Why you are not getting enough vitamin D

At the Magaziner Center for Wellness we have long suggested higher doses of vitamin D in selected patients for various health remedies. Now researchers at the University of California San Diego and Creighton University have challenged the intake of vitamin D recommended by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Institute of Medicine (IOM), stating that their Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D underestimates ten times over or by a factor of ten.

In a letter published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at University of California San Diego’s Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.

“Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially,” said Garland. “The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health.”

The recommended intake of vitamin D specified by the IOM is 600 IU/day through age 70 years, and 800 IU/day for older ages. “Calculations by us and other researchers have shown that these doses are only about one-tenth those needed to cut incidence of diseases related to vitamin D deficiency,” Garland explained.

Robert Heaney, M.D., of Creighton University wrote: “We call for the NAS-IOM and all public health authorities concerned with transmitting accurate nutritional information to the public to designate, as the RDA, a value of approximately 7,000 IU/day from all sources.”

“This intake is well below the upper level intake specified by IOM as safe for teens and adults, 10,000 IU/day,” Garland said.

In another paper research published in the Endocrine Society’s Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism (JCEM) suggests that vitamin D—when taken with calcium—can reduce the rate of mortality in seniors, therefore providing a possible means of increasing life expectancy. The present study assessed mortality among patients randomized to either vitamin D alone or vitamin D with calcium. The findings from the study found that the reduced mortality was not due to a lower number of fractures, but represents a beneficial effect beyond the reduced fracture risk.1

The list of growing research in support of vitamin D and other nutrients for the aging brain are beginning to show positive proof that nutritional supplements and proper diet have a positive effect the aging brain.

At the Magaziner Center for Wellness, we prescribe dietary supplements to protect you from free-radical damage on an individualized basis, often using specialized laboratory testing to determine areas of weakness. We also perform tests of blood, urine, and hair to check for toxins and heavy metals which can inhibit the brain from releasing hormones as well as directly damaging  it. (One such metal, aluminum, has been scientifically linked to Alzheimer’s disease.) One of the most powerful  tools we use to remove toxins, free radicals, and heavy metals from the body is chelation therapy — that is, direct intravenous infusion of antioxidants and other cleansing substances such as EDTA.

1. L. Rejnmark, A. Avenell, T. Masud, F. Anderson, H. E. Meyer, K. M. Sanders, K. Salovaara, C. Cooper, H. E. Smith, E. T. Jacobs, D. Torgerson, R. D. Jackson, J. E. Manson, K. Brixen, L. Mosekilde, J. A. Robbins, R. M. Francis, B. Abrahamsen. Vitamin D with Calcium Reduces Mortality: Patient Level Pooled Analysis of 70,528 Patients from Eight Major Vitamin D Trials. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2012; DOI: 10.1210/jc.2011-3328

2. Bowman GL, Silbert LC, Howieson D. et al. Nutrient biomarker patterns, cognitive function, and MRI measures of brain aging. Neurology WNL.0b013e3182436598; published ahead of print December 28, 2011