Why governments are selling Vitamin D short

By Sam Apple

Published: October 23 2009 16:56 | Last updated: October 23 2009 16:56

Sunlight
10,000 IU from 15-20 minutes of midday summer sun
Oysters
270 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per half-dozen
Dried shiitake mushrooms
172 IU per 100g

Reinhold Vieth is frustrated. A thin, bald professor at the University of Toronto’s Department of Laboratory Medicine and Patho-biology, Vieth is among the most knowledgeable people in the world on the subject of vitamin D. He began studying it as a graduate student in 1974 and hasn’t changed his focus since. “I stick with vitamin D and follow it where it goes,” he says.

EDITOR’S CHOICE
More from Reportage - Nov-24



In recent years, vitamin D has been going to some exciting places. Reports of new and promising studies seem to emerge almost weekly. A 2007 analysis of vitamin D studies found that individuals with higher vitamin D levels are significantly – as much as 50 per cent – less likely to develop colorectal cancer. Another 2007 study found that women who took 1,100 International Units (IU) of vitamin D per day together with a calcium supplement reduced their overall cancer risk by 60 per cent. And the excitement is not only about cancer prevention. Low vitamin D levels have been linked to an increased risk of osteoporosis, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, type 1 diabetes, depression and rheumatoid arthritis, among other diseases. Perhaps not surprisingly, in light of the other studies, one recent review of the health records of more than 13,000 Americans found that individuals with the lowest vitamin D levels were 26 per cent more likely, in an eight-year period, to die than those with the highest levels.

So why is Dr Vieth so frustrated? You might think he’d have cause for celebration. But for him and other vitamin D researchers around the world, the good news comes with a bitter aftertaste. They believe they can prove vitamin D could help millions live longer and be healthier and yet they have not been able to convince their own governments.

In the US and Canada, official vitamin D policy is set by the Institute of Medicine. And in the opinion of Vieth, the current recommendations – 200 International Units per day for people under 50, 400 for people aged 51-70, and 600 for those 71 and older – are outrageously low. Bruce Hollis, professor of paediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, calls 400 IU a day “a joke”. That’s because the best research suggests that to achieve the higher vitamin D blood levels associated with disease prevention, most adults in the US would need to take 1,000-2,000 IU a day: five to 10 times more than the current official recommendation for adults.

In the UK, the government’s Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has declined to set a “Reference Nutrient Intake” value for people “leading a normal lifestyle”, arguing that you can get the vitamin D you need from food and sunlight. But they fall in line with the Americans where they do make recommendations: for people confined indoors, the elderly and pregnant women, they suggest a daily intake of 10 micrograms a day. That’s equal to 400 IU.

Link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/11180df8-...144feab49a.html

Very interesting! Thanks for posting this.

Until Dr. Average Physician gets over the fear of supplements, the policy won't change.

Just another reason why people have to be responsible for their own health.

They want a large controlled study to up vitamin d recommendations, yet NO SUCH STUDY was done to get to the recommendation to stay out of the sun in the first place.

Doctors are afraid of vitamin supplements?

Most of the ones that I have encountered behave that way. It seems to be threatening to them. Perhaps, they just discount the vital role that nutrition plays in health.

there is no money in vitamin D... better to put you on some expensive drugs..

Now to be fair, early results with some other supplements didn't pan our and in fact turned out to be dangerous... some more evidence and studies wouldn't be a bad idea. I still think its hard to do since there is no money in it...

Not only the doctors.
When I go to the chemist and ask for 2 packets of 4 x 25.000 IU Vitamin D, she can never resist to tell me that I should be careful and repeat how much (how little) I should take.
You see by the look on her face that she would much rather not sell this "poison" at all.

I switch chemists regularly.
Chemist 1 does not know that I bought two packages three weeks ago at Chemist 2, and when I will visit Chemist 3 in three weeks, he won't know about the other two

I am afraid of supplements too. They are not properly regulated and the people who sell them very often make dubious claims as to their efficacy. You really do not know what you are getting. Also, there are tons of supplements out there that simply do not work because our bodies are not machines that can just absorb whatever we put into it. Case in point: calcium. A pure calcium pill won't do jack unless several other things are taken in conjunction.

Beyond that, I think supplements are unnatural and unnecessary. I get plenty of vitamin D because I go out in the sun without sunscreen. Clearly, humankind was somehow able to exist for a very, very long time without supplements.

I think people who take a lot of supplements are getting ripped off.

I'm with you !All but 1 D3 ... I live in Maine and don't think that sun is right ?
Ron*
Re: howlovely

Hmm, OK, I've never gotten the vibe that doctors were afraid of vitamin supplements. Different experiences, I guess.

You are in CA. I would think the docs out there are a bit more open minded about nutrition, supplements and alternative treatments than a doc in the midwest.

I've personally known some docs out in Cali. The truth is that they know how to pick their battles. They know better than to spend their time arguing with the patient who is convinced taking vitamin C 5 times a day will ward off every illness known to man.

The other truth is that the doctors are not stupid and know that they can never win this argument. The people marketing this stuff have come up with a truly ingenious method: they tell you that modern medicine is AGAINST supplements because modern medicine wants to sell you the more expensive stuff. It's quite clever actually. "What doctors don't want you to know is that a $10 bottle of garlic oil cures cancer" - or whatever other bogus claim they make. Thus, when the dr tells you that garlic oil won't help you much, they're simply doing the exact thing the snake oil salesman told you they would do. If your doctor supports your supplement cure, then suddenly you have a cool doctor who supports "alternative" medicine.

Like I said, brilliant.

Now, I think vitamin D is very important, but you can get it for free just by going out into the sun.

IF you happen to live in a climate that allows you to get regular sun exposure year round, then yes. I'm lucky in that I do, however what about the people in the midwest and the pacific northwest, who must spend a great deal of the year covered up due to weather? I'd be taking supplements if I had to move to Seattle.

I'm not so lucky. I develop a rash when I go out in the sun. Besides that I live in the north east.