Vitamin D, a secosteroid hormone produced naturally in our skin, is critical for our health. Despite this, Vitamin D deficiency is alarmingly prevalent, primarily due to insufficient sun exposure and the limited presence of Vitamin D in food sources.
Existing government guidelines on Vitamin D intake may be falling short when it comes to ensuring adequate levels for optimal health. The current recommended daily amount of Vitamin D, according to the Mayo Clinic, is 400 international units (IU) for children up to age 12 months, 600 IU for people between 1 and 70 years old, and 800 IU for people over 70 years old. However, emerging research on Vitamin D supplementation suggests that these levels may need to be reconsidered.
A groundbreaking study published in the Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2019 May;189:228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2018.12.010) by Patrick J McCullough, Douglas S Lehrer, and Jeffrey Amend is challenging the status quo. This seven-year study explored the effects of daily oral dosing of Vitamin D3 using 5000 to 50,000 international units (IUs) in long-term hospitalized patients. The results are hard to ignore.
The study revealed that a large number of patients exhibited significant Vitamin D deficiency at the time of admission, which can contribute to a myriad of health issues, including asthma, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, rickets, and tuberculosis. The patients agreed to daily supplementation of 5000 to 10,000 IUs, and some, considering their disease concerns, agreed to larger amounts, up to 50,000 IUs/day. Remarkably, there have been no cases of Vitamin D3 induced hypercalcemia or any adverse events attributable to the Vitamin D3 supplementation. Furthermore, patients with conditions such as psoriasis showed marked clinical improvement with higher Vitamin D3 doses.
These findings suggest that the current recommended daily amounts of Vitamin D could be drastically underestimated. They show that long-term supplementation with Vitamin D3 in doses ranging from 5000 to 50,000 IUs/day appears to be safe and potentially more beneficial than the currently recommended amounts.
Given the prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency and its associated health risks, McCullough, Lehrer, and Amend's study highlights the urgent need for a reassessment of our government's Vitamin D guidelines. Their work emphasizes the importance of increased awareness, proactive screening, and adjusted supplementation strategies to promote better health outcomes. The time to rethink our approach to Vitamin D is now.
As we wrap up our exploration into the world of Vitamin D3 supplementation, we invite you to join the conversation. What do you think about the findings of this study and its implications for our current Vitamin D guidelines? Have these insights made you reconsider your Vitamin D intake, or do they validate what you've been practicing all along?
Your experiences and thoughts are invaluable. If you're comfortable sharing, we'd love to know the level of Vitamin D3 you currently take. Have you noticed any health improvements since starting supplementation? Or perhaps you've faced challenges?
Please share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below. By fostering a dialogue, we can learn from each other, challenge our preconceptions, and work towards a healthier future together. We look forward to hearing your insights on this critical health issue.