out, Jeff would you kindly summarize vitamin D fiasco in layman's term? you recommendations, supplementation and levels considered as "safe". Thanks
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Steelhead » Tue Feb 08, 2011 2:53 pm

I now see "D" light. Thanks!
No matter what genes we inherit, changes in diet can affect DNA expression at a genetic level." Michael Greger M.D.

Certificate in Plant-Based Nutrition - eCornell & T. Colin Campbell Foundation.
User avatar
Steelhead
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:01 am
Location: Seattle WA

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:16 pm

Chimichanga wrote:In light of all of this information coming out, Jeff would you kindly summarize vitamin D fiasco in layman's term? you recommendations, supplementation and levels considered as "safe". Thanks


I would not say the issue is 100% settled but the consensus opinions are all making the same points about the controversy, which are outlined in their summaries above.

My position is the same as for any supplement and/or medication.

I do not recommend;

- the general and/or random use of any supplement,
- supplements without informed consent,
- supplementation without a clearly established need that has been established in the context of a professional evaluation from a competent healthcare professional,
- supplementation that does not include the appropriate and continuing professional monitoring
- or the use of any supplement that is sold through an MLM company or from the healthcare professional recommending them.

In regard to Vitamin D:

If you are in the "at risk" category, or are concerned...

1) Get yourself tested

2) If you are deficient, then you need to speak with your healthcare adviser about how to raise your levels. You have several choices, including sunshine, artificial UV light, supplements or a combination.

3) Choose the option or combination of options you are most comfortable with and in 3 months, retest.

4) If your numbers are now normal, you have the same options to choose from to maintain your levels.

5) If your numbers are still low, repeat step 2 and re-evaluate the method you choose to raise your levels.

The following groups are considered, "At risk:"

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind/

- Breastfed infants
- Older adults
- People with limited sun exposure
- People with dark skin
- People with fat malabsorption
- People who are obese or who have undergone gastric bypass surgery

I would also recommend reading the above link.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Tue Feb 08, 2011 6:09 pm

debbie wrote:What is an "MLM" company?

Thanks for this information :)


Multi-level marketing

In health
jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby GeoffreyLevens » Wed Feb 09, 2011 10:17 am

debbie wrote:How does one know if it is an MLM company? :cool:
They will generally have an option to "become a distributor" and sell their products. Instead of huge marketing budgets, they sell in bulk, at lowest price (though still well above their cost) to individual people. Those people in turn, sell in bulk to another layer of people. Several layers out, with a price increase at each layer, is the person you buy from. They are the ones who do most of the advertising and the real sales work. From what i have seen over many years and many companies is that most of the products are bunk and those few that have any value at all can purchased for much less money in health food stores, just different brands and names with the same ingredients.

Another good tip is to really look for and at the companies research that they use in marketing. Generally it will be either a couple rat studies or often, one or two unpublished, uncontrolled studies with only a hand full of subjects. Their "amazing, miraculous results" are extrapolated from more or less thin air.
GeoffreyLevens
 
Posts: 5873
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:52 pm
Location: Paonia, CO

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby PatriciaR » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:48 am

What about the Shaklee Corporation? They have a great reputation and I understand that they do independent studies as well as their own studies on their products and that the consumer is able to obtain the results of these studies. They have been around since the 1950's I believe.
I get confused as to why some of the health doctors thinks we should at least take a multi and come calcium after a certain age and others say not to.
Just curious.

Patricia
PatriciaR
 

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:52 am

PatriciaR wrote:What about the Shaklee Corporation? They have a great reputation and I understand that they do independent studies as well as their own studies on their products and that the consumer is able to obtain the results of these studies. They have been around since the 1950's I believe.
I get confused as to why some of the health doctors thinks we should at least take a multi and come calcium after a certain age and others say not to.
Just curious.

Patricia


my above guidelines and comments apply to your questions 100% :)

in health
jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:36 am

debbie wrote:What is the best way to supplement with vit D? If one was to take one, liquid, chewable or swallow whole? I heard that the sublingual dissolvable ones for B12 were better than others. Or does it really make a difference, since one isnt able to have long sun exposures and needs to supplement? Weve been taking a chewable for the kids and a regular one for us adults.

Thank you:)


The supplement industry is highly unregulated with lots of problems including a proven lack of quality. So, any supplement used should be one that has passed verifiable independent testing. These tests include the supplements ability to be dissolved and/or absorbed.

However, the random use of supplements without a proven need are not recommended.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby finnmiller » Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:21 am

Jeff, Thanks for so faithfully bringing such important information to this forum. The vitamin D issue has been extremely confusing to me. I know I am not alone.

A year ago my D level was found to be low, in the low 20s. My doctor prescribed a supplement, but I was determined to try sunlight first. I was able to get outside in direct sunlight almost every day at noon for about 20-30 minutes last summer. My level was again tested last fall and found to have dropped even lower to 17. Needless to say, I was surprised and disappointed. I have fair skin which burns and freckles easily, which is supposed to be the type of skin that readily absorbs sunlight. However, I am in my late 50s, and I understand aging can affect absorption. I'm surmising this may be the problem.

I relented and started taking the supplements, and my level is now considered normal.

I do plan to soak up as much sunshine as possible again this summer; however, this may not work for me. I'm wondering if it would be wise for me to follow the British guidelines you posted here that suggest taking 10 micrograms of D a day. I welcome your thoughts.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us so readily!

Susan
finnmiller
 
Posts: 66
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:25 pm
Location: Lancaster, PA

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:05 pm

I can't give specific recommendations in an anonymous public forum. However, I would not recommend ingesting an amount that exceeds the UL established by the IOM committee and their consensus report.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby NevadaSmith » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:04 am

It is my understanding that sun exposure for the purpose of vitamin D making needs to be unprotected sun exposure without sunscreen. For this reason some doctors recommend zero sun exposure and instead say to use supplements while others say to greatly limit you exposure.

The amount of exposure needed will vary depending on numerous factors including age, type of skin, your health, your location [how far north or south of the equator you are - time of year and altitude]. Personally, for me, I will spend 20 minutes to 30 minutes depending on how high the sun is in the sky. So in the summer when the sun is at it's highest I may spend only 20 minutes but in late spring or early fall I may spend 30 minutes a couple times a week.

It's really complicated when you consider all the variables but once you make the determination for you personally then it's quite simple. If your skin turns pink from the exposure then you need to spend less time. If you develop a base tan then you need to spend more time.

This is my opinion but it is based on reading the book, The Vitamin D Solution
Last edited by NevadaSmith on Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
NevadaSmith
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:26 pm

Next

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.