15 posts Page 1 of 2
http://www.aolnews.com/health/article/v ... k5%7C28530

http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Dietary ... min-D.aspx

A new report from The Institute of Medicine on Calcium and VItamin D came out today. The first link is an article I found on AOL discussing the findings in the report , and the second link is a brief of the report in PDF format.

The above report suggests that high doses of vitamin D could have adverse health affects. It does say that this may be true for not only a daily dose of 10,000 IU, but preliminary evidence also shoes that for lower doses there may be adverse health affects, and that the upper limit should be 4000 IU daily.

If Lisa or George could please comment on this report, it would be very much appreciated, as since I am not an expert, maybe I am missinterpretting???
I am a little bit worried about this post.. I am taking 50,000 a week and would love to hear he professors take on this
I am a little worried too...I dont really understand because if you are out in the sun for a short period of time, your body makes much more than 4000 IU's...are supplements different from getting vitamin D from UV rays??
Here is another article on the same topic. It states that kidney and tissue damage could occur in high doses of vitamin D, again stating the upper limit at 4000 IU's. I think this is very, very important and needs to be discussed as I am worried now how much to give my children.

Please, could Lisa and/or The Professor look into this??


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101130/hl ... 1130140100
This issue was discussed just a month ago, see Georges post pasted below. The OMS recommendations are evidence based (there are 30 references on the Vitamin D page alone). I personally prefer to trust Prof Jelineks professional judgement in this.


Re: Problem with too much Vitamin D?
by George » Tue Nov 02, 2010 11:58 am

Hi Elizabeth

This is a tricky area, and I have tried to find information backing up Ashton's claim that you need calcium supplements if you take vitamin D for some years without success. You will notice that there are other posts on this site about the dangers of calcium supplementation (eg http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis. ... mentation/, http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis. ... pplements/). From my reading of the literature, it is extremely unlikely that you can do any harm with supplements up to a level of 10,000IU a day. The biggest risk in fact with high dose supplementation is TOO HIGH a calcium level (see http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind/), so it makes no sense to supplement with calcium. There is certainly no documented risk of bones shrinking or thinning with vitamin D, quite the opposite: vitamin D is necessary to prevent osteoporosis. The National Institutes of Health say that a toxic blood level of vitamin D is above 500nmol/L and no-one taking the doses we recommend is going to reach that level. We recommend staying around the 150-225nmol/L mark.

Hope that helps

Be well


Diagnosis Dec 1998 OMS Feb 2010 Retreat Feb 2012
Yes, he commented about a month ago, but this report just came out yesterday regarding a new study from the prestigious Institute of Medicine and is based on new findings.

I know there is no literature to support any harm with taking up to 10,000 IU daily, but what about this new report?

Here is an excerpt from one of the articles:

Also, the panel did not entirely rule out all benefits from Vitamin D or all studies that suggested beneficial links.

"There are claims about vitamin D in heart disease, in cancer, autoimmune diseases -- you name it, there are claims out there that are not based upon a lot of studies," said Jones.

"Our dilemma is that there are mixed reports that are not all consistent," said Jones, who is a professor of biochemistry at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario.

"Some of the studies are not well controlled," he said.

"We don't want to base public health recommendations upon a mixed conclusion where some studies say there is a benefit in cancer and other studies say they don't," he added.

Jones would not rule out the possibility that future studies could result in more certain benefits toward beating cancer and other diseases, but said "the only really consistent information that was well worth using was information on bone health."

The panel also set upper limits for both calcium (2,000 milligrams per day) and vitamin D (4,000 IUs per day), beyond which point risks such as kidney and tissue damage begin to mount.

"Higher levels have not been shown to confer greater benefits, and in fact they have been linked to other health problems, challenging the concept that 'more is better,'" the report said.

It is really hard to know what to believe....of course I trust the Professor, but when you read something like this, you have to wonder. That is why I would like his take on it....to explain it, because maybe I am not understanding something and maybe he can shed some light on exactly what they are talking about. Maybe they havent taken MS into consideration here...I don't know.
You will appreciate that the Professor has very full days but he is going to try to find some time to respond to the article today.

Meantime bear in mind, as Wendy posted below, that they are right about calcium as has been published on the website many times, and that the article is discussing bone health and not autoimmune disease. Their findings may well be correct in that you don't need high levels of vitamin D for adequate bone health, but this is not addressing the autoimmune question.
Thank you for responding Lisa. Yes, I do understand and appreciate that the professor is very, very busy. Whenever he gets a moment to answer is more than I could ask for.

There is so much out there and there is always new reports and studies coming out...I am very thankful that The professor is able to read through these and interpret the findings as he does have the intelligence and the expertise to do so whereas myself and maybe a few others may not.

I am a true worrier and do have anxieties, which I am trying to work on.....but I do have to put my health first, and so that is why I worry about things such as this report. Again, I am ever so grateful to have found this website and I am thankful that I can come here for comfort as well as answers.
Actually I was just apologising that it was taking some time to publish our response to the NY article, when one writes in haste the meaning often gets jumbled. Please have a look at the Professor's latest blog which will go a long way to sooth your worries, I am sure.

Thanks Lisa..I appreciate your help..

I just read the blog and , and yes, I feel much better!!!
15 posts Page 1 of 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests