VDC test kit slider
VDC-Banner-new_468
VDC test kit slider
sperti-banner

New study on vitamin D levels and hospital mortality

Posted on: January 24, 2014   by  John Cannell, MD

img

I have always recommended a 25(OH)D level between 40 and 80 ng/ml, or about in the middle of the reference range (30-100 ng/ml).  The traditional reason the reference range goes up to 100 ng/ml is because sunbathers and lifeguards occasionally have such levels. To my knowledge, the highest recorded 25(OH)D level from sun exposure alone is from a pregnant free-living hunter-gatherer in modern day Tanzania whose level was 105 ng/ml.

You must be a paid member to read the rest of this post. Please login or register now.

10 Responses to New study on vitamin D levels and hospital mortality

  1. Rita and Misty

    Dr. Cannell,

    I proudly support the VDC because of your courage to call for vitamin D levels between 40 ng/ml–80 ng/ml. I wish other organizations would do the same. Then I could support these organizations as well. To utilize the levels of 40ng/ml–60 ng/ml (to me) is unethical, as the health benefits between 60 ng/ml–80 ng/ml are tremendous (again in my opinion).

    I haven’t yet read the article upon which today’s blog is based. I tend to think along parallel lines with you–cod liver oil or prescription ergocalciferol might be the culprits. Or perhaps these individuals were already very ill prior to commencing vitamin D supplementation?

    As you and I both know: there is no cure for death. But, we can choose to live healthy, productive and happy lives (whatever happy means). To me, an optimal 25(OH)D level plays an integral role in my health.

    Be well, and know that I do appreciate your efforts,
    Rita

  2. Ian

    Their conclusion:

    “Though previous reports have suggested an association between low vitamin D status and mortality, these data raise the issue of potential harm from high serum 25(OH)D levels, provide a rationale for an upper limit to supplementation, and emphasize the need for caution in the use of extremely high doses of vitamin D among patients.”

    Like you say the likely source of vitamin D is cod liver oil, especially in Austria. Has the letter to the FNB been acted upon? I see so many people, some medical and pharmaceutical advising people to take cod liver oil. It is a heavily advertised product. The NIH office of dietary supplements put cod liver oil as the number one food source but makes no mention of vitamin A or toxicity due to excess vitamin A.

    I know of many older people who take daily cod liver oil. I also wonder as people get older and sicker they may increase their dose in the belief it may improve their health especially when you see the marketing messages and where they come from. So when a cohort study like this is done it taps biased data in two ways:
    Older people taking an “old” remedy and sicker people taken more of an “old” remedy. Another confounding factor could be the diet of older Austrians, Do they eat a lot of liver and other organ meats, they certainly add them to their sausages.

  3. Rita and Misty

    Ian–60 ng/ml is not the upper limit of an optimal 25(OH)D level. It isn’t. Certainly, since I am not a researcher or physician many here may scoff at my comments as being anecdotal. They would be foolish, regardless of their supposed knowledge or educational status.

    Look to the success stories in Brazil (Dr. Coimbra I think) with multiple sclerosis. The 25(OH)D levels this physician looks to for good health are well above 60 ng/ml.

    We are overrun with autoimmune disease, are we not?

    I am being redundant, for sure, but my health only improved once my 25(OH)D level was raised to 74 ng/ml. I choose to keep it higher currently. I have experienced almost every issue associated with being born in mid-March, also known as the very height of vitamin D winter, with the lowest 25(OH)levels of the year. Now, I am healthy.

    My good health is not idiopathic—as mainstream medicine termed my ill heath.

    My good health is due to an optimal 25(OH)D level.

    Look to hunter/gatherer societies, and aim for between 46 ng/ml–105 ng/ml.

    John Cannell, keep up the good work.

  4. Ian

    Some people are very quick to use these studies (above and the Lancet meta-analysis) to substantiate their “position” on vitamin D supplementation and the importance of vitamin D level in the prevention of disease: Like Mark Bolland of the University of Auckland:

    http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/GeneralEndocrinology/43956

    It would be good if they did some decent research instead of these meta-analyses to show pre-ordained U-shaped relationships and “futility”.

  5. Magic

    I have been studying the benefits of D3 for about 8 years and I am convinced that Dr Cannell and others are absolutely correct in their findings. It is inexpensive and harmless in amounts up to 10,000 a day and probably much higher.

    Hospitals and nursing homes are a most dangerous place to reside. WHY aren’t 5000 units a day an automatic prescription??? It is not a profit center.

  6. Adelle Sperling

    A physician friend (largely influenced by me) now routinely has his patients who reside in nursing homes take 10,000 IU Vitamin D3 daily. They are not able to sun-bathe and of course are elderly.

  7. IAW

    To: Adelle Sperling
    “Bravo” to your physician friend for being open minded, smart and caring!

  8. Ron Carmichael

    There seems to be little or no effort to control for underlying disease states nor causes of death, making this entire treatise worse than merely misleading. This kind of “study” publication is very likely what Mark Twain had in mind when he added the third case to his statement, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
    While indeed there can be too much of any “good thing”, this article has no merit in the debate.

  9. Ron Carmichael

    In mulling over my initial post, looking for flaws in my perception, I came across this thought: Were the individuals with the higher levels who died, in the process of chronic dying (as opposed to an acute version) and their bodies’ intrinsic systems fighting to avoid that demise by increasing their D levels in the face of that inflammatory/insulting process? If such a response is innate, does it fail to be as effective at greater ages due to the failure in other biochemical pathways of those oldest subjects, perhaps the body simply losing the ability, through the known aging processes, to “rise” to the occasion? Are the slightly less-aged cohorts surviving better because D compensates better in their systems?

  10. Magic

    http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/14/vitamin-d-tied-to-alzheimers-risk/?src=me..

    Alzheimers disease…

    As usual vitamin d3 has been found to be “helpful” but the test was “too small.” It is a joke.

    Magic

Test Your Vitamin D Levels at Home!

Our in-home Vitamin D Test Kit is easy, affordable, and an accurate way to find out your Vitamin D status.

order NOW

We need your help!

We're spreading awareness on Vitamin D Deficiency
Donate NOW
Latest Articles
img
Amber Tovey steps down from the Vitamin D Council

Today, we say farewell to our Program Manager, Amber Tovey. Though bittersweet, we are proud of her for pursuing her goal of becoming a Pharmacist.

Weekly Newsletter