Group items tagged

Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium An IOM committee has been named to undertake a study to assess current relevant data and update as appropriate the DRIs for vitamin D and calcium. The review will include consideration of chronic and non-chronic disease indicators. The study will also incorporate, as appropriate, systematic evidence-based reviews of the literature and an assessment of potential indicators of adequacy and of excess intake. Indicators for adequacy and excess will be selected based on the strength and quality of the evidence and the demonstrated public health significance, taking into consideration sources of uncertainty in the evidence.

The second committee meeting was held August 4-5, 2009 in Washington, DC and included an Information-Gathering Workshop on August 4, 2009. The agenda for this workshop is below, along with the PowerPoint presentations that were used by the speakers during the workshop. Please note, online presentations from this meeting are subject to copyright protection. Permission from the speaker is required prior to any copying, reproducing, or rebroadcasting any portion of the speaker's presentations. Additional copyright and legal policies of The National Academies can be read in the National Academies Legal Statement.

Vitamin D Toxicity Fears Unwarranted Is vitamin D toxic? Not if we take the same amount nature intended when we go out in the sun. Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;69:842-56. Vieth attempted to dispel unwarranted fears in medical community of physiological doses of vitamin D in 1999 with his exhaustive and well-written review. D-Lite, Renew, & SunSplash UV/Tanning Systems Sunsplash Tanning System Is toxicity a concern for you? If so, then increase your levels the way nature intended, with ultraviolet B light! His conclusions: fear of vitamin D toxicity is unwarranted, and such unwarranted fear, bordering on hysteria, is rampant in the medical profession. Vieth R, Chan PC, MacFarlane GD. Efficacy and safety of vitamin D3 intake exceeding the lowest observed adverse effect level. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001 Feb;73(2):288-94. Even Ian Monroe, the chair of the relevant IOM committee, wrote to the Journal to compliment Vieth's work and to promise his findings will be considered at the time of a future Institute of Medicine review. Munro I. Derivation of tolerable upper intake levels of nutrients. Letter, Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;74:865. That was more than two years ago.

"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 adult In 1999, Reinhold Vieth (pictured right) published a review of vitamin D research in response to the IOM conclusions. In it, he argued that there was no evidence that amounts lower than 20,000 IU a day could be toxic. "Throughout my preparation of this review, I was amazed at the lack of evidence supporting statements about the toxicity of moderate doses of vitamin D," Vieth wrote. Studies have since shown 10,000 IU a day of vitamin D to be safe. While any substance will become toxic in excess, vitamin D researchers today accept that the current vitamin D recommendations could be more than quadrupled with no fear of toxicity.!

This article discusses our experience at the one-day Institute of Medicine workshop on vitamin D and calcium. Both of us had an opportunity to make comments before the committee. Here are Paul's comments and slides and here are Amy's comments and slides. Note that our 2009 paper in Autoimmunity Reviews[1] discusses some of the science we allude to in further detail.

The panel selected to analyze the health claims is being criticized for not including the medical researchers whose work prompted intense scientific interest in the nutrient in the first place. "If you were publicly in favour of vitamin D, you were not included, and I find that outrageous," said Reinhold Vieth, a professor in the department of nutritional sciences at the University of Toronto, and one of Canada's leading experts on the nutrient.

This DRI report presents calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which have key roles in developing and maintaining bone and other calcified tissues in the body. View or download the entire 454 page document or just selected sections below, or find information for obtaining the book version. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride (1997) National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine. Food and Nutrition Board.

Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D (1997). National Academy of Sciences. Institute of Medicine. Food and Nutrition Board.

Dietary Reference Intakes for vitamin D: justification for a review of the 1997 values. Yetley EA, Brulé D, Cheney MC, Davis CD, Esslinger KA, Fischer PW, Friedl KE, Greene-Finestone LS, Guenther PM, Klurfeld DM, L'abbe MR, McMurry KY, Starke-Reed PE, Trumbo PR. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Jan 28. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 1917674 doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26903