[General Spine] Institute of Medicine says high levels of vitamin D, calcium unnecessary

[Justin]

I thought I would pass this article along, as I know many Spine Patients are on vitamin D and calcium supplements.

Institute of Medicine says high levels of vitamin D, calcium unnecessary

In a front-page article, the New York Times (11/30, A1, Kolata) reports, "The very high levels of vitamin D and calcium that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories -- and can be achieved only by taking supplements -- are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says." In findings due to be released on Tuesday, the "group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine." Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, "a member of the panel and an osteoporosis expert at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute," said, "For most people, taking extra calcium and vitamin D supplements is not indicated."

The AP (11/30, Neergaard) reports, "Long-awaited new dietary guidelines say there's no proof that megadoses prevent cancer or other ailments -- sure to frustrate backers of the so-called sunshine vitamin." This "decision by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, could put some brakes on the nation's vitamin D craze, warning that super-high levels could be risky." Notably, "a National Cancer Institute study last summer was the latest to report no cancer protection from vitamin D and the possibility of an increased risk of pancreatic cancer in people with the very highest D levels. Super-high doses -- above 10,000 IUs a day -- are known to cause kidney damage, and Tuesday's report sets 4,000 IUs as an upper daily limit -- but not the amount people should strive for."

According to the Wall Street Journal (11/30, Beck, subscription required), the committee members disagreed with previous findings that Americans and Canadians do not consume sufficient vitamin D, and instead suggested that a blood level of 20 nanograms/ml was adequate. This suggestion contradicts groups such as the Endocrine Society and the International Osteoporsis Foundation, which have recommended 30 ng/ml for good bone health. Meanwhile, the NIH has begun to recruit participants for a large study that will compare the impact on health of vitamin D and omega-3 fatty acids derived from fish oil.

USA Today (11/30, Hellmich) reports, "According to the report, children and adults younger than 71 need no more than 600 international units (IUs) of vitamin D a day and should consume 700 to 1,300 milligrams of calcium a day, depending on their age." Indeed, the "committee was surprised to see that most Americans are meeting their needs for both of the nutrients, except for adolescent girls who may not be getting enough calcium and some elderly people who don't get enough of either, says Catharine Ross, professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University and chairwoman of the panel that prepared the report."

Still, Time (11/30, Park) points out, "Those 71 years or older...may need more vitamin D, up to 800 IU a day, to combat deteriorating bone," the group said. Due to "the lack of sufficient data to date, advice on vitamin D up to this point was not considered as a recommended dietary allowance, which is based on stronger scientific evidence, but rather an adequate intake suggestion, and stood at anywhere from 200 IU to 400 IU for adults." Notably, the "new recommendations are based on data from more than 1,000 studies, most of which included trials in which volunteers were randomly assigned to receive either vitamin or calcium supplements or a placebo, after which their health outcomes were compared to one another."

The Washington Post (11/30, Stein) "The Checkup" blog says, "The United States and Canada asked the Institute of Medicine, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to update the official vitamin D recommendations for the first time since 1997." The New York Times (11/29, Pollack) Prescriptions blog and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (11/30) also cover the story.

[mike86]

What about taking Calcium and Vitamin D to promote a healthy and strong bond between the vertebrae and the endplates of an ADR? Any thoughts on this?

[Justin]

What about taking Calcium and Vitamin D to promote a healthy and strong bond between the vertebrae and the endplates of an ADR? Any thoughts on this?

I just typed a long-winded post about vitamin D and calcium but I decided not to post it (it included hydroxylations and other physiological steps & forms of vitamin D [cholecalciferol, calcidiol, and calcitriol] that was probably overkill). Anyway, bone is constantly being "remodeled," or being broken down and built again. Vitamin D and calcium are essential to good bone health. A supplement that has both vitamins is key, as calcium plays a crucial role in the absorption of vitamin D in the intestine.

The Institute of Medicine recommended new Dietary Reference Intake levels of vitamin D on November 30th, 2010:

• 1-70 years of age: 600 IU/day
• 71+ years of age: 800 IU/day
• Pregnant/lactating: 600 IU/day

"Mega-doses" of vitamin D are not needed as vitamin D is "fat-soluble," meaning it is stored in fat cells, and such high doses can actually be toxic.

Vitamin D deficiency has implications in heart disease, autoimmune disorders, chronic pain, etc. It is generally recommended that vitamin D levels, Calcidiol (25-hydroxyvitamin D), should be between 50–80 ng/mL. A physician can check your level with other blood work and, if you are low, you can be repleted.

I hope your recovery is still going smooth!