Posted by Larry Hoover on August 21, 2007, at 17:38:26
In reply to Re: SSRIs and bone loss » Larry Hoover, posted by Quintal on August 21, 2007, at 17:01:46
> Well I've taken multivitamins containing vitamin D for years, long before I started taking psych meds, so I hope that confers some protection. I suspect you're going to tell me I'm not taking enough though?
It depends on many variables....however, it is my belief that >90% do not obtain an optimal intake of this vitamin.
> >Maybe SSRIs do inhibit the blasts....but vitamin D activates them.
>
> I trust you know better than me on that Lar, though we'd need controlled trials to demonstrate that vitamin D was actually effective in reversing/preventing SSRI-induced bone loss. It seems exposure to TCAs may also be a risk factor. I wonder what the powers that be are going to do about this?If vitamin D is not the solution, then I really don't know what might work in its place....apart from drugs such as Fosamax. Yes, the whole thing needs more study.
> >Vitamin D intake recommendations are being constantly increased. Last I saw, there were doctors lobbying for an RDA of about 4000 IU/day.
>
> My multivitamin supplement falls well short of that at 5 micrograms/day.I believe the conversion is 5 mcg = 200 IU. That's modest, in current thinking.
> 4000IU seems to be well above the current U.S. Dietary Reference Intake Tolerable Upper Intake Level:
> __________________________________________________
>
> The exact long-term safe dose of vitamin D is not entirely known, but dosages up to 60 micrograms (2,400 IU) /day in healthy adults are believed to be safe.[8] The U.S. Dietary Reference Intake Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) of vitamin D for children and adults is 50 micrograms/day (2000 IU/day).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calciferol#Overdose
> __________________________________________________
>
> QIndeed, but as mentioned in this one example of the debate I alluded to, that level was set in 1997, based on data obtained much earlier than that.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Jan;85(1):6-18.
Risk assessment for vitamin D.Hathcock JN, Shao A, Vieth R, Heaney R.
Council for Responsible Nutrition, Washington, DC 20036-5114, USA. jhathcock@crnusa.orgThe objective of this review was to apply the risk assessment methodology used by the Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) to derive a revised safe Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for vitamin D. New data continue to emerge regarding the health benefits of vitamin D beyond its role in bone. The intakes associated with those benefits suggest a need for levels of supplementation, food fortification, or both that are higher than current levels. A prevailing concern exists, however, regarding the potential for toxicity related to excessive vitamin D intakes. The UL established by the FNB for vitamin D (50 microg, or 2000 IU) is not based on current evidence and is viewed by many as being too restrictive, thus curtailing research, commercial development, and optimization of nutritional policy. Human clinical trial data published subsequent to the establishment of the FNB vitamin D UL published in 1997 support a significantly higher UL. We present a risk assessment based on relevant, well-designed human clinical trials of vitamin D. Collectively, the absence of toxicity in trials conducted in healthy adults that used vitamin D dose > or = 250 microg/d (10,000 IU vitamin D3) supports the confident selection of this value as the UL.
I have seen literature that supports 4,000 IU as the a physiological median requirement for normalization of blood chemistry. That's not to say that more might not yet be superior, but that less *is* deficient.
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:777598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070815/msgs/777633.html