Vitamin D looks like it’s as close to a “miracle” pill as we are likely to get. This potent hormone (not really a vitamin) produced when sunlight strikes the skin or found in a few uncommon food sources (also now in fortified food) has been suggested in studies to help bones become and stay strong, to prevent and treat a variety of cancers (most notably breast, prostate, and colon), and to have potent immune normalizing properties.
The downsides are virtually non-existent, Vitamin D can be obtained for free if you live in a sunny climate or for penny’s from supplements. Vitamin D is virtually non-toxic unless you take truly excessive amounts or have one of a few rare diseases such as sarcoidosis or certain kinds of lymphoma.
The following article shares Reinhold Veith, PhD’s frustration with government inaction in recommending more vitamin D. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/11180df8-beaa-11de-b4ab-00144feab49a.html
Why are governments saying more vitamin D isn’t necessary?
Original studies done with vitamin D were concerned with preventing rickets (bone deformities in growing children) and found that only low levels of vitamin D (200-400 IU) were needed. These levels do prevent rickets but do not have the anti-cancer and immune normalizing properties of higher doses. Studies done with higher doses used doses that were still too low (800-1200 IU) to have a potent effect because of an irrational fear of vitamin D’s toxicity. These negative studies have lead conservative policy-makers to conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to recommend higher doses.
Then there is the issue of prevention. Proving prevention is very difficult. Current medical trials focus on treating a disease once it’s already present because it’s much simpler, cheaper, and easier to study. Taking a group of healthy people and studying them over 20-30 years to prove the benefits of vitamin D would be enormously expensive and complicated. There’s also the fact that vitamin D is unpatentable. Unlike prescription drugs, no one can gain a monopoly on vitamin D so there’s no incentive for private companies to provide the money for studies. So while the interest might be there, no one is ready to step up and devote enough money and time to get it done. So the policy makers end up saying “there’s no evidence to prove your point, and we’re not interested in doing studies to provide that evidence.”
The Bottom Line
In the end we’re left with a lot of suggestive studies — they suggest vitamin D is a “miracle”. What we understand of biochemistry and physiology and from these suggestive studies is that Vitamin D might be the single easiest, cheapest thing you can do for your health. But what if it’s wrong? What if all of us suggesting people take these larger amounts of Vitamin D are wrong? At worst people will have wasted a very modest amount of money. A few people who took excessive amount of vitamin D (greater than 10,000-20,000 IU per day over an extended period of time) or had underlying health conditions and weren’t properly managed may have caused some damage to themselves. But what if we’re right? Be normalizing your vitamin D levels you’ll have reduced your risk for a large number of serious health conditions.
In my mind it’s a no-brainer. Ignore the government and the nay-sayers. Get your vitamin D levels tested. Get your levels up to 60-80 ng/dl and keep them there. Ignore the experts afraid of the sun and get sensible sun exposure during the late spring, summer, early fall, and use supplements if they’re necessary.