Back in 2010 there was much buzz in the scientific research community about the impending change in recommendation for adequate levels of vitamin D. Researchers who studied vitamin D and were amassing the tsunami of research that was accumulating since 2008 were advocating 2,000 IU/day.
The more politically tuned-in were suggesting that the conservative Institutes of Medicine might hedge their bets and go with only 1,000 IU/day.
When the IOM came out with their pronouncement, inveterate Pollyannas could manage only a tepid golf clap at the doubling of levels—albeit to only 800 IU/day.
Now, a new study published this week by researchers at Loyola University have calculated that 78.7 million adults once considered to have insufficient vitamin D levels now have sufficient levels under the new guidelines, which deem sufficient blood levels of 25-hydroxycholecalciferol (aka, vitamin D) to be 20 ng/ml.
No vitamin D researcher agrees with this level. They will all tell you the bare minimum should be set at 30 ng/ml, which is fully 50 percent higher. And progressive physicians encourage patients to get levels at 50 ng/ml or higher.
Where do you think vitamin D levels should be set? Comment below.