The Cometa Wellness Center
For the last decade,Vitamin D has become appreciated for how vitally important it is to optimum health. Since its discovery, vitamin D has been known primarily for its role in bone health. However, as a result of major advances in research this perspective has changed. In fact, in 2010, the 'sunshine' vitamin was justifiably called 'the nutrient of the decade'. While it is true to say that the classic function of vitamin D is to control calcium metabolism, we now know that the importance of vitamin D spreads far wider than just bone health. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] is the major circulating form of vitamin D and a standard indicator of vitamin D status. Emerging evidence in the literature suggests a high prevalence of suboptimal vitamin D globally, as defined by serum 25(OH)D levels of less than 32 ng/ml, as well as an association between lower serum levels and higher morbidity and mortality from cancer and many other diseases.
On November 30, 2010, in both the New York Times article, "
Report Questions Need for 2 Diet Supplements" and in the Wall Street Journal articles,
“Triple That vitamin D Intake, Panel Prescribes", and
"Can Too Much Vitamin D be Hazardous to Your Health?", the public heard conflicting messages about the varied benefits of vitamin D. Due to the vast amount of information in this blog, I have chosen to focus on the
Vitamin D Controversy in this posting. There will be an informative blog to follow, which will detail the best approach toward vitamin D dosage.
In a 'claim' to help clarify the correct amount of vitamin D the U.S. population should supplement with daily, the United States and Canadian governments asked the
Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess the current data on health outcomes associated with calcium and vitamin D, as well as updating the nutrient reference values, known as Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). Ironically, in
this report, the
IOM finds that the evidence supports a role for vitamin D and calcium in bone health
but not in other health conditions! Further, IOM states that emerging evidence indicates that too much Vitamin D may be harmful. Before we take what the IOM has declared the new guidelines I would like to quote Linus Pauling. Dr. Linus Pauling (February 28, 1901 – August 19, 1994), often referred to as the "Father of Vitamin C", is the only person ever to receive two unshared Nobel Prizes — for Chemistry (1954) and for Peace (1962) and has watched this country's policy in medicine for a long time.
Linus Pauling wrote:
Government vitamin recommendations are set to the minimum necessary to keep a prisoner alive without showing any overt symptoms. The government must protect itself against lawsuits. Vitamins for optimum health are always higher than the government recommendation. Optimum health and life extension is not in the best interest of government obliged to pay social security and medical costs for a large portion of the population.
An important fact about the outcome of this IOM analysis is that most of the results have been left out of the media. First, let me make clear the fact that the
IOM panel's recommendation was
narrowly confined to the amount of vitamin D needed to maintain bone health. Their recommendations are not made with the intention of preventing any other ailments that might be related to one’s vitamin D intake. Why? Because the studies they used in their final analysis linking low levels of vitamin D to bad health outcomes are based on statistical correlations alone; they fall short of establishing causality. What this means is that the IOM panel only considered modifying dietary recommendations on the basis of a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the nutrient and disease. The report states:
A relationship between cancer incidence and vitamin D (or calcium) nutrition is not adequately and causally demonstrated at present; indeed, for some cancers, there appears to be an increase in incidence associated with … higher vitamin D intake.
According to their analysis, the role of vitamin D in relationships to
falls and physical performance, cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disorders, and immune functioning remains unresolved.
These potential roles of vitamin D are currently best described as hypotheses of emerging interest, and the conflicting nature of available evidence cannot be used to establish health benefits with any level of confidence. The fact is that there ARE THOUSANDS of medical research articles which absolutely substantiate a correlation between low Vitamin D levels and higher incidence of all of the diseases they state above "are not adequately and causally demonstrated at present". Yet, The Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences that sets governmental nutrient levels, states that there wasn't enough evidence to prove that low vitamin D causes such chronic diseases and worse, it
based its new recommendations on the levels needed to maintain strong bones alone. Hence, we are all now informed that we should all take the same amount of D to protect ourselves for everything from Rickets to heart disease and cancer based on the new recommendations for strong bones? I don't think so!
Just review the medical literature over the past ten years and you will find that there are thousands of research studies to substantiate an inverse relationship between all the diseases studied and vitamin D levels. What this means is that in these studies, there exists the very real and strong fact that
the lower the vitamin D level is in a person's blood, the HIGHER the incidence of that disease. The way I see it, the problem with the IOM conclusions lies in what one considers
hypotheses of emerging interest, and the conflicting nature of available evidence which cannot be used to establish health benefits with any level of confidence. How can this be if all the research studies demonstrate over and over again, that the lower the level of vitamin D in the blood, the higher the incidence of disease in that population? The answer to this question is that this inverse relationship is between low level of vitamin D in the blood and higher incidence of illness and death from disease is based on epidemiological studies that look at the level of vitamin D in the blood of these people and their likelihood of getting the disease. These epidemiological studies are retrospective and are certainly good enough for me and most of my patients. Yet, Catherine Ross, the committee chair, states
We couldn’t find solid evidence that consuming more of either nutrient [calcium or vitamin D] would protect the public from chronic diseases. How much evidence do they need, when you have 1000's of articles demonstrating that the higher the D levels in the blood, the lower the incidence of disease? Did it ever dawn on anyone here that the double blind placebo controlled study described above may not be the best gold standard for testing the effectiveness of everything or anything? Why are the epidemiological (retrospective) studies done for the last decade not just as useful or maybe even better? Isn't it sensible to consider that when it comes to the global analysis of impact something has on our population, that we cannot double blind control study it? Where is the fallacy in studying the relationship between serum levels in a global patient population and incidence of disease found? AND don't say that the problem lies in "bias potential", as we all know that bias appears all over in ALL studies. "Bias" is a result of human nature and human potential to recreate the wheel, ill intentioned or not.
The report's authors left themselves an out with their conclusion when they state
there is not sufficient evidence to establish a relationship between vitamin D and health outcomes other than bone health does not mean that future research will not reveal a compelling relationship between vitamin D and another health outcome. I concur and
quote Dr. Pocinki,
an internist in Washington D.C., in his commentary to the Wall Street Journal article posted in response to the new IOM recommendations,
I supplement patients who are deficient and they feel better. They come in and say, 'I've been much less achy and stiff or my mood's been better since I've been taking the vitamin D. Do we have the data to prove this conclusively? No. We don't have evidence for much of what we do in medicine, but if you wait for the evidence, you may be depriving your patients of beneficial treatments." This last statement concurs with what Linus Pauling states;
Vitamins for optimum health are always higher than the government recommendation.
To review the
results of this study, it clearly defines a range between 600-4000IU daily, not 600IU, for Vitamin D intake,
from their limited research analysis. Yet, Patsy Brannon, a professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University
and a member of the IOM panel, said the panel found such a wide range of blood levels considered optimal in various studies that it could not settle on a single threshold level. She states
I think the confusion is understandable. The committee is very concerned about the lack of evidence-based consensus guidelines for interpreting blood levels for vitamin D.
We strongly recommend that these be developed. I ask you, 'Where is the value of recommending a SINGLE threshold for the wide range of Vitamin D blood levels, when for over the last 10 years it has become apparent that in virtually all disease states studied, the lower the blood vitamin D levels, the higher the incidence of disease? Should we not be insuring that
we have an adequate amount of vitamin D circulating our blood to protect us from disease rather than focusing on HOW much to take to get that insurance?' This is why I follow the blood serum levels of Vitamin D circulating (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]) in my patient's blood and then match that need with the correct amount of Vitamin D3 taken by the person each day. For most of my patients, to attain and maintain a vitamin D level in their blood between 50-80 ng/ml, they require
Vitamin D3 5000IU daily.
The panel dismissed concerns that many Americans and Canadians are vitamin D deficient, noting that there is no scientifically validated level that's considered optimum. Even so, the panel concluded that for 97% of the population, a blood level of 20 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter is sufficient. WHAT? How can this be true? I will tell you HOW...it is because to admit otherwise, would mean that this country's medical experts have not acknowledged a national vitamin D deficiency AND admitting
that could arouse angry concern and consequences that this government is not prepared to be accountable for. To acknowledget that our standard vitamin D reference ranges have been this wrong for this long would mean that more than half of the U.S. population are considered deficient in vitamin D and again, I quote Linus Pauling, such an admission
is not in the best interest of government obliged to pay social security and medical costs for a large portion of the population. Studies in bone health alone have shown that at levels below
30 ng/ml, the body seeks calcium for everyday needs by leaching it from bones; i.e. precipitates Osteoporosis.
Vitamin D is more than a vitamin, as it modulates our physiology from a standpoint of much greater significance than a mere vitamin. We now know that Vitamin D is much more than the
sunshine vitamin, because it is responsible for regulating more than 2000 genes, and as a result, vitamin D is now known as a
cell modulator and hormone. Michael Holick, a professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine states that
despite the paucity of randomized-controlled trials (these are the "gold standard" studies that look at outcome when a controlled amount of vitamin D is given to one population and placebo is given to the other and these studies are very different from the
epidemiological studies that documents vitamin D's value),
the long list of chronic diseases associated with vitamin D does make sense, given that it is actually a hormone that affects virtually every organ in the human body and regulates as many as 2,000 genes. Dr. Holick is the man who discovered the active form of vitamin D 40 years ago and is well versed and experienced as a proponent of vitamin D in high doses for this reason.
There is no downside to increasing your vitamin D intake, and there are more studies coming out almost on a weekly basis, he said.
I leave you with a quote from
CLS, who wrote on November 30, 2010, as a comment in the Wall Street Journal, in response to the new IOM recommendations:
600 i.u. of vitamin D daily? You mean the same amount one makes in 40 seconds (seconds) of high angle sun exposure? The human body makes at least 10,000 i.u. daily, in 15 -20 minutes of direct sun exposure, in a bathing suit, or, for novelty’s sake, in the last 100,000 years of evolution when we had no clothes. 600i.u. for an NFL player and my petite girlfriend? Sounds like the review board couldn’t wait to find an exit. I’ll stick to the overwhelming evidence that (blood levels between)
50-80 ng/ml, 25 OH D, prevents higher rates of every known pathology. I have read the research (more than 5000 medical abstracts, reports etc) and nothing in medical history has been more obvious: Vitamin D deficiency is ubiquitous and at the root of many, if not all early onset chronic diseases, acute infections, autoimmune dysfunction etc etc etc. Here’s an easy way to see who’s right:
I’ll maintain my vitamin D health in the 50-80 ng/ml range. Others may follow the new recommendations. Let’s see who gets sick the most and dies first?
So the Institute of Medicine admits that their previous vitamin D level recommendation was off by 300%. Why should Americans believe this panel of ‘experts’ once again?
Ariane Cometa MD,
the holistic doc