New research shows rec. daily intake of Vitamin D may be underestimated by 10x

[F.I.S.T.]

New research shows rec. daily intake of Vitamin D may be underestimated by a factor of 10

Science Daily
Wed, 18 Mar 2015


Researchers at UC San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates the need by a factor of ten.

In a letter published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at UC San Diego's Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.

"Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially," said Garland. "The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health."

The recommended intake of vitamin D specified by the IOM is 600 IU/day through age 70 years, and 800 IU/day for older ages. "Calculations by us and other researchers have shown that these doses are only about one-tenth those needed to cut incidence of diseases related to vitamin D deficiency," Garland explained.

Robert Heaney, M.D., of Creighton University wrote: "We call for the NAS-IOM and all public health authorities concerned with transmitting accurate nutritional information to the public to designate, as the RDA, a value of approximately 7,000 IU/day from all sources."

"This intake is well below the upper level intake specified by IOM as safe for teens and adults, 10,000 IU/day," Garland said. Other authors were C. Baggerly and C. French, of GrassrootsHealth, a voluntary organization in San Diego CA, and E.D. Gorham, Ph.D., of UC San Diego.

Journal References:

Paul Veugelers, John Ekwaru. A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients, 2014; 6 (10): 4472 DOI: 10.3390/nu6104472
Paul Veugelers, John Ekwaru. A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients, 2014; 6 (10): 4472 DOI: 10.3390/nu6104472



Comment: Earlier research has shown that over a billion people worldwide are vitamin D deficient. Vitamin D3 deficiency can lead to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, depression, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, osteoporosis, and neuro-degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's, in addition to some types of cancers like breast, prostate, and colon. Vitamin D3 also assists in maintaining the immune system, keeping your mood stable, and protecting the brain. While sunshine is helpful, it is not always possible to get enough to optimize our levels, so taking supplemental Vitamin D3 may be necessary. It is also important to know that if you have a low vitamin D level in spite of taking vitamin D supplements, a magnesium deficiency can be one of the reasons you can't correct it. Be aware that it is quite difficult to obtain enough magnesium from food sources as our soils have been deficient in magnesium for decades, so supplementation may be necessary.


http://www.sott.net/article/234159-Vitamin-D-Why-You-are-Probably-Not-Getting-Enough

http://www.sott.net/article/246216-High-Cholesterol-Linked-to-Sunlight-Vitamin-D-Deficiency

http://www.sott.net/article/289218-New-study-shows-low-levels-of-vitamin-D-actually-increase-mortality

http://www.sott.net/article/288629-New-study-confirms-Vitamin-D-can-improve-brain-disorders-including-dementia

http://www.sott.net/article/254941-Vitamin-D-deficiencies-linked-to-muscle-injuries-and-alzheimer-s

http://www.sott.net/article/237466-Magnesium-Deficiency-The-Source-of-Most-Modern-Chronic-Illness

 

[morrey]

I usually take 2000 ius daily. May have to up it

 

[F.I.S.T.]

I usually take 2000 ius daily. May have to up it

The Sun is a magnificent source for producing natural vitamin d and these deficiencies are worsened during winter months where people are covered up and their bodies are not exposed to the UV rays.Thats why tanning salons are such a big help during those cold months and even yr round for those that don't have the opportunity to get out much.

 

[Hanzo]

The Sun is great. Tanning beds are the wrong type of UV ray (UVA vs UVB from the Sun). The result is, from my understanding, less vitamin D absorption but added cellular degradation. Should go easy on the tanning beds.

 

[F.I.S.T.]

The Sun is great. Tanning beds are the wrong type of UV ray (UVA vs UVB from the Sun). The result is, from my understanding, less vitamin D absorption but added cellular degradation. Should go easy on the tanning beds.

Thats actually been proven to be false.Here is more info into this.....



Most tanning bed industries agree that indoor tanning is much safer than receiving outdoor exposure to the sun. Light emitted from tanning equipment contains approximately 40% less UVB rays, the most harmful type of radiation, than does light from the sun. Tanning beds, therefore, have the power to control exposure time and the ratio of UVA to UVB rays for a "perfect balance" Since tanning beds filter out most of the burning UVB rays, chances of getting burned decrease dramatically . Therefore, the companies can claim that the tanning beds cannot be any more harmful than the sun.


The true key to UV safety is LIMITING exposure to it.As with everything,USE not ABUSE.

 

[wannabebigger]

Ive been taking 5000ius a day split up with my morning/evening meals for a couple years now. Also supplement zinc and magnesium as well.

 

[Hanzo]

Thats actually been proven to be false.Here is more info into this.....



Most tanning bed industries agree that indoor tanning is much safer than receiving outdoor exposure to the sun. Light emitted from tanning equipment contains approximately 40% less UVB rays, the most harmful type of radiation, than does light from the sun. Tanning beds, therefore, have the power to control exposure time and the ratio of UVA to UVB rays for a "perfect balance" Since tanning beds filter out most of the burning UVB rays, chances of getting burned decrease dramatically . Therefore, the companies can claim that the tanning beds cannot be any more harmful than the sun.


The true key to UV safety is LIMITING exposure to it.As with everything,USE not ABUSE.

No, it's not. Your quote is exactly wrong, the Sun emits UVB (which is preferred for dermal absorption of vitamin D), most tanning beds emit UVA, and these beds are classified as a known carcinogen worse than tobacco.UVB emitting bulbs are low pressure and pretty much zero tanning shops offer them because they are cost prohibitive.

Tanning bed industries agree? How about Dr.'s?

 

[Hanzo]

Dr. Deborah Sarnoff, M.D. and cancer researcher, " A tanning bed will never provide you with the vitamin D that you need, nor is it safer than tanning outdoors. Not understanding the facts can literally mean the difference between life and death. Both ultraviolet A (UVA) and ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation cause cell damage that can lead to skin cancer. When you lie in an indoor tanning bed, you are exposed primarily to UVA, which penetrates deep into the surface of the skin, damaging the cells beneath and prematurely aging your skin. But it is UVB (the sun burning rays) — not UVA — which helps the skin make vitamin D, so you are increasing your risk of skin cancer without receiving any benefit!

As for the claim that tanning beds emit a controlled dose of UV radiation, a “controlled dose” of UV radiation from a tanning bed is a dangerous dose: frequent tanners using high-pressure sunlamps may receive as much as 12 times the annual UVA dose compared to the dose they receive from sun exposure.

It’s estimated that 10 minutes in a tanning bed matches the cancer-causing effects of 10 minutes in the Mediterranean summer sun. This may be one reason that indoor tanners are 74 percent more likely to develop melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer, than those who have never tanned indoors, and that people who use tanning beds are 2.5 times more likely to develop squamous cell carcinoma and 1.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma, the two most common skin cancers".

 

[Hanzo]

Here's a mainstream link for ya'. lol

http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/mehmet-oz-md/safe-tanning-beds-think-again

 

[F.I.S.T.]

Here's a mainstream link for ya'. lol

http://www.doctoroz.com/blog/mehmet-oz-md/safe-tanning-beds-think-again

Well thanks for the links.Heres a direct quote from the beginning of that very article...........


During our segment, Dr. Mercola recommended the use of “safe” UVB tanning beds for getting vitamin D. While vitamin D plays a number of major roles in our health and many Americans are deficient in this nutrient, the use of tanning beds is a highly controversial suggestion(Meaning many for and against their use): The World Health Organization has recommended that no one use a tanning bed for cosmetic purposes, now listed as a “known human carcinogen.” This declaration was also made by the US Department of Health and Human Services, which placed tanning beds in the same cancer-causing category as tobacco.

During this same segment, I was intrigued by Dr. Mercola's claims on the therapeutic value of these specific UVB-emitting tanning beds (most tanning beds use only UVA rays, which can cause damage far below the surface of the skin). As a doctor, it is my natural inclination to evaluate and question emerging information in science and medicine – but please do not misconstrue this as me changing my stance on the dangers of indoor tanning.

My beliefs are firmly aligned with those of the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD): Research shows that excessive ultraviolet radiation can lead to skin cancer. The bottom line is both UVA and UVB rays cause cancer.


So again,ABUSE not use is what the issue is.As stated (MOST tanning beds ,not all) use UVA rays but BOTH UVA and UVB rays can of course cause cancer if exposed too long.

 

[Hanzo]

Wow. Yes, virtually 100% of beds in tanning shops, as stated, are equipped with UVA emitting bulbs. Usually the only place you'll see UVB/UVA (they still have UVA) rays is privately. Cost is the bottom line, not your health.

So again, UVB and UVA cause skin cancer, etc., but UVB is what your skin absorbs for Vitamin D synthesis, not UVA. UVA rays also speed up the process of degeneration. The opposite was the point of your post above about getting Vitamin D from tanning beds, now you agree with me. Good job.

 

[F.I.S.T.]

Wow. Yes, virtually 100% of beds in tanning shops, as stated, are equipped with UVA emitting bulbs. Usually the only place you'll see UVB/UVA (they still have UVA) rays is privately. Cost is the bottom line, not your health.

So again, UVB and UVA cause skin cancer, etc., but UVB is what your skin absorbs for Vitamin D synthesis, not UVA. UVA rays also speed up the process of degeneration. The opposite was the point of your post above about getting Vitamin D from tanning beds, now you agree with me. Good job.

You obviously have misunderstood me.Im not agreeing with you at all and continually only pointing out that the "EXCESS" exposure is what is the health concern.Not using tanning beds.

A perfect example to better help clarify for you is this.......

Tanning sessions are times sessions that have a max of 20 minutes which any reputable tanning salon requires you to use indoor tanning lotion before going into a bed.So compare that to people who stay out in the sun,exposed all day,most times with no protection what so ever,and you think tanning beds are a real concern do you?? I don't know about you,but I go to the beach daily in the summer and see people out there from sun up till sun down.Maybe once putting on lotion and after swimming and running around all day,washing that lotion off,just laying out in the sun again.So these are safer options in your opinion??

You're opinion is slightly off my friend.I hope after elucidating this comparison it helps enlighten you as to why its off.

 

[Hanzo]

It's not my opinion, it's scientific fact. You just don't understand the science behind the entire debate.

Simple: UVB= bad UV exposure but benefit of vitamin D synthesis. UVA= bad UV exposure without the benefit of Vitamin D synthesis and worse cellular degeneration.

" .... and you think tanning beds are a real concern do you??". That's a straw man argument. Silly.

 

[F.I.S.T.]

It's not my opinion, it's scientific fact. You just don't understand the science behind the entire debate.

Simple: UVB= bad UV exposure but benefit of vitamin D synthesis. UVA= bad UV exposure without the benefit of Vitamin D synthesis and worse cellular degeneration.

" .... and you think tanning beds are a real concern do you??". That's a straw man argument. Silly.

Once again,you completely overlook the comparison I gave and the relevance to the argument of which is safer. Its not tanning beds that are bad ITS OVER EXPOSURE to these rays.Come on man,everyone knows it so say it with me.............."TOO MUCH EXPOSURE IS BAD"

 

[Hanzo]

That was never in question. Your assertion was that tanning beds are a good way to get UVB rays for assimilation of Vitamin D .... that's not true.

 

[d3r3k]

I also started bumping my Vitamin D from 2,200iu a day to 8,800iu a day.... I suffer from tons of physc/ emotional problems, and have tested positive for low Vit D

 

[F.I.S.T.]

I also started bumping my Vitamin D from 2,200iu a day to 8,800iu a day.... I suffer from tons of physc/ emotional problems, and have tested positive for low Vit D

How long have you been running the new higher dose? And have you noticed any significant improvements?

 

[Hanzo]

I also started bumping my Vitamin D from 2,200iu a day to 8,800iu a day.... I suffer from tons of physc/ emotional problems, and have tested positive for low Vit D

How much was the blood test for Vitamin D? What else did they look for?

 

[slinsane]

They have new studies where you take one 50000 thousand units once a year and your good for the year. Orally, at least 1-4 thousand units a day seems to be good. Takes months for your body to starts to utilize it fully.

 

[Hanzo]

I'm thinking more like 4 - 6,000/day, imo. That's for a healthy person engaged in some kind of steady exercise at least.