Larissalle's Blog

Institute of Medicine Rules on Vitamin D


On 11/30/2010, the Institute of Medicine ruled on the daily minimum intake level for vitamin D.  While the ruling included a 300% increase in the lower intake level and a 200% increase in the upper intake level, and a much better minimum daily intake for seniors than previously, the ruling was far from what the research advisors on the panel recommended and expected.  An article is available about this subject:

The minimum intake of 200 IUs was ruled to be raised to 600 IU's and the upper intake level was ruled to be raised from 2,000 IU's to 4,000 IU's (with specific reference to pregnant/lactating women).  The daily intake was changed for people over 70 yrs of age from 200 IU's to 800 IU's minimum daily intake.

The strange thing about the Institute of Medicine's ruling is that they tripled and doubled the dosages and then basically said that claims about vitamin D are overrated and that the main function of vitamin D is for calcium absorption in the body.  Why would they have changed anything in the dosage recommendations if it is such an inconsequential substance?  Funny also that they didn't mention that vitamin D also enables phosphorus and magnesium absorption and that it enables gene expression.  Good heavens, gene expression, how much more fundamental can you get?

Vitamin D is very fundamental. By enabling gene expression, these DNA computer code sequences get translated into proteins with the help of magnesium.  Research shows that for each gene sequence, anywhere from 1 to 100 different proteins are made in our bodies, including insulin, proteins that enable calcium absorption, proteins that have immune-support functions, sex hormone regulating functions, and more.  There are even proteins that vitamin D enables that direct the body as to where to put the absorbed calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus, i.e., the bones, and when to stop putting these substances into the bones.  There are few substances in our body that are more fundamental than vitamin D. 

Vitamin D experts, including researchers, scientists, and MD's, say that we all need 50-80 ng/ml in our bloodstream every day.  Two reearchers Dr. James Cannell and Dr. Reinhold Vieth have said that our bodies consume 50 ng/ml per day,  Many vitamin D researchers have stated that every 100 IU's of vitamin D will raise the blood level (in the absence of digestive issues) by 1 ng/ml.  When my vitamin D level was tested, mine was found to be 17 ng/ml.  If I had followed the IOM recommendation of 600 IU's per day, my level would have increased by 6 ng/ml.  I would now be at 23 ng/ml, still deficient, and possibly still partially bedridden as I was for 8 months prior to finding a low D level.

For those of you who have been following my vitamin D posts, there is a petition that is listed in the article in the above link.  The petition asks the IOM to make its vitamin D ruling reports available for review. 

Post Comments

Add Your Comment!

Log in to leave a comment or Create an account


Thank you for posting this!  I'm fortunate that my M.D. is a functional medicine advocate.  Taking 5000 iu/ day of Vitamin D has not raised my level above 35 ng/ml in the last year.  She advised me to take 10,000 iu/ day and will recheck in 6 months.  Note that I'm a senior  > age 70 with gluten sensitivity.

» All comments
» Comments RSS


Last updated: 2/22/12ABOUT VITAMIN D AND VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY Please note: the...
Member since: 07/31/09
30 posts
RSS feed