|
It has long been
recognized that vitamin
D is not a nutrient in the usual sense, because it is
not found naturally in most of the foods that our ancestors
consumed. However, people who live in northern latitudes or
who do not receive enough sun exposure to synthesize vitamin
D naturally in the skin need to supplement their diets with
it. Vitamin D became widely known as a nutrient when it was
found that fish liver oil supplements, which contain vitamin
D, all but eliminated rickets.
The Food and Nutrition
Board (FNB) established serum 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (25(OH)D)
as the functional indicator for vitamin D in 1997. The RDA
of vitamin D is 600 units, an amount that was found to maintain
a constant concentration in the body over the winter months.
However, this value presumes that the body would have acquired
tissue stores of vitamin D during the summer months.
A new study attempted
to estimate the amount of vitamin D input required to reach
or maintain any given serum 25(OH)D concentration, including
that in people without substantial body stores of vitamin
D.
It is commonly
known by clinicians and investigators that the standard multivitamin
dose of vitamin D, which usually contains 400 units/dose,
produces little change in measured serum 25(OH)D. Researchers
from this study calculated that vitamin D from food and supplement
sources should provide less than 15 percent of the total amount
required to sustain an ideal serum 25(OH)D.
Therefore, researchers
say that the FNB recommendation for vitamin D adds little
to the usual daily production in people with a lot of sun
exposure and does not provide a sufficient amount to achieve
desired 25(OH)D concentrations in those with little sun exposure.
Researchers of
this study, some of the top vitamin D researchers in the world,
found that a value of 2000 IU vitamin D per day for the tolerable
upper input level is still too low. Several other groups have
also found that current vitamin D input recommendations are
inadequate, leading many to suggest that the currently recommended
amounts should be reconsidered.
American
Journal Clinical Nutrition January 2003;77:204-210
|