The true RDA for vitamin D is about 10 times higher than the IOM has said – not a small error. Read on to understand how this might have happened and why this is important. | |
The IOM Miscalculated Its RDA For Vitamin D,
by Dr. Robert Heaney
| |
Dear Jen,
Written by Robert P. Heaney, M.D., reviewed for updates by Cedric Garland, Dr. PH.
The year 2014 saw an unusual event. Two statisticians at the University of Edmonton in Canada (Paul Veugelers and JP Ekwaru) published a paper in the online journal Nutrients (Volume 6; Issue 10: pp. 4472-5) showing that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error in its recommended dietary allowance (RDA) for vitamin D. Immediately other statisticians checked the Canadians’ analyses and found that, indeed, they were right. Together with my colleagues at GrassrootsHealth, I went back to square one, starting with a different population entirely, and came to exactly the same conclusion. The true RDA for vitamin D was about 10 times higher than the IOM had said. Not a small error. To understand how this might have happened and why this is important, some background may be helpful.
| |
An RDA is technically the amount of a nutrient every member of a population should ingest to ensure that 97.5% of its members would meet a specified criterion of nutritional adequacy. For vitamin D, the IOM panel determined that the criterion for adequacy was a serum concentration of a particular vitamin D derivative (25-hydroxyvitamin D) of 20 ng/mL or higher, and that for adults up to age 70, 600 IU of vitamin D per day was the RDA.
Both of those figures provoked immediate and unprecedented dissent from a diverse group of nutritional scientists, but the disagreement centered mostly around the IOM panel’s reading and interpretation of the evidence, rather than its calculation of the RDA. The Edmonton statisticians took the dissent a step further, showing that the actual calculation was itself wrong. Here’s what seems to have happened.
| |
Not everyone gets the same response to a given intake of any particular nutrient. Some individuals require more than others to reach the specified target, and while the average response to a certain dose of vitamin D may be above the target level, a substantial fraction of a population can still be below it. The RDA will always be higher than the average requirement, and for some nutrients, substantially so. As a consequence, ensuring that every member of a population receives the RDA guarantees that 97.5% of that population will be getting at least enough, while some will be getting more than they actually need.
The IOM panel identified a number of published studies showing the 25-hydroxyvitamin D response to various vitamin D doses. They plotted the average response in each of those studies against dose, thereby generating what is termed a dose response curve. This is a way to estimate how much of a response would be predicted for any given vitamin D intake. But, to make a long story short, because it used average responses, that curve tells us nothing about the intake requirement for the individual members of a population, and particularly those whose response to a given dose falls in the bottom 2.5 percentile. The IOM panel surely knew that the average intake required to meet or exceed 20 ng/mL was not the same as the RDA, as it would be inadequate for all those with below average responses (about half the population). So, to catch the “weak” responders, they calculated the 95% probability range around their dose response curve, designating as the RDA the point where the bottom end of that probability range exceeded 20 ng/mL. While this might seem to have been the right approach, it was not. The panel appears to have overlooked the fact that the 95% probability range for their curve is for the average values that would be expected from similar studies at any particular dose. The dispersion of averages of several studies is much more narrow than dispersion of individual values within a study around its own average. And it’s the 2.5th percentile individual values from those studies, not the study averages, that should have been used to create the relevant dose response curve.
It’s this latter approach that the Canadian statisticians used. They took precisely the same studies as the IOM had used and demonstrated that the requirement to ensure that 97.5% of the population would have a value of at least 20 ng/mL, was 8,895 IU per day. Recall that the IOM figure was less than 1/10 that, i.e. 600 IU per day up to age 70 (and 800 IU per day thereafter). When my colleagues and I analyzed the large GrassrootsHealth dataset, we calculated a value closer to 7,000 IU per day, still a full order of magnitude higher than the estimate of the IOM, and not substantially different from the estimate of Veugelers and Ekwaru.
| |
Previous Posts in this Series | |
About Dr. Robert P. Heaney | |
Dr. Heaney was a full time professor at Creighton University who also donated his time and energy, starting in 2012 until his passing in 2016, as Research Director at GrassrootsHealth. In this capacity Dr. Heaney consulted on studies, methodologies, and how to best change public health direction. Dr. Heaney provided nearly 50 years of advancements in our understanding of bone biology, osteoporosis, and human calcium and vitamin D physiology. He is the author of three books and has published over 400 original papers, chapters, monographs, and reviews in scientific and educational fields. At the same time, he has engaged nutritional policy issues and has helped redefine the context for estimating nutrient requirements. Dr. Heaney was presented a lifetime achievement award in the US House of Representatives on November 10, 2015 (Watch the video here). He was an inspiration to researchers everywhere – his intellect, dedication, integrity, and caring was unsurpassed.
Read more about Dr. Heaney and a few of his accomplishments here.
| |
|
The BIG Mistake by the IOM
Video: The math and science used to determine recommended vitamin D serum levels and supplementation amounts, and where the IOM got it wrong... Watch Now
| | | |
|
Current Recommendations are Too Low
The debate over current medical recommendations for vitamin D…
Read More
| | | |
|
Dr. Patrick McCullough Shares about his Experiences with Vitamin D in Practice
Why is there so much confusion about vitamin D? Dr. Patrick McCullough, MD, discusses the IOM’s vitamin D recommendations... Read More
| | | |
Measure Your Levels Today! | All purchases support vitamin D research and education. Measure your vitamin D and other important levels at home as part of the D*action project! Create your custom home test kit or choose from our top products below. |
|
How Much Vitamin D do YOU Need to Get to 40 ng/ml (100 nmol/L)? | |
Did you know that everyone responds differently to vitamin D supplement amounts - by up to 6 times!? | |
At GrassrootsHealth, we are well aware that the quality of a supplement MATTERS. Our Trusted Brands advocates have met specific criteria to show proven quality, absorption, strength, composition, purity, and safety.
Save from the following brands while also supporting GrassrootsHealth.
| |
Collaborators in Efficacy Research Projects | |
Sperti Vitamin D Sunlamps
The Sperti Vitamin D Sunlamp, model D/UV-F, provides the special UVB rays needed for your body to produce Vitamin D. It is the only FDA recognized ultraviolet product for Vitamin D production in the human body, and independent studies have verified its effectiveness.
Look for our special project enrollment opportunity with Sperti!
See how the Vitamin D Sunlamp works for you: Save 10% with Coupon Code GRASSROOTS
| |
Highly Absorbed Magnesium
Dr. Carolyn Dean is a medical doctor, naturopath, and author of over 35 books including best seller The Magnesium Miracle. With 40 years of experience, she offers proprietary, unique formulations that give every individual at any stage of wellness or illness the necessary building blocks for sustained health, vitality and well-being.
Save 10% with Coupon Code GRH
| |
The Helen Knoll Foundation
The Helen Knoll Foundation (HKF) mission is to prevent breast cancer by empowering young women through risk awareness education, advocacy and access to age appropriate screenings. HKF with GrassrootsHealth is launching the Know YOUR Number campaign to help Stop Breast Cancer Before it Starts by working with local groups to provide vitamin D blood spot testing and project enrollment events.
| |
Have a Beautiful and Healthy Day! Onwards, | |
GrassrootsHealth
315 S. Coast Hwy 101, Suite U-87
Encinitas, CA 92024
(760) 579-8141
| | | | | | |