Nutrients 2017, 9,1308; doi:10.3390/nu9121308
Christine L. Taylor h* TaylorCL3 at od.nih.gov, Christopher T. Sempos 1, Cindy D. Davis 1 and Patsy M. Brannon 2
Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health, Room 3B01, 6100 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA; SemposCH at nih.gov (C.T.S.); DavisCI at nih.gov (C.D.D.)
Division of Nutritional Sciences, 225 Savage Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA; pmb22 at cornell.edu
The US Office of Dietary Supplements (replacing the Institute of Medicine) notices that there is a lot of new Vitamin D data and many on-going large trials. They are waiting many years, while over 100,000 people die due to low vitamin D, to make another Vitamin D recommendation. They want to wait until there is "enough" good data.
They appear to still be ignoring cofactors, types of vitamin D, person's weight, restrictions by genes (which are generally invisible to vitamin D tests, etc..
- Live longer if more vitamin D - 13 meta studies
- One 50,000 IU pill every 2 weeks fights 20 problems
- Proof that Vitamin D Works - prevents and/or treats 84 problems
- Dr. Grant on vitamin D and mortality in VitaminDWiki estimates of deaths and costs of low vitamin D
- US admits math mistake was made in 2010 in estimating Vitamin D, but will not change recommendations – Nov 2017
20 ng ==> 30 ng, 600 IU ==> 3,000 IU
The science surrounding vitamin D presents both challenges and opportunities.
Although many uncertainties are associated with the understandings concerning vitamin D, including its physiological function, the effects of excessive intake, and its role in health, it is at the same time a major interest in the research and health communities. The approach to evaluating and interpreting the available evidence about vitamin D should be founded on the quality of the data and on the conclusions that take into account the totality of the evidence. In addition, these activities can be used to identify critical data gaps and to help structure future research. The Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) at the National Institutes of Health has as part of its mission the goal of supporting research and dialogues for topics with uncertain data, including vitamin D. This review considers vitamin D in the context of systematically addressing the uncertainty and in identifying research needs through the filter of the work of ODS. The focus includes the role of systematic reviews, activities that encompass considerations of the totality of the evidence, and collaborative activities to clarify unknowns or to fix methodological problems, as well as a case study using the relationship between cancer and vitamin D.
2010 version of the table
Note: more data filled in and there should be 20+ more rows of diseases in 2017