Vitamin D., the most powerful vitamin,

And you apparently missed this study, where it was found that long-term
supplementation with low-dose vitD (400IU/d) increased risk of kidney
stones, a potential sign of long-term kidney dysfunction:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...y=167089a4ddc9...


At such a low dose of vitamin D that PTH will still be elevated
beyond what might be considered ideal.
PMID: 16960175 PMID: 17462085 (these citations aren't quite directly
to topic as I recall
but they reflect more current thinking --full articles are available
without charge or
having to sign up unlike the NEJM.)
And elevated PTH hormone levels are associated with ectopic calcium
deposits.
As Lange's CMDT points out at least 1 in 20 renal stones
are due to hyperparathyroidism. The levels of 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D
would swing widely due to the inadequate reservoir of 25 OH vitamin D
are
and little daily dose in the context of elevated PTH.
I would suspect in conjunction with the calcium
supplement, the amount calcium absorbed might swing wildly.
Or perhaps the following:
The effects of elevated PTH may take perhaps a month to wash out and
such
that the new extra vitamin D would rapidly activated when available
and such that the
serum calcium becomes over elevated. Give someone rPTH and watch how
long its effect on vitamin D activation to disappear ;-)

This reminds me of a clinical anecdote. An elderly female has neck
pain.
she goes to the newly minted chiro and he snaps her. The fracture
was rapidly fatal. Autopsy found her bones to be osteoporotic and
many soft tissues are calcified. Parathyroidism was suggested as cause
as I recall. The Chiro changes his style of treatment. This
story wasn't for you but for the other readers of this posting.
..
And then there is the issue of the various VDR genotypes
and its respond to the vitamin and apparent relationship
to stone formation. PMID: 12814692

Moreover in light of some this discussion it should be pointed
out hyperparathyroidism is correlated to elevated dysytolic
pressure. PMID: 17462085

I know I ramble and I am difffuse.

And you apparently missed this study, where it was found that long-term
supplementation with low-dose vitD (400IU/d) increased risk of kidney
stones, a potential sign of long-term kidney dysfunction:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...y=167089a4ddc9...


At such a low dose of vitamin D that PTH will still be elevated
beyond what might be considered ideal.
PMID: 16960175 PMID: 17462085 (these citations aren't quite directly
to topic as I recall
but they reflect more current thinking --full articles are available
without charge or
having to sign up unlike the NEJM.)
And elevated PTH hormone levels are associated with ectopic calcium
deposits.
As Lange's CMDT points out at least 1 in 20 renal stones
are due to hyperparathyroidism. The levels of 1,25 (OH)2 vitamin D
would swing widely due to the inadequate reservoir of 25 OH vitamin D
are
and little daily dose in the context of elevated PTH.
I would suspect in conjunction with the calcium
supplement, the amount calcium absorbed might swing wildly.
Or perhaps the following:
The effects of elevated PTH may take perhaps a month to wash out and
such
that the new extra vitamin D would rapidly activated when available
and such that the
serum calcium becomes over elevated. Give someone rPTH and watch how
long its effect on vitamin D activation to disappear ;-)

This reminds me of a clinical anecdote. An elderly female has neck
pain.
she goes to the newly minted chiro and he snaps her. The fracture
was rapidly fatal. Autopsy found her bones to be osteoporotic and
many soft tissues are calcified. Parathyroidism was suggested as cause
as I recall. The Chiro changes his style of treatment. This
story wasn't for you but for the other readers of this posting.
..
And then there is the issue of the various VDR genotypes
and its respond to the vitamin and apparent relationship
to stone formation. PMID: 12814692

Moreover in light of some this discussion it should be pointed
out hyperparathyroidism is correlated to elevated dysytolic
pressure. PMID: 17462085

I know I ramble and I am difffuse.

On Sep 21, 4:30 pm, Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:

I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.

http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html

Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

But obviously miles apart on this issue

1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan;85(1):6-18. Links
Risk assessment for vitamin D.Hathcock JN, Shao A, Vieth R, Heaney R.
Council for Responsible Nutrition, Washington, DC 20036-5114, USA.


The objective of this review was to apply the risk assessment
methodology used by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) to derive a
revised safe Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D. New data
continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond
its role in bone. The intakes associated with those benefits suggest a
need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that
are higher than current levels. A prevailing concern exists, however,
regarding the potential for toxicity related to excessive vitamin D
intakes. The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or
2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as
being too restrictive, thus curtailing research, commercial
development, and optimization of nutritional policy. Human clinical
trial data published subsequent to the establishment of the FNB
vitamin D UL published in 1997 support a significantly higher UL. We
present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human
clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity in
trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose or = 250
microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of
this value as the UL.

PMID: 17209171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Thanks Vince

Dr.Reinhold Vieth, recently commented on this issue from

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650,
March 2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2'
Reinhold Vieth, Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Barbara J Boucher, Bess Dawson-
Hughes, Cedric F Garland, Robert P Heaney, Michael F Holick, Bruce W
Hollis, Christel Lamberg-Allardt, John J McGrath, Anthony W Norman,
Robert Scragg, Susan J Whiting, Walter C Willett and Armin Zittermann


..''....Evaluation of most relations of health and disease that involve
vitamin D leads to the conclusion that a desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) (3-5). If a concentration of 75
nmol/L is the goal to be achieved by consumption of vitamin D, then
why is it so rare for members of the population to accomplish this?
One reason is that almost every time the public media report that
vitamin D nutrition status is too low, or that higher vitamin D
intakes may improve measures of health, the advice that accompanies
the report is outdated and thus misleading. Media reports to the
public are typically accompanied by a paragraph that approximates the
following: "Current recommendations from the Institute of Medicine
call for 200 IU/d from birth through age 50 y, 400 IU for those aged
51-70 y, and 600 IU for those aged 70 y. Some experts say that
optimal amounts are closer to 1000 IU daily. Until more is known, it
is wise not to overdo it." The only conclusion that the public can
draw from this is to do nothing different from what they have done in
the past.

Supplemental intake of 400 IU vitamin D/d has only a modest effect on
blood concentrations of 25(OH)D, raising them by 7-12 nmol/L,
depending on the starting point. To raise 25(OH)D from 50 to 80 nmol/L
requires an additional intake of 1700 IU vitamin D/d (11). Safety is
the first priority when giving advice to increase supplementation or
fortification with any nutrient. A recent review in this Journal
applied the risk assessment method used by the Food and Nutrition
Board to update the safe tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin
D (12). The method focuses on the risk of hypercalcemia. The
conclusion was that the UL for vitamin D consumption by adults should
be 10 000 IU/d (12). This indicates that the margin of safety for
vitamin D consumption for adults is 10 times any current recommended
intakes.

The balance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the public
health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of
vitamin D (3). Relatively simple and low-cost changes, such as
increased food fortification or increasing the amount of vitamin D in
vitamin supplement products, may very well bring about rapid and
important reductions in the morbidity associated with low vitamin D
status. The current UL is but one impediment to this action; another
is the perpetuation of outdated intake recommendations. ".... AND
THIS EDITORIAL BASED ON MANY OF THE LEADING EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF
VITAMIN D CONCLUDES......

.......".Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong
evidence of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support
public health-the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to
undertake new initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making
a difference in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for
international agencies such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the
European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-
General to reassess as a matter of high priority their dietary
recommendations for vitamin D, because the formal nationwide advice
from health agencies needs to be changed. ' http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649

Juhana it seems that the experts in this field support your comments.

Thanks Vince

bigvince wrote:
Dr.Reinhold Vieth, recently commented on this issue from

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650,
March 2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2'
Reinhold Vieth, Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Barbara J Boucher, Bess
Dawson-
Hughes, Cedric F Garland, Robert P Heaney, Michael F Holick, Bruce W
Hollis, Christel Lamberg-Allardt, John J McGrath, Anthony W Norman,
Robert Scragg, Susan J Whiting, Walter C Willett and Armin Zittermann


.''....Evaluation of most relations of health and disease that involve
vitamin D leads to the conclusion that a desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) (3-5). If a concentration of 75
nmol/L is the goal to be achieved by consumption of vitamin D, then
why is it so rare for members of the population to accomplish this?
One reason is that almost every time the public media report that
vitamin D nutrition status is too low, or that higher vitamin D
intakes may improve measures of health, the advice that accompanies
the report is outdated and thus misleading. Media reports to the
public are typically accompanied by a paragraph that approximates the
following: "Current recommendations from the Institute of Medicine
call for 200 IU/d from birth through age 50 y, 400 IU for those aged
51-70 y, and 600 IU for those aged 70 y. Some experts say that
optimal amounts are closer to 1000 IU daily. Until more is known, it
is wise not to overdo it." The only conclusion that the public can
draw from this is to do nothing different from what they have done in
the past.

Supplemental intake of 400 IU vitamin D/d has only a modest effect on
blood concentrations of 25(OH)D, raising them by 7-12 nmol/L,
depending on the starting point. To raise 25(OH)D from 50 to 80 nmol/L
requires an additional intake of 1700 IU vitamin D/d (11). Safety is
the first priority when giving advice to increase supplementation or
fortification with any nutrient. A recent review in this Journal
applied the risk assessment method used by the Food and Nutrition
Board to update the safe tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin
D (12). The method focuses on the risk of hypercalcemia. The
conclusion was that the UL for vitamin D consumption by adults should
be 10 000 IU/d (12). This indicates that the margin of safety for
vitamin D consumption for adults is 10 times any current recommended
intakes.

The balance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the public
health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of
vitamin D (3). Relatively simple and low-cost changes, such as
increased food fortification or increasing the amount of vitamin D in
vitamin supplement products, may very well bring about rapid and
important reductions in the morbidity associated with low vitamin D
status. The current UL is but one impediment to this action; another
is the perpetuation of outdated intake recommendations. ".... AND
THIS EDITORIAL BASED ON MANY OF THE LEADING EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF
VITAMIN D CONCLUDES......

......".Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong
evidence of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support
public health-the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to
undertake new initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making
a difference in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for
international agencies such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the
European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-
General to reassess as a matter of high priority their dietary
recommendations for vitamin D, because the formal nationwide advice
from health agencies needs to be changed. '
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649

Juhana it seems that the experts in this field support your comments.

Thanks Vince

Thanks Vince. You hit the nail on the head by that compilation.

Just one additional comment. I noticed that this is crossposted to
misc.kids.health and that gives me a reason to add that the upper limit I
mentioned (50 mcg/day or 2000 IU) is for adults, not for children. At the
moment the safe upper limit for children is 25 mcg/day (1000 IU). Vitamin D3
is the preferrable form of supplements for kids too. The supplement should
_not_ contain vitamin A (retinol) unless the child is clearly undernourished
(as might be the case in some developing countries).

--
Juhana

http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

"Juhana Harju" wrote in message
...
Thanks Vince. You hit the nail on the head by that compilation.

Just one additional comment. I noticed that this is crossposted to
misc.kids.health and that gives me a reason to add that the upper limit I
mentioned (50 mcg/day or 2000 IU) is for adults, not for children. At the
moment the safe upper limit for children is 25 mcg/day (1000 IU). Vitamin
D3 is the preferrable form of supplements for kids too. The supplement
should _not_ contain vitamin A (retinol) unless the child is clearly
undernourished (as might be the case in some developing countries).

--
Juhana


AND laying aside nonsense taught by too many, children AND adults need sun
exposure far beyond what most receive.

bigvince wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:30 pm, Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.
http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html
Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

But obviously miles apart on this issue

snip an abstract

Hardly. Vieth has long been proposing that we need to test the safety
of higher doses of vitD, in the very abstract you posted he makes this
point:

"The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or
2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as
being too restrictive...We present a risk assessment based on relevant,
well-designed human clinical trials of vitamin D"

Or, in other words Vieth is doing *exactly* what I said needs to be done
before people like Juhana start spouting off about the "benefits" of
vitD - studies looking for potential health risks of elevated VitD
intake. Not only that, but he is taking the exact approach I've said is
necessary, and the exact approach considered proper by modern medical
standards.

The only point I can see that we differ on is the long-term safety.
Based on existing evidence, including Vieths work, there is no existing
evidence that we can use to make any conclusions on long-term safety of
high dose intake. In fact, the only multi-year study into VitD usage
(and low-dose usage at that) identified a mineralization risk in some
people. So whereas Vieth looks at his (and others) short-term studies
and says "its safe", I look at those same studies and say "it may be
safe, but there is evidence that it may not be safe over longer terms -
therefore we should do the appropriate study to solve the issue".

Its a minor disagreement, and I doubt that if we met face-to-face that
we would have any serious disagreement what-so-ever. His work is very
interesting, the studies are well designed and carried out in an
admirable fashion. I simply think he's stretching his conclusions,
vis-a-vis safety, farther then the data would support.

I also think that individuals such as yourself and Juhana stretch the
findings of people such as Veith far beyond what both the data, and the
study authors, would support.

Bryan

On Sep 22, 2:24 pm, Bryan Heit wrote:
bigvince wrote:
On Sep 21, 4:30 pm, Bryan Heit wrote:
Juhana Harju wrote:
Bryan Heit wrote:
I suggest that you watch this in-depth lecture /Prospects for Vitamin D
Nutrition/ by vitamin D scholar Reinhold Vieth.
http://www.direct-ms.org/presentations.html
Why would I bother - his office is a mere 10min walk from mine. We work
for the same university.

Bryan

But obviously miles apart on this issue

snip an abstract

Hardly. Vieth has long been proposing that we need to test the safety
of higher doses of vitD, in the very abstract you posted he makes this
point:

"The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or
2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as
being too restrictive...We present a risk assessment based on relevant,
well-designed human clinical trials of vitamin D"

Or, in other words Vieth is doing *exactly* what I said needs to be done
before people like Juhana start spouting off about the "benefits" of
vitD - studies looking for potential health risks of elevated VitD
intake. Not only that, but he is taking the exact approach I've said is
necessary, and the exact approach considered proper by modern medical
standards.

The only point I can see that we differ on is the long-term safety.
Based on existing evidence, including Vieths work, there is no existing
evidence that we can use to make any conclusions on long-term safety of
high dose intake. In fact, the only multi-year study into VitD usage
(and low-dose usage at that) identified a mineralization risk in some
people. So whereas Vieth looks at his (and others) short-term studies
and says "its safe", I look at those same studies and say "it may be
safe, but there is evidence that it may not be safe over longer terms -
therefore we should do the appropriate study to solve the issue".

Its a minor disagreement, and I doubt that if we met face-to-face that
we would have any serious disagreement what-so-ever. His work is very
interesting, the studies are well designed and carried out in an
admirable fashion. I simply think he's stretching his conclusions,
vis-a-vis safety, farther then the data would support.

I also think that individuals such as yourself and Juhana stretch the
findings of people such as Veith far beyond what both the data, and the
study authors, would support.

Vince is a whack-job. He'd probably be in favor of taking 5 gram
doses of Vitamin B-17.


Bryan

On Sep 22, 7:56 am, "Juhana Harju" wrote:
bigvince wrote:
Dr.Reinhold Vieth, recently commented on this issue from

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650,
March 2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2'
Reinhold Vieth, Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Barbara J Boucher, Bess
Dawson-
Hughes, Cedric F Garland, Robert P Heaney, Michael F Holick, Bruce W
Hollis, Christel Lamberg-Allardt, John J McGrath, Anthony W Norman,
Robert Scragg, Susan J Whiting, Walter C Willett and Armin Zittermann

.''....Evaluation of most relations of health and disease that involve
vitamin D leads to the conclusion that a desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) (3-5). If a concentration of 75
nmol/L is the goal to be achieved by consumption of vitamin D, then
why is it so rare for members of the population to accomplish this?
One reason is that almost every time the public media report that
vitamin D nutrition status is too low, or that higher vitamin D
intakes may improve measures of health, the advice that accompanies
the report is outdated and thus misleading. Media reports to the
public are typically accompanied by a paragraph that approximates the
following: "Current recommendations from the Institute of Medicine
call for 200 IU/d from birth through age 50 y, 400 IU for those aged
51-70 y, and 600 IU for those aged 70 y. Some experts say that
optimal amounts are closer to 1000 IU daily. Until more is known, it
is wise not to overdo it." The only conclusion that the public can
draw from this is to do nothing different from what they have done in
the past.

Supplemental intake of 400 IU vitamin D/d has only a modest effect on
blood concentrations of 25(OH)D, raising them by 7-12 nmol/L,
depending on the starting point. To raise 25(OH)D from 50 to 80 nmol/L
requires an additional intake of 1700 IU vitamin D/d (11). Safety is
the first priority when giving advice to increase supplementation or
fortification with any nutrient. A recent review in this Journal
applied the risk assessment method used by the Food and Nutrition
Board to update the safe tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin
D (12). The method focuses on the risk of hypercalcemia. The
conclusion was that the UL for vitamin D consumption by adults should
be 10 000 IU/d (12). This indicates that the margin of safety for
vitamin D consumption for adults is 10 times any current recommended
intakes.

The balance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the public
health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of
vitamin D (3). Relatively simple and low-cost changes, such as
increased food fortification or increasing the amount of vitamin D in
vitamin supplement products, may very well bring about rapid and
important reductions in the morbidity associated with low vitamin D
status. The current UL is but one impediment to this action; another
is the perpetuation of outdated intake recommendations. ".... AND
THIS EDITORIAL BASED ON MANY OF THE LEADING EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF
VITAMIN D CONCLUDES......

......".Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong
evidence of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support
public health-the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to
undertake new initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making
a difference in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for
international agencies such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the
European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-
General to reassess as a matter of high priority their dietary
recommendations for vitamin D, because the formal nationwide advice
from health agencies needs to be changed. '
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649

Juhana it seems that the experts in this field support your comments.

Thanks Vince

Thanks Vince. You hit the nail on the head by that compilation.

Just one additional comment. I noticed that this is crossposted to
misc.kids.health and that gives me a reason to add that the upper limit I
mentioned (50 mcg/day or 2000 IU) is for adults, not for children. At the
moment the safe upper limit for children is 25 mcg/day (1000 IU). Vitamin D3
is the preferrable form of supplements for kids too. The supplement should
_not_ contain vitamin A (retinol) unless the child is clearly undernourished
(as might be the case in some developing countries).

--
Juhana

http://ruohikolla.blogspot.com/

Greeting, Juhana

I know you've seen the following before but I thought
I'd include links to audio on the topic of vitamin D for
some of the other following this thread of discussion.

This is a Medscape link so to use it you'll have
to sign up for Medscape.
This available as audio or audio with slides. If
you have a slow connection use the audio only choice.

http://audio/medscape.com/pi/editori...ney/heaney.mp3

Heaney gives 1000 IU of vitamin D3 to about everyone that walks in
the door of his clinic. And then after several months he
tests their status and often ups the dose to 2000 IU per day.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to hear the latest thinking on vitamin D from its
researchers listen to the following webcast:

http://app2.capitalreach.com/esp1204...20343&e=6950&&

Skip the first session until last, trust me on this point.
This isn't light duty information but goes into some of the
depth of the topic.

The total time of the sessions is rather long as this was a two day
conference on the
topic of vitamin D in relation to bone health.

Anyway you can listen to Vieth himself along with many other
researchers
on the topic. There is some Q and A as well.

On Sep 22, 10:56 am, "Juhana Harju" wrote:
bigvince wrote:
Dr.Reinhold Vieth, recently commented on this issue from

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 3, 649-650,
March 2007

"The urgent need to recommend an intake of vitamin D that is
effective1,2'
Reinhold Vieth, Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, Barbara J Boucher, Bess
Dawson-
Hughes, Cedric F Garland, Robert P Heaney, Michael F Holick, Bruce W
Hollis, Christel Lamberg-Allardt, John J McGrath, Anthony W Norman,
Robert Scragg, Susan J Whiting, Walter C Willett and Armin Zittermann

.''....Evaluation of most relations of health and disease that involve
vitamin D leads to the conclusion that a desirable 25(OH)D
concentration is 75 nmol/L (30 ng/mL) (3-5). If a concentration of 75
nmol/L is the goal to be achieved by consumption of vitamin D, then
why is it so rare for members of the population to accomplish this?
One reason is that almost every time the public media report that
vitamin D nutrition status is too low, or that higher vitamin D
intakes may improve measures of health, the advice that accompanies
the report is outdated and thus misleading. Media reports to the
public are typically accompanied by a paragraph that approximates the
following: "Current recommendations from the Institute of Medicine
call for 200 IU/d from birth through age 50 y, 400 IU for those aged
51-70 y, and 600 IU for those aged 70 y. Some experts say that
optimal amounts are closer to 1000 IU daily. Until more is known, it
is wise not to overdo it." The only conclusion that the public can
draw from this is to do nothing different from what they have done in
the past.

Supplemental intake of 400 IU vitamin D/d has only a modest effect on
blood concentrations of 25(OH)D, raising them by 7-12 nmol/L,
depending on the starting point. To raise 25(OH)D from 50 to 80 nmol/L
requires an additional intake of 1700 IU vitamin D/d (11). Safety is
the first priority when giving advice to increase supplementation or
fortification with any nutrient. A recent review in this Journal
applied the risk assessment method used by the Food and Nutrition
Board to update the safe tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin
D (12). The method focuses on the risk of hypercalcemia. The
conclusion was that the UL for vitamin D consumption by adults should
be 10 000 IU/d (12). This indicates that the margin of safety for
vitamin D consumption for adults is 10 times any current recommended
intakes.

The balance of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the public
health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of
vitamin D (3). Relatively simple and low-cost changes, such as
increased food fortification or increasing the amount of vitamin D in
vitamin supplement products, may very well bring about rapid and
important reductions in the morbidity associated with low vitamin D
status. The current UL is but one impediment to this action; another
is the perpetuation of outdated intake recommendations. ".... AND
THIS EDITORIAL BASED ON MANY OF THE LEADING EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF
VITAMIN D CONCLUDES......

......".Because of the convincing evidence for benefit and the strong
evidence of safety, we urge those who have the ability to support
public health-the media, vitamin manufacturers, and policy makers-to
undertake new initiatives that will have a realistic chance of making
a difference in terms of vitamin D nutrition. We call for
international agencies such as the Food and Nutrition Board and the
European Commission's Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-
General to reassess as a matter of high priority their dietary
recommendations for vitamin D, because the formal nationwide advice
from health agencies needs to be changed. '
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/3/649

Juhana it seems that the experts in this field support your comments.

Thanks Vince

Thanks Vince. You hit the nail on the head by that compilation.

Just one additional comment. I noticed that this is crossposted to
misc.kids.health and that gives me a reason to add that the upper limit I
mentioned (50 mcg/day or 2000 IU) is for adults, not for children. At the
moment the safe upper limit for children is 25 mcg/day (1000 IU). Vitamin D3
is the preferrable form of supplements for kids too. The supplement should
_not_ contain vitamin A (retinol) unless the child is clearly undernourished
(as might be the case in some developing countries).

--
Juhana



The opinion of the experts is that the current upper limit is much to
low

1: Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan;85(1):6-18. Links
Risk assessment for vitamin D.Hathcock JN, Shao A, Vieth R, Heaney R.
Council for Responsible Nutrition, Washington, DC 20036-5114, USA.



The objective of this review was to apply the risk assessment
methodology used by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) to derive a
revised safe Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D. New
data
continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond
its role in bone. The intakes associated with those benefits suggest
a
need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that
are higher than current levels. A prevailing concern exists, however,
regarding the potential for toxicity related to excessive vitamin D
intakes. The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or
2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as
being too restrictive, thus curtailing research, commercial
development, and optimization of nutritional policy. Human clinical
trial data published subsequent to the establishment of the FNB
vitamin D UL published in 1997 support a significantly higher UL. We
present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human
clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity
in
trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose or =
250
microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of
this value as the UL.


PMID: 17209171 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Notice;
" We
present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human
clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity
in
trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose or =
250
microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of
this value as the UL. '

These are the leaders in this field men with hundreds of peer reviewed
papers on this field. I would put more stock in the advice they give
than in what some have written in this thread.

Thanks Vince