The Insititute of Medicine (IOM) which has assumed the responsibility for establishing the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for the American public has released a new report the DRI for Vitamin D and Calcium. The full report is available and can be read online at NAS site in the report Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D.
This report basically suggests that the normal serum vitamin D levels should be 20 ng/ml
50 ng/ml (my mistake I read the units wrong) and that adults like me (a 50 year old male) should have a Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of 1,000 IUs and a upper level intake of 2,500 IUs. **edit Now I'm really whacked cause the report actually seems to say that at levels below 30-80 ng/ml bone loss occurs.
I'm sorry, I have had my Vitamin D levels tested. I, like many diabetics, have low Vitamin D. In order for me to barely achieve the "normal" serum levels of 50 ng/dl, I have to take 8-10,000 IUs/day. That is 10 times the RDA and 4 times the maximum. And I get far more sun than my doctors are happy with. Is something wrong here?
I think the report is weak, but my biggest concern is that we are going to get the same cr*p from the ADA and the ADtA (that is the American Diabetes Association and American Dietetic Association). The ADtA has taken the position that what is good for non-diabetics must be good for diabetics. They do this with nutrition and I fully expect this position to be taken with Vitamin D (and Calcium).
Who is standing up to formulate appropriate advice for diabetics? Until I see some adults stand up, I'm going to stick with my apparently dangerous 10,000 IUs/day of vitamin D.
What do you think?