Posted by Larry Hoover on June 14, 2006, at 16:12:53
In reply to Re: You seem to beleive anything you read » Larry Hoover, posted by dessbee on June 14, 2006, at 11:48:56
> You seem to beleive anything you read on the Internet. It is one thing doing research and other thing recommending safe doses in a forum.
"Medical Journal of Australia" is not just some internet site. It was simply the first Pubmed hit that my eyes fell on, that was both on point, and full-text.
Australia, where the "discovery" that Helicobacter pylori is the primary cause of peptic ulcer. Infection, not "type A" personality. Good medicine going on, down under.
Anyway, will you accept American medical journals? European? I'm talking recent medical journals, not books based on obsolete medical journals.
Here's a simple comparison of D2 and D3 at 50,000 IU, in healthy men. http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/89/11/5387
How about this one, where they say optimal vitamin D intake is not known, and they clearly demonstrate that the current reference range of intakes is too low to utilize dietary calcium? http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/22/2/142
Here's one from Norway, examining vitamin D intake from fish roe. "Three molje meals provided, on average, an amount of vitamin D equal to 54 times the recommended daily dose." People who naturally eat this stuff are the healthier ones, not the poisoned ones.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15369617Or how about this one, where "Low vitamin D status was prevalent in these young adults in northern Europe in winter, although the vitamin D intake met the recommendation." Does that suggest there's something wrong with the recommended intake? Hell ya. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11697803
Just plain read this one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12778859Here's a Canadian study revealing the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency, and age-related increase in vitamin D requirement (*not* reflected in the RDA, by the way). http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/88/1/185
Here's a recent article where they're still giving the toxic form of vitamin D, D2, but then the conclusion is extended to include all forms of vitamin D, as if it was the same thing. They switched from an insoluble form of calcium (chalk) to a soluble form. And they're suprised they poisoned her?
I could just go on and on. Unfortunately, the one study I was looking for, I didn't find. It showed a mathematical treatment of blood parameters responding to high D3 intake levels, and the average optimal values for daily intake of D3 fell at something like 3930 IU. Just a hair below 4000 IU. I generally have a little bit of conservatism, and I suggest D3 supplements at 2000 IU. Some does come from diet. And there may yet be chronic adverse effects of hypervitaminosis D, not yet discovered.
Just do a Pubmed search of hypovitaminosis D, and discover the correlation of D3 to various cancers, bone disease, heart disease, kidney disease, nerve conduction disorders.....it just goes on and on. And the confusion between ergocalciferol (D2) and cholecalciferol (D3) goes on.....The latter is a pro-vitamin for the former, as well as being a modulator in its own right. Ergocalciferol is prescription-only in Canada. Perhaps I generalized from that to other jurisdictions. It's hard to tell, from the literature.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:650131
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20060601/msgs/656958.html