Current Vitamin D Recommendations Too Low

[vocalEK]

Received this interesting email from grassroots health today. Here is a link to the blog post on their site:

grassrootshealth.net/blog/c...

Here's the first paragraph:

Our vitamin D myth busting series continues with one of the most important-to-address myths about vitamin D – that the current recommended daily allowance (RDA) of 600 IU per day, from all sources, and recommended serum level of 20 ng/ml (according to the Institute of Medicine, or IOM), is enough… It is not! Unfortunately, this is what medical doctors are taught… We often hear from participants things like “My doctor told me all I need is 600 IU/day, and that it is dangerous to take more,” or “There is no benefit to taking more vitamin D or having a level above 20 ng/ml, because that is what the medical recommendation is.” We have even seen “Don’t exceed a vitamin D blood level of 39 ng/ml – it could be dangerous!” and “Be aware that people who are black generally have lower total vitamin D levels than whites, but new research suggests these lower levels may be sufficient for blacks,” both of which can be refuted simply by looking at natural vitamin D levels from hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa.

[SeasideSusie Remembering]

vocalEK

I think maybe you might want to add a bit more information rather than just say recommendations are too low, people might start panicking, especially if they don't read the article.

It doesn't show the date of that article but it's always quoted here that the Vit D Council recommends a level of 125nmol/L or 50ng/ml, and that the Vit D Society and Grassroots Health recommend between 100-150nmol/L or 40-60ng/ml which that article is saying.

[vocalEK in reply to SeasideSusie]

I added the first paragraph. When doctors prescribe 800 IU, patients think they are taking a massive amount, and that's far from the truth.

[knitwitty in reply to vocalEK]

I struggled to raise my vitamin D levels on 1000iu daily taken as tablets , but my GP surgery refuse point blank to advise that I take anything over 800iu saying it would be dangerous to take any more.

I have now established the I need 3000iu daily taken using a mouth spray to maintain a level of around 100 nmol/L this doesn't depend on the time of year for me either as sun exposure doesn't seem to raise my levels either.

The surgery now agree that I need this amount of vitamins D daily to maintain a healthy level, however I have to but it myself as they can't prescribe that level on an ongoing basis.

[userotc in reply to vocalEK]

You're right (as is the article) about doctors (despite minimal training on vitamins). They've recoiled in horror when we've told them we (my family) take 5000/day. We monitor our levels and adjust our dosage accordingly.

Long since stopped taking GP advice. Useful for some testing - full stop!

[vocalEK in reply to userotc]

FWIW, I was taking 5,000 IU for about 6 months and was only able to raise my blood level (from below the bottom of the range) up to 47 ng/mL. I am aiming for 60 because Grassroots conducted research and found an 80% reduction in breast cancer for those with blood levels about 60 ng/mL. I was taking a combination of 5,000 IU Vita min D plus 100 mcg of Vitamin K2-MK7. I have added aother 5,000 IU of Vitamin D (in a gel capsule), but it is too soon to get another blood test.