7/16/2023 0 Comments Download pure vitamin d3But for nutrients, shouldn’t the starting point, at least, be the natural levels to which our bodies have become finely tuned for millions of years? For unnatural substances, less is more, until proven otherwise. The Institute of Medicine took the position that the burden of proof fell on anyone who claimed benefits for intake higher than their minimal recommendations-which is a good approach for drugs. It’s like saying you only need 10 milligrams of vitamin C to avoid scurvy-yeah, but we need way more than that for optimal health. But the mere absence of soft bones can hardly be considered an adequate definition either of health or of vitamin D sufficiency. There’s even been a charge that the Institute of Medicine simply just made a mistake in their calculations, and, using their own criteria, they should be recommending thousands of units a day as well. But even if you just cared about your bones, and not your lifespan, you’d still probably want to shoot for the 75 threshold, because there’s evidence like this- from hundreds of autopsies of people that like died in car accidents showing osteomalacia (softening of the bones) in between 18 and 39 percent of people that reach the Institute of Medicine target, but fail to make it to 75. The Institute of Medicine, however, considered blood levels of 50 to be sufficient, and, therefore, only recommended 600 to 800 units a day for those with little or no sun exposure, because they were only considering bone health. Data derived from randomized clinical trials have convinced some influential experts, such as Harvard’s Chair of Nutrition, that we should shoot for this kind of range-levels that about nine out of ten people fail to reach, because it may necessitate taking between 1,800 and 4,000 units a day. If everyone took 2,000 units of vitamin D a day, it could shift the curve from average blood levels in the mid-50s to about 110, which some estimate could add years to our life expectancy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |