During its career, the white coated Disease Management Care Blog has pondered its patients' passion for “veetamins.” Years of experience led it to eventually conclude that linear “if-then” thinking had blessed vitamins with a special place in our dietary mania: if a lack causes disease, then an abundance should lead to well being. Even the word “vitamin” conjures up notions of vitality. The DMCB eventually concluded that its patients were caught up in a perfect storm made up of our collective fixation on easy answers combined with a naïve delight in anything with the patina of "science." Little wonder, then, that gazillions of vitamins pills are being sold with little to show for it, other than gazillions of gallons of vitamin-rich urine.
Enter the prestigious Institute of Medicine (IOM) on the topic of Vitamin D. The IOM sponsors expert consensus panels, workshops, committees, forums and round tables that opine on a number of medical issues while striving to be science-based and non biased. According to their recently released Vitamin D report, there really isn’t much good evidence to support bulking up on high doses of oral Vitamin D. Since average blood levels of Vitamin D in the U.S. and Canada are adequate to meet metabolic needs, it appears persons are already getting Vitamin D they need from normal and fortified foods. Finally, the evidence favoring Vitamin D as a health supplement is mostly based on observational studies that are prone to bias. As a result, they're not willing to agree that Vitamin D can reduce the risk of diseases like cancer.
The pic of vitamin D's chemical structure is from Wikipedia