They do not differentiate or take into account a person’s unique medical history, genetics, dietary intake, clinical symptomatology, environmental conditions including sunlight exposure or biochemical and nutritional assessment. Facts like these are not taken into account in the new DRIs.Īn important distinction to keep in mind is that the DRI’s are intended as general population based guidelines. Vitamin D is a very complex and fascinating nutrient that has multiple roles and effects in the body beyond bone health. These go well beyond bone health and include cancer, depression, imbalances in the immune system, heart disease and many others. New Vitamin D Recommendations: Are They Enough?Īlthough I agree with an increase in the DRI’s for vitamin D, I feel the new DRIs are overly cautious, and I am disappointed that the panel failed to address a large volume of compelling research showing the benefits of optimal vitamin D intake in so many conditions. Here is what I think about the new vitamin D recommendations based on a synthesis of all this information. Collectively we have 100 years of reviewing nutrition research and applying it with thousands of patients. I have reviewed the report carefully and gathered input from international experts on vitamin D and the clinical team at my medical center-which includes four master’s degrees in nutrition, authors of textbooks on nutrition, and international leaders in nutrition education for physicians and dietitians. Confusion is rampant about the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI’s) for Calcium and Vitamin D recently released from the Institute of Medicine.
ONE DAY, VITAMIN D seems like the cure for everything, and the next, we are inundated with warnings about dangers and lack of science.
0 kommentar(er)
