Vitamin D Consenus

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

Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:09 am

While anything can be done to excess, The benefits of adequate & safe sun exposure go far beyond vitamin D & is essential to good health.

In health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Acura » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:44 am

Dr McDougall in his recent newsletter wrote an article on Vit D. He insists on not taking supplements but get your Vit D from Sun which is understandable. On the other hand Dr Holick's(vitamin D expert) contention is that even near equator large percentage of people are vitamin D deficient, he cited an example of people living in India. He used 30 ng/ml as the cut off. If people near equator can not get enough vitamin D then how in the world people living up north can get enough even if you made it the point to spend sometime in Sun, therefore he recommends some supplemets(after testing and spending some time in Sun and still deficient) if you are deficient. He said he personally takes 1400 IU/day.
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby ETeSelle » Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:14 pm

Proof of that???
Elizabeth
Weight now: 124 (20.0 BMI)
Weight in 2010: 207 (33.4 BMI)
Star McDougaller Story
Testimonial thread

Trust me on this: One day you'll wake up and realize that it no longer feels like "being strict." It just feels GOOD. :)
User avatar
ETeSelle
 
Posts: 6507
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Middle TN

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby GeoffreyLevens » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:02 pm

ETeSelle wrote:Proof of that???
Something like this?
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/6/2130
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, doi:10.1210/jc.2006-2250

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism Vol. 92, No. 6 2130-2135
Copyright © 2007 by The Endocrine Society

Low Vitamin D Status despite Abundant Sun Exposure

N. Binkley, R. Novotny, D. Krueger, T. Kawahara, Y. G. Daida, G. Lensmeyer, B. W. Hollis and M. K. Drezner

Context: Lack of sun exposure is widely accepted as the primary cause of epidemic low vitamin D status worldwide. However, some individuals with seemingly adequate UV exposure have been reported to have low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentration, results that might have been confounded by imprecision of the assays used.

Objective: The aim was to document the 25(OH)D status of healthy individuals with habitually high sun exposure.

Setting: This study was conducted in a convenience sample of adults in Honolulu, Hawaii (latitude 21°).

Participants: The study population consisted of 93 adults (30 women and 63 men) with a mean (SEM) age and body mass index of 24.0 yr (0.7) and 23.6 kg/m2 (0.4), respectively. Their self-reported sun exposure was 28.9 (1.5) h/wk, yielding a calculated sun exposure index of 11.1 (0.7).

Main Outcome Measures: Serum 25(OH)D concentration was measured using a precise HPLC assay. Low vitamin D status was defined as a circulating 25(OH)D concentration less than 30 ng/ml.

Results: Mean serum 25(OH)D concentration was 31.6 ng/ml. Using a cutpoint of 30 ng/ml, 51% of this population had low vitamin D status. The highest 25(OH)D concentration was 62 ng/ml.

Conclusions: These data suggest that variable responsiveness to UVB radiation is evident among individuals, causing some to have low vitamin D status despite abundant sun exposure. In addition, because the maximal 25(OH)D concentration produced by natural UV exposure appears to be approximately 60 ng/ml, it seems prudent to use this value as an upper limit when prescribing vitamin D supplementation.
Note, some have low D and some are fine. Blood testing is the only way to know for any given individual.
GeoffreyLevens
 
Posts: 5871
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:52 pm
Location: Paonia, CO

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Tue Apr 05, 2011 1:08 pm

Individuals can always find a study or two to support a position. This is why a consensus opinion by an expert panel is so important. No one or two study can or will supersede the consensus especially when the consensus has already considered these exact individual studies I'm their report.

In health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Acura » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:47 pm

JeffN wrote:Individuals can always find a study or two to support a position. This is why a consensus opinion by an expert panel is so important. No one or two study can or will supersede the consensus especially when the consensus has already considered these exact individual studies I'm their report.

In health
Jeff



Jeff,

Your and Dr McDougall's point is well taken in the sense that one need not rush to vitamin pills as a first remedy, as besides D levels, proper exposure to sun is also essential for other vital functions. The problem is after exposing adequately in summer months if you are still deficient then do what? (for those who live in north where year round sun is not available). Solid evidence is there that despite more than adequate Sun exposure, some people were still deficient.
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:56 pm

Agreed!

My 4th post on page 1 in this thread directly responds to your points.

:)

In health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Acura » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:17 am

Vitamin D Levels Linked With Health of Blood Vessels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205232.htm
CC
Acura
 
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:07 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:50 am

Chimichanga wrote:Vitamin D Levels Linked With Health of Blood Vessels
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 205232.htm


It is only discussing deficiency and as I responded to your earlier question, of course, deficiencies of all kinds exist and of course, they should be addressed as those who are deficient in any area may have health related problems.

But that has nothing to do with the massive hype that has been created around Vitamin D.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Spiral » Sat Apr 09, 2011 6:25 pm

Jeff,

I got a little bit caught up in the massive hype of Vitimain D a few years ago. I had just moved to Indianapolis and I found a doctor to see, just for a physical.

Well, he was really into Vitamin D. He seemed to think that more Vitaimin D could cure just about any ailment. From depression to cancer, Vitamin D might be the "hidden cure" we were all looking for.

And he was persuasive. He said, "Humans used to get tons of Vitamin D in the days when they lived near the equator, did not work indoors and didn't wear lots of clothing. Now we work indoors, we live far north of the equator and when we do go outside, we put on sunscreen."

He recommended that I take 50,000 IU per week. I hesistated. But eventually I started taking it. But after a while I wondered if it was a good idea. And I changed doctors. My new doctor is sort of agnostic about Vitamin D. I think that's a good place to be right now.
User avatar
Spiral
 
Posts: 3005
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:18 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby JeffN » Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:03 pm

NevadaSmith wrote: I don't recall what they say here?


Read the consensus in the original posts and especially the points it makes about the cut-offs and recommended levels. :)

It really goes a long way in helping to understand the issues.

In Health
Jeff
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 9412
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby funcrunch » Tue Apr 12, 2011 6:18 pm

I just had my Vitamin D levels checked, along with a lot of other tests as I was feeling fatigued for several weeks in a row. I got 14.4 ng/mL, which even by McDougall's standards is on the low side. The doc wants me to take 4000 IU of D3 daily for a month and then 2000 IU a day after that. But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all. I have darker skin and have not been going out as much as I should. I'll get tested again in a month or two and see how things look.
User avatar
funcrunch
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby GeoffreyLevens » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:11 pm

But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all.
Having lived in that area for 10 years or so, that seems like a non-sequitor to me! Fog, fog, and more fog, cold and windy... plus pretty far north...
GeoffreyLevens
 
Posts: 5871
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 6:52 pm
Location: Paonia, CO

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby funcrunch » Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:15 pm

GeoffreyLevens wrote:
But I am going to try to get it from sunlight, as I do live in San Francisco after all.
Having lived in that area for 10 years or so, that seems like a non-sequitor to me!

Heh, I've lived here for eight years now and it's not that bad. That quote about the "coldest winters" being "summers in San Francisco" is so old - we even get up to 100 at least a couple of times a year in September or October...
User avatar
funcrunch
 
Posts: 1273
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:41 pm
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Vitamin D Consenus

Postby Wendy Jane » Mon Apr 25, 2011 9:39 am

JeffN: my hubby recently had his blood work done. His vitamin D levels were low---10. The doctor wants to put him on 50,000 IU once a week for 12 weeks. BUT this high level concerned us both.

This morning I talked to a good local pharmacist. He said that 50,000 IU is the standard dose for someone low in vitamin D. And how could 50,000 IU be excessive since my husbands levels WERE ALREADY LOW? He said after you build your vitamin D level up, a lower maintance dose was common.

But I did find through the search engine here your reply to someone on Wednesday, January 26. You told "cpgraettinger" that 50,000 units twice a week was considered excessive by IOM standards.

Do we feel 50,000 IU is excessive? You bet. And we are also concerned about the side effects of this vitamin.

Unfortunately, we have little or no sunlight here. So if he was to take a supplement, it would have to be a much lower dose. How do we go about finding a GOOD supplement? Not all pills are created equal. And many have been tested and don't have in them what their label says they should. So where do we go to find this information?

Thanks for your help!!
Wendy Jane
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 5:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


cron

Welcome!

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