> SomevitaminD-fortified food products and multivitamins providevitaminD-2 (ergocalciferol).
The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement
is set out here, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694
it concludes "the public expects to derive the equivalent effect per
unit dose of vitamin D, whether it is vitamin D2 or vitamin D3. The
scientific community is aware that these molecules are not equivalent.
Therefore, vitamin D2 should no longer be regarded as a nutrient
appropriate for supplementation or fortification of foods."
> Most people may need higher amounts than previously thought - at least 800 to 1,000 IU ofvitaminD-3 daily.
While 800-1000iu would be a useful amount to use where an individual
is getting regular full body exposure to midday sunshine for around
20-40 minutes it will not meet the indoor dwellers daily need. See
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 Human serum 25-
hydroxycholecalciferol response to extended oral dosing with
cholecalciferol " Healthy men seem to use 3000-5000 IU cholecalciferol/
d"
In other research he shows that outdoor workers only obtain 2800 IU/d
from sunlight (you don't often see a farmer, gardener, groundsman etc
working in the nude) which while combined with fortified foods, will
be sufficient to sustain vitamin d status through the Summer, it is
not sufficient to provide adequate stores for the Winter.
> People who are deficient invitaminD will need much larger doses for several weeks to replenish theirvitaminDbody stores.
http://www.vitamindcouncil.com/ have a links page to a range of high
strength vitamin d suppliers. Because the half life of Vitamin d is
measured in weeks it is OK to take large amounts and average that
amount over several days, so taking 3 x 5000iu = 2100iu daily over 7
days
4 x 5000iu = 20,000weekly = 2857iu daily 5 x 5000iu =25000weekly =
3571iu daily It really depends on how good you are at remembering to
take them. If once a week is the best you can do it will make no
difference in the long run.
> In light of recent research, some experts say we should consider raising the recommended daily amounts forvitaminDand lowering those for calcium.
Glad to hear someone else voice that opinion. Looking at the
foodsources for Calcium http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=nutrient&dbid=45#summary
I'm surprised that people need a supplement. I also think Magnesium is
an underated player in the metabolic play off between calcium/vit d/
magnesium.
> When vitaminDlevels are optimal, the body needs less calcium.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra
ctPlus&list_uids=17218096
Circulating vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in humans: An important
tool to define adequate nutritional vitamin D status. When humans are
sun (or dietary) replete, the vitamin D endocrine system will function
in a fashion as do these other steroid synthetic pathways, not limited
by substrate. Thus, the relationship between circulating vitamin D and
25(OH)D may represent what "normal" vitamin D status should be.
This appears to be 100nmol/L somewhat higher than the 75-80nmol/L
previously thought to be optimal status.
Anyone concerned about the implications of higher rates of Vitamin d3
Cholecalciferol use needs to read http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
Risk assessment for vitamin D by John N Hathcock, Andrew Shao,
Reinhold Vieth and Robert Heaney