Having recently signed in to Vit D council when I chanced upon the site.
I have self-studied nutrition for seventeen years thus far and conducted a fair number of experiments on myself in the last few years after having built what is now a giant spreadsheet “app“ to run trials on intake. In so doing my app clearly showed me not only that I was always lowest in D3 (still hopeless to get data on the others. Ridiculous!)
Sorry about the intro but needed to explain sone background because question is multi-pronged, which is . . .
Why is vitamin D on site spoken and discussed almost in complete isolation when we know there are key nutients that work in close association with D and indeed no known nutrients, be they vitamins, minerals, amino acids etc work alone? To mention calcium, we know that increasing vitamin D especially when supplementing in high dose, serious consideration must be given its ratio with D and it doesn't stop there because as we acknowledge those closely related and because they may need to be altered that this can spark an unintentioned spiral of increases across a range. It's one thing to acknowledge that it is now recognised that D has been 'light' in RDAs etc. and raise our intake without necessarily raising other minerals and vitamins but when supplementing 1000+ IU this could demand a review in the others or in a relatively short term could bring new problems from over compensation especially when looking at the common complaints see that a great deal of correlation has been found yet as your site very responsibly points out that so many of these findings need further investigation.
I would also like to put forward something I feel very strongly about which concerns human studies on health matters. There is an inherent weakness in all human trials where healthy humans represent the control group. What is a healthy human? The complexity is too great to know but I dont understand why those volunteers are not put on a strictly healthy diet for a minimum 3 months, obviously resident from the start, to ensure that the whole group whether given trial doses or placebos are all from a more accurate base-line.
Finally, in my opinion, the first problem is one of habitual portion sizes are just enormous in both the USA and Britain where I am. Its not just too much salt, sugar, but even.when the food is on the healthy side its still over-eating. I have recently finished my own 75day trial. I pace walk 25+ miles per week, work on scaffolding, in workshop cutting, etc. and decorate and fix everything that goes wrong in the five apartments I own. So more than moderately active, yet my trial has shown with healthy food choice I remained 120 calories under my recomnended basal rate of 1300. Five pounds of weight loss in first ten days then weight plateaued and varied +/-
1.5 pounds all the way. This is relative to Vit D intake and all nutients because this lowers the requirement. For those overweight the baseline is in the wrong place for measuring out increases.
I am so interested in your site and most especially if you can reflect on my comments for your feedback.
Many thanks in advance,
Sorry missed your question! I am a member of the Council and will do my best to give you my opinion on your questions. We do know “things” do not work in “isolation”. What we did not know for a very long time is that Vitamin D not only regulates calcium and bone health but actually regulates “gene expression”. This is astounding information! The Vitamin D experts also now recognize that we need a lot more Vitamin D to keep a human “healthy” because it is not just for bone health. (Now all we need to do is get the “governments” on board!) We also know that these higher amounts cannot be gotten through a healthy diet. You need “correct sunshine” or a sunlamp or supplements. You talked about a calcium to Vitamin D ratio that needed to be considered when taking high amounts. Dr. Cannell once said that if adequate amounts of Vitamin D were given, then enough calcium absorption would happen and that “high amounts of calcium” that are now being recommended to take, would no longer be appropriate. (He suggested an intake of 500mg a day would be enough.) There is “no proof” at this point that other vitamin and mineral amounts need to be increased along with increasing amounts of Vitamin D, in the “long run”. In the short run for some people, but this is my opinion and from what I have seen happen on the Q and A. We do try and point out that most diets lack enough magnesium in them to begin with and that taking Vitamin D in any amount might make that “shortage” show up, in fact, by causing a bunch of symptoms. In my opinion the “healthy controls” goes out the window because if we know humans are not getting enough Vitamin D, then the controls are not exactly healthy are they. At the moment they show no symptoms but that does not equal health. As for calories and amount of food consumed. People (not everyone) on the Q and A and in general have reported weight loss after taking Vitamin D without changing diet and also “cravings”, for example sugar, disappearing with Vitamin D supplementation. How much Vitamin D do you take? It has been proven, with studies, that at levels below 40ng/ml(100nmol/l) your risk for cancer and autoimmune disease rises dramatically.