Is the "pandemic" of vitamin D deficiency exaggerated?

By Dr. Ronald Hoffman


Eclipsed by post-election media coverage, this is clearly the big health/nutrition story of the week. The press uncritically parroted the unwarranted conclusions of a New England Journal of Medicine op-ed:

  • "Vitamin D deficiency widely overestimated, doctors warn"

  • "Vitamin D deficiency is over-rated-is your doctor fooling you?"

  • "Doctors claim that too much vitamin D is bad for you"

  • "Too may people are worried about vitamin D deficiency"

So what's all the fuss about? The article in question is not a new study, but actually a position paper by members of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and the Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS) of the National Institutes of Health, scientific bodies entrusted with setting health guidelines for Americans. They are notoriously conservative in their statements about vitamins.

For example, the ODS stated in 2011:

"It is still not possible to specify a relationship between vitamin D and health outcomes other than bone health."

With regard to cancer they say:

". . . studies to date do not support a role for vitamin D, with or without calcium, in reducing the risk of cancer."

As to other conditions, the ODS admits:

"A growing body of research suggests that vitamin D might play some role in the prevention and treatment of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, hypertension, glucose intolerance, multiple sclerosis, and other medical conditions" and that "one meta-analysis found use of vitamin D supplements to be associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall mortality from any cause."

But the ODS then dismisses the evidence and concludes:

"Until [more] trials are conducted, the implications of the available evidence for public health and patient care will be debated." In other words, they say, keep your powder dry with regard to vitamin D for anything but its traditional application to osteoporosis prevention.

And the doses (RDAs) they recommend are paltry: For children 0-12 months, 400 IU; for ages 1-70, 600 IU; and for adults 70 or older, 800 IU.

Flying in the face of these guidelines are studies that demonstrate that many adults taking these dosages continue to suffer from vitamin D deficiency. Moreover, the blood levels they achieve by taking such small amounts are not up to the task of combatting osteoporosis or the many other conditions for which D has been shown helpful.

The authors of the New England Journal study that generated all the headlines express their "concern that universal screening based on inappropriate cut points might lead to routine supplementation in generally healthy populations with adequate vitamin D levels."

An interesting statement. It all hangs on their definition of "inappropriate cut points" and "generally healthy."

The would-be arbiters of our vitamin D consumption argue that a vitamin D of 20 ng/ml is adequate for 97.5% of the population. They challenge the notion of vitamin D "inadequacy" which stops short of waiting for a frank deficiency to emerge before advocating that patients take more vitamin D.

And what constitutes a "generally healthy" person? Is it the 1/3 of the populace destined to develop heart disease? Or the 1/4 headed for cancer? Or the estimated 40% of U.S. adults who will develop metabolic syndrome, a precursor to diabetes? Or perhaps the millions of not-yet-sick Americans who will acquire an autoimmune disease? Is "healthy" merely the absence of a serious condition? What happened to the notion of prevention?

By the same rationale, we should only administer statin drugs to those who've already suffered heart attacks or strokes, or who have required stents or bypasses. But "primary prevention" guidelines now urge frequent cholesterol checks and statin use for tens of millions of well Americans! Double-standard?

I suspect that cost-containment is a motivator for health officials advocating against widespread screening for vitamin D deficiency. But if D is as good as many studies suggest, what more cost-effective strategy could be devised to protect Americans from a wide gamut of diseases?

It's ironic that the very week that brought us headlines suggesting we weaken guidelines for D screening and supplementation also brought us stories like these:

Moreover, the headlines that suggest that "too much Vitamin D is bad for you" are a total misrepresentation. While the authors of the New England Journal article express concern that liberalizing the guidelines for vitamin D might cause some patients to exceed the Upper Limits of supplementation set by the IOM (4000 IU/day), a recent Mayo Clinic study found that vitamin D toxicity is rare in people who take supplements.

Only one case over the 10-year study period was identified as true acute vitamin D toxicity; the person's vitamin D level was 364 ng/mL (greater than 100 is considered too high). The individual had been taking 50,000 IUs of vitamin D supplements every day for more than three months(!), as well as calcium supplements. With this sole exception, researchers found no increased risk of high blood calcium or kidney stones even in aggressive supplementers.

Under careful monitoring, MS patients have safely received therapeutic doses of 10,400 IUs/day ; A recent study found skin benefits without adverse effects in psoriasis and vitiligo patients taking 35,000 IUs/day for six months while following a low-calcium diet.

Michael Hollick, a professor of medicine, physiology and biophysics at Boston University School of Medicine, states: "The evidence is clear that vitamin D toxicity is one of the rarest medical conditions and is typically due to intentional or inadvertent intake of extremely high doses."

(Nevertheless, if you're contemplating high-dose D supplementation, you should do so under the supervision of an experienced health practitioner)

Clearly there is a big divide among vitamin D researchers, and the recent New England Journal article represents the most conservative slice of the spectrum of opinion. In 2007, in the self-same New England Journal, Dr. Hollick published a landmark paper that extended the boundaries of our understanding of the applicability of vitamin D to a wide gamut of medical conditions: "Of great interest is the role it can play in decreasing the risk of many chronic illnesses, including common cancers, autoimmune diseases, infectious diseases, and cardiovascular disease," he wrote.

While researchers and health authorities make up their minds, my advice is to keep checking your vitamin D, and target higher than the bare minimum to safeguard yourself against disease. Let's hope that this latest influential New England Journal article doesn't embolden insurers to be even more stingy about paying for proper vitamin D screening and monitoring!

To keep up with the latest on vitamin D research, keep following Intelligent Medicine for our frequent updates on radio, in podcasts, and in our newsletter. An additional resource is the Vitamin D Council.

Have a comment on this article? Send it.


 

Back to...

Health conditions and concerns

More in this group...

Vitamin c / atherosclerosis scare

Functional food science

Is your diet making you sick?

Drugs that steal

Iron: deficiency and toxicity

12 drugs you should never take (part 2 of 3)

12 supplements you should NEVER take

"Death by food pyramid": a review

"Don't take your vitamins"? So not!

"Fed Up": A movie review

Intelligent Medicine Bone Health Protocol available now!

Intelligent Medicine Health News Review

10 "Duh!" health and nutrition stories

10 simple hacks to improve your diet

10 ways the foods you eat can affect your sex life

11 reasons why you should be using extra virgin olive oil

11 things worth trying if you suffer from tinnitus

12 drugs you should never take (part 1 of 3)

12 drugs you should never take (part 3 of 3)

12 supplements you should NEVER take

13 tips for surviving the holidays (part one)

13 tips for surviving the holidays (part two)

16 reasons to go nuts for nuts

5 easy Paleo diet hacks

6 new products that I'm excited about in 2015

A nerd in the kitchen: My review of The Food Lab: Better Home Cooking Through Science by J. Kenji Lo

American Heart Association doubles down on outmoded saturated fat recommendations

Are "paleo snacks" an oxymoron?

Are fruit and veggie pills really as effective as they claim?

Are fruit and veggie pills really as effective as they claim?

Are vegetarians healthier than meat-eaters? So NOT, according to shocking new studies

Can a low-salt diet actually be BAD for you?

Can what you eat really damage your thyroid?

Clinical Focus: Nicotinamide Riboside

Confessions of an EX-vegan

Could a vegetarian diet undermine your mental health?

Could a vegetarian diet undermine your mental health?

Could Big Sugar become the next Big Tobacco?

Death by Food Pyramid? by Denise Minger: A Review

Defensive Eating: Taming your addiction to food

Detox in a box

Dispatches from the front lines of nutrition-what you need to know about the latest health headlines

Do you have SIBO (Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth)?

Do you really need to eat breakfast?

Frontline gets it wrong about supplements

GMO non-browning apples: A risky solution to a non-problem

Happy one millionth podcast! Let's review the best of 2015 so far

How a raw foods diet can make you sick

ICYMI: Dr. Hoffman's Store now available through Fullscript!

Iron: Do you want to hear the good news or the bad news first?

Is fructose really that bad for you?

Is the "pandemic" of vitamin D deficiency exaggerated?

Is the way to a (wo)man's heart through his(her) stomach?

Is the Whole30 diet right for you? (part one)

Is the Whole30 diet right for you? (part two)

Is your grill killing you? Your personal anti-AGEing program

More good news about olive leaf extract

Organic produce trumps conventional: Here's why!

Paleo pitfalls

Paleo Pitfalls

Pro-vegan website outs apostate meat-eaters

Repeat after me: "Hunger is my friend!"

Rethinking Super Size Me: Is it a Big Whopper?

Rethinking breakfast

Revisiting salt intake - are you eating too much or too little?

Sorry vegans, but humans were designed to eat (some) meat

Supplements that I take

The artificial sweetener controversy: who should you believe?

The Whole30: A review

The WORST health and nutrition stories of 2015

There's no "one-size-fits-all" diet, according to new research

To juice or not to juice?

Top 10 "duh!" health and nutrition stories of 2016

Vitamins can cause cancer-REALLY??

What do Bill Gates, eggs, and soylent green have in common?

What week is it, kiddies? Why, it's National Folic Acid Week!

Why I liberally indulge in high-test chocolate

Why you don't have to feel guilty about those Valentine's Day chocolates

Why you should keep taking your supplements

Will the "real" China study please stand up

Yet more reasons to go gluten-free