Vitamin D Report Shocker: High Doses Unnecessary, Risky

(istockphoto)

(CBS/AP) Call it a dose of reality for doctors who have been pushing high doses of vitamin D.

A new report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine recommends higher doses of vitamin D, but says there's no proof that megadoses of the vitamin prevent cancer or heart disease. In fact, the report says, high levels of the "sunshine vitamin" could be hazardous.

"More is not necessarily better," said Dr. Joann Manson of Harvard Medical School, who co-authored the report.

Most people in the U.S. and Canada - from age 1 to age 70 - need to consume no more than 600 international units (IU) of vitamin D a day, according to the report. People in their 70s and older need as much as 800 IU. The report set those levels as the "recommended dietary allowance" for vitamin D.

That's a bit higher than the 400 IU target set by today's U.S. government-mandated food labels, and higher than the Institute's 1997 recommendations, which ranged from 200 to 600 IU, depending on age. But it's well below the 2,000 IU a day that some scientists have been recommending, pointing to studies that suggest people with low levels of vitamin D are at risk of certain cancers or heart disease.

"This is a stunning disappointment," said Dr. Cedric Garland of the University of California, San Diego, who wasn't part of the institute's study. He said the risk of colon cancer in particular could be slashed if people consumed enough vitamin D.

Vitamin D and calcium go hand in hand, and you need a lifetime of both to build and maintain strong bones. But the two-year study by the institute's expert panel concluded that research into vitamin's D possible roles in other diseases is conflicting. Some studies show no effect, or even signs of harm.

A National Cancer Institute study last summer was the latest to report no cancer protection from vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the highest D levels. Doses above 10,000 IU a day are known to cause kidney damage, and today's report sets 4,000 IU as an upper daily limit - but not the amount people should strive for.

And Manson pointed to history's cautionary tales: A list of other supplements - vitamins C and E and beta carotene - plus menopause hormone pills that once were believed to prevent cancer or heart disease didn't pan out, and sometimes caused harm, when put to rigorous testing.

It's hard to consume 600 IU of vitamin D from food alone. A cup of D-fortified milk or orange juice has about 100 IU. The best sources may be fatty fish. Some servings of salmon can provide about a day's supply. Other good sources are D-fortified cereals.

But here's the report's big surprise: While some people truly are deficient in vitamin D, the average person already has enough circulating in his or her blood. That's because we also make vitamin D from sun exposure, and because many people already take multivitamins or other D-containing dietary supplements.

27 Photos

25 Diet-Busting Foods You Should Never Eat

[toby002]

this was a very limited report-take a look at all the information at www.vitaminD3world.com and decide for yourself

[TheTruthisHere2011]

This is lazy science. If they have not had time to do all the research, they should not trumpet a conclusion. Vitamin D is an important substance, but it is not used in the body in isolation.

There are at least five other vitamins / minerals that relate to it.
Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, Vitamin A and Vitamin K.

Firstly the 600 IU recommended dose is set low. It is enough to make sure you don't get sick from rickets. That is not the same as a healthy level. I could live on two bagels a day, but I would not have a lot of energy.

The body can use 4000-6000 IU per day, and although you can make 10,000IU from sunlight, achieving this is problematic.

If you live more than 35 degrees north of the equator (Most of the US is) the sun does not have enough UVB all year around for the skin to make Vitamin D. Only the hottest 2-4 hours of the day contain enough UVB. So the further north the less Vitamin D.

Furthermore, most folks work in offices or behind glass. Few can go out at midday when the sun is hot enough. Even then, they don't expose enough skin, or wear sunblock, which blocks all UVB and cuts off production of vitamin D altogether.

So sunlight only works if you know how to use it. Diet is even harder. Cod Liver oil contains too much vitamin A for it to be safe to take large doses for vitamin D. It would require several pounds of oily fish to get enough.

Some studies have indicated high levels of vitamin D protect against Flu and Cancer, so it is worth doing the research.

The second complication with Vitamin D is that it increases the absorption of Calcium. Taking high doses of Vitamin D can lead to Hypercalcaemia. This condition can arise if Magnesium levels are low. Building bones from Calcium requires Magnesium. If Magnesium is low, the Calcium can rise to dangerous levels.

As Magnesium is essential to the body, increasing Magnesium to adequate levels is most often the solution. The six substances listed above typically combine in bone building. (Vitamins A,D,K, Mg, Ca, Ph) So any consideration of Vitamin D levels should include consideration of the levels of these substances.

The main culprits for low levels in modern diet tend to be Magnesium and Vitamin K2. Vitamin K2 turns on the proteins that Vitamin D expresses.

It would be interesting to read a study that took all this into account. Most people who are tested are found to be deficient in Vitamin D. Blacks and darker skinned people especially so. Low vitamin D is linked to many illnesses common in dark skinned people living in northern latitudes.

I hope this study does not put people off getting more Vitamin D. If the body can use 5000IU in a day, and make 10,000IU, 600IU seems like a low recommendation.

[aimeestrcklnd]

I find this very interesting, and would like to learn more, so i'll have to take this info to my son's doctor. I have a 4 yr old, who has vitamin D dificiency, levels remain in the lower teens....he is on 8000/IU (yes thats correct 8000!) daily and his levels still remain below 32 where they should be. He has has OI, brittle bone disease so it doesn't help any to have the low vit D.........he has been taken this at this dose for over 2 yrs.

[naxossa]

By all means check with your doctor, but at the same time also check with the Vitamin D Council (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/)Prof. Dr Cannell will tell you that it is virtually impossible to get at toxic Vitamin D levels. The confusion is with Vitamin A

[kenhamlett]

This sounds a little more complicated than the average problem. A few things you might consider are that the liver and kidney may not be metabolizing the Vitamin D properly which might mean they are in need of attention. Since this is probably a genetic condition it could be difficult to compensate for. Definitely talk to as many doctors as possible but don't leave out the endocrinologists. The interactions are as complex as a jigsaw puzzle.
The best of luck to you. I don't think the level of Vitamin D is your son's real problem so leave no stone unturned to get real answers.

[baileyccc]

People that live on the equator receive between 15,000 and 20,000 units of Vitamin D daily with no side effects. The clowns that wrote this article are in Big Pharma's pocket. People in far northern and far southern climate have way more diseases than people on the equator. posted by baileyccc

[dnamj]

Vitamin D is cheap and nobody really makes money off of it. All the problems you get from D deficiency are much more profitable. Nothing to see here.

[spaceatoms]

Vitamin D doesn't get a bailout, ridiculous, nobody lives forever!

[naxossa]

True, but I and my family have decided to get a better mileage, better health at a much lower cost. You may drag your diseased body from one walk-in-clinic to another, scrounge the pharmacy shelves for even better sounding remedies. We just take another bite from an apple or chow down a bowl of cherries.

[jsf14]

why doesn't the article include the evidence of harm or even indications of harm from doses of Vitamin D over 4000?

[erasmus111]

I don't think we really need evidence of harm for doses over 4000, do we? Common sense should tell you that when you take that much, you are going to eventually have problems of another kind.

[jsf14]

Why? I don't see that at all. Neither do many researchers.

[erasmus111]

"Vitamin D Report Shocker: High Doses Unnecessary, Risky"


No kidding.


The person that I would be listening to would be a pharmacist, not so much the doctor. The pharmacist knows way more about drugs and vitamins than doctors.

When I was pregnant, my doctor (who is no more)told me to take one iron pill a day in my first trimester, two in my second trimester, and three in my final trimester. I spoke to the pharmacist about it and she almost had a fit. She said that ONE iron pill is toxic to a child. She told me to go back to the doctor and ask her if she REALLY thinks it is a good idea. I did that and the doctor then said that she would let me know when to increase the pills. She never brought it up again. And one thing that the pharmacist said, and my new doctor said, was that you do NOT take iron pills unless you have had a blood test to PROVE that you need it.

Vitamin A is also a dangerous vitamin if you take too much.

The scary part is that there are parents out there that are overdosing their children on vitamins. They think that because the vitamins are chewable and candy flavoured then it surely must be alright to give there kids two! I spoke to a pharmacist about that and he said that that is very dangerous because they are exceeding the limits of Vitamin A and D. They are not water soluable, so you are not peeing it out. Vitamin C is water soluable, but too much can still be toxic.

[kenhamlett]

We were designed to absorb sunlight over our entire bodies. Since we are socially prohibited from nudity we do not generate nearly as much vitamin D as was intended. The medical community, well actually not all of them, conspire to keep us deficient by maintaining we limit our intake of artificial vitamin D so they and the pharmaceutical industry can keep us at their mercy. They keep us sick for their own profit.
We have two logical choices. We either ignore the restrictive advice of the frauds of medicine or we abandon clothes and absorb as much sunlight as our ancestors. I feel sorry for Canadians in winter if they choose the later.
There is one other alternative. Listen to the doctors and remain sick and die early.

(Please, even in this, moderation is still wise. Mega-doses are almost as foolish as the pathetic 400iu recommendation so always use discretion.)

[scramcannon]

Doses above 10,000 i.u. are harmful?

How about the 20,000 i.u. one synthesizes naturally when exposed to 15 minutes of high angle sunshine in a bathing suit, or even when we evolved for 100,000 years with no clothes to speak of?

This is a victory for ignorance and the drug companies.

The research is clear: 50-80 ng/ml, 25 OH, is the NATURAL level we evolved with.

Here is a simple way to test the need for "higher" (naturally evolved circulating amounts) doses:

I will maintain my vitamin D level in the natural range of 50-80ng/ml and the rest can follow the recommendations of the report.

Let's see who dies first?

[MegaProcrastination]

There's often a difference between getting a vitamin naturally or taking a supplement. Vitamin A supplements can kill people, yet natural vitamin A in real foods causes no harm.