Loading...
 
Translate Register Log In Login with facebookLogin and Register

New Zealand consensus: at risk should take more Vitamin D – March 2012

Consensus Statement

(note: very little is said on their Consensus
Consensus Statement on Vitamin D and Sun Exposure in New Zealand.
Issued by Ministry of Health and Cancer Society of New Zealand, Wellington, March 14, 2012

Summary:

  • < 10 ng = deficient
  • 20 ng = prudent: 32% of the entire population of New Zealand had vitamin D levels less than 20 nanograms/ml in 2009
  • higher than 50 ng not recommended
  • All at risk people in NZ should have a 50,000 IU vitamin D3 monthly prescription

It is important to note that:

  1. A great many organizations and countries place 30 nanograms as the minimum
  2. Winter would increase the percentage (less sun)
  3. They failed to mention many high risk groups: e.g. as seniors (senior skin is 1/3 as efficient at making vitamin D)
  4. Higher percentage would be deficient in their island which is further from the equator (less sunshine)
  5. Probably more have become deficient by 2012 (since 2009)
    26 reasons for deficiency - 12 of which are new in the past 40 years

Based on data from many other countries which you can find in VitaminDWiki (NZ did not release their data) we anticipate:

>90% less than 30 nanograms on the Southern (less sunny) island in the winter
For those in a high risk group (dark skin, senior, pregnant, obese)

Consensus statement does NOT recommend widespread testing vitamin D levels (we agree – testing not needed)
They recommend getting it only by prescription (we disagree)

The consensus statement talks about getting 50,000 IU of vitamin D3 monthly,which is only 1,600 IU daily.

The statement notes that number of people in NZ getting this prescription Vitamin D3 has
Increased by 2X from 2007 to 2010.
If we assume that it has doubled again since then,
8% of all New Zealanders had a vitamin D prescription BEFORE the release of this consensus statement

A much better dose to suggest for at-risk New Zealanders would have been 50,000 IU twice a month.

(3,200 IU is less than the upper limit recommended for all people in the US)

The NZ consensus statement FAILED TO:

  • mention the vital importance of vitamin D co-factors
    principally 500 mg Calcium, 500 mg Magnesium, and some Vitamin K2
  • suggest checking for possible allergic reaction to vitamin D (about 1 in 300 people)
    Should try just a tiny portion of the capsule and wait several days to see if there is an allergic reaction
  • Importance of how and when to take the vitamin D - can increase the benefit by 2X if take with almonds, etc.


They are under great restriction to recommend more vitamin D due to the intense Slip/Slop/Slap campaign
which has been underway in New Zealand and Australia for the past 40 years.

At some future time NZ will be making a statement about vitamin D needs for those who are pregnant.
  (Hint: from many studies on VitaminDWiki 6,400 IU daily = approx 50,000 IU once a week)

CLICK HERE for PDF of the consensus statement of March 14, 2012

CLICK Q&A from NZ is attached at the bottom of this page

New Zealand still has a long ways to go for all of the population

see wikipage:http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=2483

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Australia noticed a similar deficiency 3 months before NZ: 73 % of Australians had < 30 ng of vitamin D

Again, would be even higher percentage of those in Australia at high risk, high latitude, etc. etc.

Unfortunately, Australia continues to have AI (Adequate Intake) = 200 IU of vitamin D

- which is not enough for ANYONE to achieve a level of 30 ng of vitamin D

Even the conservative US says that 600 IU is needed to get to 20 ng of vitamin D

see for example wikipage: http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=2322
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

See also VitaminDWiki

Image

Percent of population with less than 20 ng of vitamin D has the following chart
see wikipage: http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=2533

However on the other side of the world

Half of seniors did not respond to 1600 IU of vitamin D daily for a year

RED square = reduction in serum level
from slide presentation: http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=2269
from slide presentation: http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id=2269

Attached files

ID Name Comment Uploaded Size Downloads
1147 NZ consensus Q and A.pdf Q&A March 2012 admin 15 Mar, 2012 02:34 103.05 Kb 614
See any problem with this page? Report it (FINALLY WORKS)