Jump to content

John McDougall Warns on VItamin D pills


RAINRA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Vitamin D Pills Are of Little or No Benefit and Some Harm. So What to Do Now?

 

According to popular opinions coming from friends, family, and physicians, most people are vitamin D deficient and in need of supplementation with pills. Evidence suggests that more than 40% of the worlds population is vitamin D deficient (1). A recent report from a Scottish doctor found only 2% of his patients had a sufficient vitamin D concentration (75 nmol/L or above), and 47% had a severe deficiency (below 25 nmol/L) (2). Low vitamin D levels found in the blood are a clear indication that there is a worldwide problem of sunlight deficiency. Rather than correct the problem and encourage people to expose themselves to more of this natural element, the solution has become another druga supplement pill sold as vitamin D.

 

According to the authors of a landmark editorial just published in the March 2, 2010 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, Despite the promise for disease prevention suggested by available studies, we believe that the evidence for widespread use of high-dose vitamin D supplementation in the general population remains insufficient. Even though the supplements translate into higher levels of vitamin D in the blood, expected benefits of reductions in the occurrences of common diseases are lacking.

 

Recent vitamin frenzies over the recommendations for the widespread use of antioxidants, folic acid, vitamin E, and beta-carotene provide lessons about vitamin supplements that must not be forgotten. When the proper research was finally done, the results backfired. More heart disease, cancer, and overall death were discovered in those taking these isolated concentrated nutrients (4-9). Each of the above nutrients is originally found in edible plants. In these perfect packages these nutrients provide for excellent health, prevent and cure diseases, and prolong life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I never liked McDougall but a lot of people are totally in love with him. This, however, is bullshit.

 

There's nothing to suggest that vitamin D supplementation is harmful. Citing supplementation of other isolated compounds means nothing, especially the last sentence about edible plants since that doesn't even apply to D. Interesting how he doesn't include Vitamin C in that list.

 

In fact, supplemental Vitamin D has been shown to help a wide range of ailments, most notably rickets: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vitamin-d/NS_patient-vitamind/DSECTION=evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a few main issues that I really disagree with McDougall on and Vitamin D is def one of them. He should know that the sun isn't enough all year around in some countries and that the only way to maintain acceptable vitamin D levels during the winter is to supplement. Of course if scandinavians started supplementing with vitamin D the whole "high milk consumption high osteoperosis" idea and the never ending charts that go along with it would be useless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely disagree with him on the vitamin D issue. Ideally, yes, sunshine is best. It has benefits that isolated vitamin D does not. It just isn't always available. UV lamps might be the best alternative, but I haven't looked into them that much. I know Dr. Fuhrman supports daily D supplementation, and adds light therapy to that if you have issues with SAD. I think light therapy is a great idea for anyone, and will buy a light once I get around to it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chrisjs is totally right. Pointing to other vitamins and saying that proves taking vitamin D is useless is retarded. You can check your vitamin D levels, and a repeat blood test after supplementation can prove that taking the pills worked. Vitamin D deficiency has some good, strong data to support its link to things like osteoporosis and prostate cancer. So if the vitamin D pills have corrected the deficiency, and the deficiency has been strongly linked to a number of health problems, it stands to reason that vitamin D supplementation has helped you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chrisjs is totally right. Pointing to other vitamins and saying that proves taking vitamin D is useless is retarded. You can check your vitamin D levels, and a repeat blood test after supplementation can prove that taking the pills worked. Vitamin D deficiency has some good, strong data to support its link to things like osteoporosis and prostate cancer. So if the vitamin D pills have corrected the deficiency, and the deficiency has been strongly linked to a number of health problems, it stands to reason that vitamin D supplementation has helped you.

Read the last sentence from the newsletter link I posted. Please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

chrisjs is totally right. Pointing to other vitamins and saying that proves taking vitamin D is useless is retarded. You can check your vitamin D levels, and a repeat blood test after supplementation can prove that taking the pills worked. Vitamin D deficiency has some good, strong data to support its link to things like osteoporosis and prostate cancer. So if the vitamin D pills have corrected the deficiency, and the deficiency has been strongly linked to a number of health problems, it stands to reason that vitamin D supplementation has helped you.

Read the last sentence from the newsletter link I posted. Please

 

 

The lesson is: Natural is best when it comes to food and sunshine.

or

34) Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, et al. Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008;93(3):677-681.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full article is better, would have been nice if the OP included a link to that instead of just pasting without a source.

 

Anyway, I still think the "warning" over their safety is a bit alarmist and he overestimates how easy it is for most people to get proper sun exposure year-round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, this sounds like bullshit. If you're really worried though you can always invest in a UV lamp. That's what Jack Norris (the dude who runs veganhealth.org) uses.

 

I asked him if people who use those things should be concerned about skin cancer and he wrote back that he didn't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...