Resolving the Vitamin D-Bate
Why the current vitamin D recommendations may be too low, other expert recommendations may be too high, and 2000 international units a day may be just right.
Why the current vitamin D recommendations may be too low, other expert recommendations may be too high, and 2000 international units a day may be just right.
The latest revision of the official vitamin D recommendations was based on the body’s reaction to protect bone health—but what about the other three dozen affected organs?
People respond differently to the same level of vitamin D supplementation, making it difficult to formulate one-size-fits-all guidelines.
To reach the circulating (25-hydroxy) vitamin D levels associated with the lowest overall mortality, one may need to take supplements, given data suggesting suboptimal production from sun—even under optimal circumstances.
Vitamin D deficiency may shorten one’s lifespan, but getting too much vitamin D may also adversely affect longevity.
The Institute of Medicine’s conservative position on vitamin D is understandable, given the history of hyped vitamin supplements (vitamin A, beta carotene, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E) that turned out worthless—or worse.
Should the vitamin D levels found in lifeguards be considered the norm for our species, given the fact that we evolved running around naked all day in equatorial Africa?
The Institute of Medicine tripled their official vitamin D recommendation, based on target blood levels that indicate a large percentage of the U.S. population is deficient.
Some nutrients are destroyed by cooking, but some nutrients become more absorbable.