Vit D war: who is right:?

Just like most things- One group is for it the other against. To stretch or not to stretch? High Carb or Low Carb Diet? High Mileage, or quality workouts? Barefoot/minimalist or cushioned trainers? Weights or Just Run?

My summary of the first article.

New panel refutes prior findings that vitamin D is beneficial as unsupportable based on unsupportable claims that vitamin D may be harmful

The Vitamin D issue has been and is currently in flux. The general opinion of the medical community has been that roughly half of all people (in the US, at least, which is relevant since Vitamin D is tied to sun exposure) are deficient in Vitamin D.

However, they are currently revising this train of thought and reassessing whether this is really the case, or whether the amount of Vitamin D currently recommended is unnecessarily high.

Basically, at this point it's an issue of whether half the people are failing to meet a reasonable standard, or whether the standard is not, in fact, reasonable.

Most people living in colder climates are Vit D deficient, at least during the winter months, and especially if the person has darker skin. Vit D is important in proper immune function, which partially explains why people tend to get sick in the winter. Vit D is lipid soluble (you don't just pee it out) and thus there has been concern for toxicity due to buildup, but so far there is no evidence of toxicity from Vit D supplements, even at high doses. Most Vit D supplements provide around 1000 IUs; considering standing out in the sun in shorts for half an hour provides over 10,000 IUs, it's unlikely anyone will overdose from a vit D supplement. Those who are deficient sometimes take as much as 25,000 IUs a day until their levels return to the normal range.

Vit D supplements are almost certainly unnecessary for anyone who spends a significant amount of time outdoors with a fair amount of skin exposed, but is almost certainly beneficial for those living in cold climates during the winter months.

Just some anecdotal evidence, I was feeling pretty crappy on runs for about 3 weeks, started taking vit D and started to feel better on my runs about two days later. I didn't actually have my levels checked, and I can't say it wasn't something else, but given what I know I'm going to keep taking the supplements until spring.

biggus dickus wrote:

My summary of the first article.

New panel refutes prior findings that vitamin D is beneficial as unsupportable based on unsupportable claims that vitamin D may be harmful

lol, that is actually an excellent point. I posted a first version of this thread with more detail but got an error message when I hit submit.

But that was one of the things I noticed. Robertson MD (pro D) said that "It's hard to take too much vit D as toxicity is exceedingly rare."

Whereas the NYT (anti D) says "Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive...."

In other words, exactly as you state it, BD.

NPR did a piece on this last week. You can probably find it on their site. Based on some new research, 600 IUs is now the recommended supplement dose if you don't have a diagnosed deficiency.

According to the interviewee, earlier assumptions that most people are deficient have been debunked.

I'll say that my personal experience is that an extra 2000 IUs seemed to make a difference for me in terms of muscle recovery. I used to get a lot of calf tightness and knots, but 2-3 weeks into the addition of the extra Vit D these symptoms subsided, and I was able to increase mileage more comfortably.

I take 3,000 IU a day and my recovery and general mood has improved.

Michael Colgan just put up a response in his newsletter, which can be downloaded on his website colganinstitute.com