home » blog »

New science-scare headlines on vitamin D and fracture reduction: pathetic

If you’re confused about the recent draft statement from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force about vitamin D and calcium — so are we! We hope that the final recommendations that follow this draft and my explanation of the scary — but incomplete headlines — will make more sense.

Regarding the report, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against daily supplementation with less than 400 IU of vitamin D and 1,000 mg of calcium for the prevention of fractures in postmenopausal women. At the same time, they report that there is not enough evidence to assess the benefits or harms of supplementation greater than 400 IU of vitamin D and 1,000 mg of calcium.

You may also remember that last year a similar, yet more generous report from the U.S. Institute of Medicine declared that between 600 and 800 IU of vitamin D were sufficient for postmenopausal women along with 1,200 mg of calcium from diet and supplements.

Both of these government proclamations met with an uproar from vitamin D researchers, and we can comfortably place both reports in the “pathetic” category. Here’s why:

- The catch here is that the government agencies have been looking at a series of older studies done using very low level vitamin D supplementation, 200 to 400 IU. These low levels of vitamin D are not effective and will do little good just as the new government reports suggest. However, these government reports do not take into account the many new articles on vitamin D that clearly show a dramatic fracture reduction benefit when higher levels of vitamin D are used and as a therapeutic blood level of vitamin D is achieved.

- The Task Force also implicates these supplements with the risk of kidney stones. As noted vitamin D authority, Dr. Robert Heaney of Creighton University, explains, kidney stones are NOT caused by vitamin D.

- In regards to these recent vitamin D recommendations, the operative word is LOW DOSE. As has long been noted by vitamin D researchers, there is a distinct blood level of vitamin D that is necessary to enhance calcium absorption, reduce parathyroid hormone levels, and thus provide for the reduction of fractures. If this blood level is not achieved, you will not see fracture-reduction benefits.

I have written about this vitamin D blood level threshold extensively, including a medical journal article in 2008 documenting the vast fracture reduction potential of vitamin D, when used in adequate doses. In fact, I and other researchers provide documentation to suggest that therapeutic levels of vitamin D may well reduce all osteoporotic fractures by a full 50%. I have also noted that no vitamin D clinical trial studies should be considered valid unless researchers document that the amount of vitamin D used was enough to reach the critical blood level required for optimal calcium absorption and thus for fracture reduction. That critical level, as established by Dr. Heaney, is at least 32ng/ml.

In essence, we at the Center for Better Bones agree that low-dose vitamin D should not be recommended for fracture reduction because it is ineffective. To the contrary of what the government task force suggests, we find ample documentation that reaching a therapeutic blood level of vitamin D (minimum of 32ng/ml) dramatically reduces fracture. You need to find out what your vitamin D blood level is and supplement if necessary. If you want more information on our perspective, check out some of my other vitamin D articles.

As for the calcium, we do not have any issue with the recommendation of a total from diet and supplementation of 1,200 mg. As I have been saying for years, calcium by itself neither prevents bone loss nor needless osteoporotic fractures. We need a balanced supply of at least 20 key nutrients, which come from diet and sunshine, and supplements as needed.

Do not let the scary headlines frighten you. Remember, you need to inform and empower yourself for Better Bones and a Better Body.

 

Related articles from Dr. Susan Brown about vitamin D
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/IOM-vitamin-d-recommendations.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/bonenutrition/vitamin-d.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/Can-vitamin-D-compete-with-bone-drugs.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/How-many-people-who-fracture-a-hip-are-vitamin-D-deficient-.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/Vitamin-D.aspx

Related articles from Dr. Susan Brown about calcium
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/calcium-doesnt-prevent-fractures.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/blog/post/vitamin-d-more-important-than-calcium.aspx
http://www.betterbones.com/bonenutrition/calciumandbone.aspx

 


We created the Better Bones blog as our forum to express opinions and educate the public about natural means of supporting and improving bone health and overall wellness. As part of this forum, we sometimes discuss medical issues and medications, and their effects on bone health in general. However, we cannot advise readers about specific medical issues in this forum. If you wish to obtain advice from Susan E. Brown, PhD, about your specific bone health and nutritional concerns, please visit our Consultations page. Other specific medical questions should be referred to your healthcare provider.

Comments

June 19. 2012 16:14

Thank you for this analysis, Dr. Brown! Do you know whether there are any studies that indicate whether the body will prefer calcium from food as opposed to from supplements? I'm just wondering about my practice of taking the Better Bones formula with say, my typical breakfast of yogurt with berries. If I'm understanding correctly, that might be more calcium than my system can absorb at one sitting and perhaps the supplemental calcium will be absorbed while the calcium in the food won't. Maybe I should discontinue this practice and take the supplements when I'm not eating a calcium-rich food.

Betsy

June 21. 2012 13:37

Dr. Brown, You were the first person I turned to when I read all the new "hoopla", and I am sighing right along with you. I, too, am interested in the kind of question(s) Betsy above is asking, as well as about plant-based calcium supplements vs. other sources. In general, elaboration on the timing/combo etc. ratio and food/supplement issues would be most illuminating. p.s. Why can't people be more careful/thorough in their reporting? Do they think we are all too stupid to "get it"?

Gloria

June 23. 2012 22:31

Dear Betsy and Gloria,
In most cases, it's best to take the food supplements with food, but it has been suggested that you can only absorb 500 milligrams of calcium a one time. In this sense it makes sense to spread your calcium supplements out over the day digging some of each meal. Best wishes, Susan

Susan Brown

July 2. 2012 13:44

Thank you Dr. Brown! I've been taking a supplement with 333 mg. of calcium, 167 mg. of magnesium and 17 mg. of zinc, as well as 4000 to 6000 IU of vitamin D and various other supplements as well. I'll make sure I spread my mineral supplements out during the day and take them with meals or snacks.

Don Randall

July 2. 2012 22:46

I'm concerned about people achieving adequate "calcium absorption" levels of Vitamin D (32) and ingesting 1200 mg Calcium ... IF ... they do not have adequate Magnesium consumption along with it.  That's where I think the concerns about Vitamin D levels are coming from - if you improve someone's calcium absorption and have good levels of consumption of calcium - but don't have adequate Magnesium to balance out the Calcium, then you risk Calcium going places in your body where you don't want it.  Wish Magnesium would get the attention it deserves - probably the most common deficiency in our diet!!

Lynn

July 3. 2012 16:04

Hello, I appreciate the information that I read on your site,Dr. Brown. I recently went to my endocrinologist because she understands
that I follow your site and seems to be willingly to order your
recommended tests. I am 64 and do not take 1,200 mg of calcium.
I mentioned that to her and she said it is best to get it from foods. I seem to be normal She got my PTH down to 68 from 100. Taking 3,500 I.U.'s of D has worked. I have read that elevated PTH
runs in families.I  am  scheduled for a bone and forearm density test in November. A year ago, I had severe osteopenia across the board. She is big on Forteo and somewhat on PRolia. I have told her
no to both at this point. I do not think the FDA have followed the
Forteo drug far enough and there is probably insufficient reporting.
I asked her about strontium because I heard Dr. OZ  suggesting this was o.k. What is your opinion on 685 mg of stontium? Thank you

irene

Add comment





Loading




Recent Posts