Vitamin D being involved in only bone health does not make a lot of sense. But if we take serious the evidence of it being involved also in modulating the immune system, then things become more clear. Animals may have evolved to use vitamin D to modulate processes that use a lot of energy, like the immune system. When the Sun is no longer high in the sky, that signals a coming Winter, and it makes sense to let such processes run in a more energy efficient way, so that fat reserves can be built up more easily.

The less fat an animal has to begin with the sooner its vitamin D levels will drop, as vitamin D is stored in body fat. So, this is consistent with vitamin D being used to implement an optimal strategy to make it through Winter. As vitamin D levels drop to ever lower values as Winter progresses, more energy saving measures are taken.

Getting calcium from food costs energy, due to the low concentration of calcium in food. It costs far less energy to maintain the necessary calcium levels in the blood from getting it from our bones, because the concentration of calcium there is much higher. However, this comes at the expense of maintaining the bones. If this situation lasts for a few weeks, it is not going to do significant damage; the benefits of spending less energy to digest food are much greater for animals that have to survive in nature.

Science has come a long way since then. Experts now understand that Vitamin D receptors exist in many parts of the body. That means Vitamin D is necessary for organs other than bones.

The blanket statement that most people get enough Vitamin D is not backed by any research that I have seen.

Two years ago I started taking 1000 IU a day of Vitamin D. At the same time I went out into the sun at noon for about 30 minutes every day, religiously. My bone density was ok. But when I got tested my 25 (OH) D3 was very low: 14ng. I got therapeutic doses of 50,000 for 6 weeks (twice), then 100,000 IU for 8 weeks. Finally my level came up to 32 ng. I have been taking 4,000 IU since then. The joints in my fingers are not as painful and my general constitution is much better.

I would not have known to get tested if it hadn’t been for my son who has extreme osteopenia. He has had about 100 broken bones in his body. Over 10 years ago he was tested as having 11ng. At that time the orthopedic surgeon and a second opinion told me that that was within the normal range. The x-rays looked as if my son had rickets. They stated he did not have rickets. My son would not be in a wheelchair if he had received a proper diagnosis. It turns out he had osteomalacia. Rickets is the same as osteomalacia. Except osteomalacia happens in adults. How many doctors check the parathyroid level when testing Vitamin D? It’s an impotent factor. Why is that not being addressed in the report. And yes, the kidney makes the active form of Vitamin D. So if you have kidney disease you might want to check that.

Here is my question: Why were the experts not involved is this study. The experts I know of are Cedric Garland, Reinhold Vieth. Dr. Holick. Dr. Hollis, Dr. Cannell. They have good arguments in favor of a much higher dose of Vitamin D than what this panel came up with.

How much conflict of interest is involved choosing the panel members and the type of reporting we see? The difference between just The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times is stunning.

I supplemented with vitamin D for years because I too bought into the hype surrounding “vitamin D”! And after years of supplementation and a 25(OH)D level of 50 … I was diagnosed last year with ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease! Now there is certainly no proof this supplementation caused my ALS illness. But, I certainly would exercise the utmost caution before supplementing with vitamin D in any form. Just eat a good balanced diet and your body will produce enough vitamin D on it’s own!

Doctors sometimes seem to like to do what Big Pharma is wiling to pay for. The doctors have all kinds of vested interests; money, association, reputation, job, fame, grants, funding, appearance, etc. It’s very simplistic to say that their only interest is in “being right.” In addition, Vitamin D is not a patentable product. Any nutrition company can manufacture it. SO, at least vitamin D is subject to competition for quality and value. The IOM/FNB is a somewhat monopolistic board supported by government money. Perhaps such a board would have an “interest” in presenting findings that would encourage more funding for more reports and studies. I’ll read between the lines myself. I don’t trust the surface conclusions or implications.

This study doesn’t stress the importance of testing your D levels if you’re concerned about whether or not you’re deficient. Why not?

And what does “you’re all doing pretty well” mean, anyway? Since I’m actually basing my blood calcium levels based on blood tests (as well as the fact that during the winter I never actually go out into the sun) mean I should continue? bah.