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.
Is Vitamin D the New Vitamin E?
4.6/5 - (20 votes)
It’s understandable that the Institute of Medicine chose to act conservatively when bumping up their vitamin D recommendation. An editorial in the American Journal of Epidemiology said it best. Thirty years ago, vitamin A was all the rage, expecting that if we gave beta carotene to people, it would prevent cancer. But instead, it caused even more.
Next came the Bs, and I talked about this in one of my previous videos; folic acid supplements, vitamin B9, has since been linked to cancer, as well. Next came vitamin C, which was another big flop. In 1993, it was vitamin E—until it came out that it was shortening people’s lifespans. So when people proclaim vitamin D the new wonder pill, we are right to be skeptical. Maybe vitamin D is the new vitamin A, the new folic acid, the new vitamin C, the new vitamin E—worthless, or worse.
Critics of the new recommendations, though, felt that by conservatively choosing a target blood level sufficient only to avoid gross skeletal abnormalities was akin to setting the RDA for vitamin C at just the minimum level necessary to avoid scurvy. I’m sure a spoonful of orange juice worth of vitamin C would be enough to avoid the overt vitamin C deficiency disease scurvy, but no one considers that enough vitamin C for optimum health.
To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.
Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.
- Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium. 2011.
- Byers T. Anticancer Vitamins du Jour—The ABCED's So Far. Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Jul 1;172(1):1-3. Epub 2010 Jun 18.
- Holick MF. Vitamin D: extraskeletal health. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010 Jun;39(2):381-400.
- Maxmen A. Nutrition advice: the vitamin D-lemma. Nature. 2011 Jul 6;475(7354):23-5. doi: 10.1038/475023a.
It’s understandable that the Institute of Medicine chose to act conservatively when bumping up their vitamin D recommendation. An editorial in the American Journal of Epidemiology said it best. Thirty years ago, vitamin A was all the rage, expecting that if we gave beta carotene to people, it would prevent cancer. But instead, it caused even more.
Next came the Bs, and I talked about this in one of my previous videos; folic acid supplements, vitamin B9, has since been linked to cancer, as well. Next came vitamin C, which was another big flop. In 1993, it was vitamin E—until it came out that it was shortening people’s lifespans. So when people proclaim vitamin D the new wonder pill, we are right to be skeptical. Maybe vitamin D is the new vitamin A, the new folic acid, the new vitamin C, the new vitamin E—worthless, or worse.
Critics of the new recommendations, though, felt that by conservatively choosing a target blood level sufficient only to avoid gross skeletal abnormalities was akin to setting the RDA for vitamin C at just the minimum level necessary to avoid scurvy. I’m sure a spoonful of orange juice worth of vitamin C would be enough to avoid the overt vitamin C deficiency disease scurvy, but no one considers that enough vitamin C for optimum health.
To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.
Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.
- Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Review Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin D and Calcium. 2011.
- Byers T. Anticancer Vitamins du Jour—The ABCED's So Far. Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Jul 1;172(1):1-3. Epub 2010 Jun 18.
- Holick MF. Vitamin D: extraskeletal health. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2010 Jun;39(2):381-400.
- Maxmen A. Nutrition advice: the vitamin D-lemma. Nature. 2011 Jul 6;475(7354):23-5. doi: 10.1038/475023a.
Republishing "Is Vitamin D the New Vitamin E?"
Terms
You may republish this material online or in print under our Creative Commons licence. You must attribute the article to NutritionFacts.org with a link back to our website in your republication.
If any changes are made to the original text or video, you must indicate, reasonably, what has changed about the article or video.
You may not use our material for commercial purposes.
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that restrict others from doing anything permitted here.
If you have any questions, please Contact Us
Title
Is Vitamin D the New Vitamin E?
LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)
Content URLDoctor's Note
This is the third video in a nine-part series on vitamin D. Be sure to check out yesterday’s video: Evolutionary Argument for Optimal Vitamin D Level.
For more context, check out my associated blog posts: Vitamin D: Shedding some light on the new recommendations; Açai to Zucchini: antioxidant food rankings; Eating To Extend Our Lifespan; and Vitamin D from Mushrooms, Sun, or Supplements?.
If you haven't yet, you can subscribe to our free newsletter. With your subscription, you'll also get notifications for just-released blogs and videos. Check out our information page about our translated resources.
Previous Video
Next Video
