RE: Vitamin D May Prevent Colds And Flu
Thank you for your article, I found another publication from 2010 confirming a similar hypothesis. Would you mind discussing other important functions of Vitamin D from your professional perspective? I have been interested in the topic for several years and have been supplementing Vitamin D in relatively high doses (1000 IU 2-3 times a week, sometimes daily) and subjectively I have had a LOT less colds, so my personal experience also speaks for what the researchers found. However, there seem to be many other benefits of having adequate levels of Vitamin D, more in the range >50 nmol/L I have read several times, but the <25 nmol/L are commonly referred too, why is there such a discrepancy? Other sources I have read claim for example that:
- Vitamin D reduces the risk of multiple sclerosis1
- Vitamin D decreases chances of developing heart disease2
- Vitamin D might help with depression3 4
- Vitamin D seems to have a positive effect for those who try to lose weight5
From my point of view it seems that Vitamin D is way too undervalued/underrated when considering possible risks. Vitamin D is less toxic than water...assuming 2.5 liters/day are recommended, four times that, e.g. 10 liters/day could kill you, except of course you're sweating a lot. For a very high "safe" dose of daily Vitamin D intake of 4000IU6 it would need 25 times that ammount to even start showing symptoms of an overdose. But I'm getting sidetracked here =). My main question for you is: What is the reason Vitamin D gets relatively little attention compared to the possible benefits of supplementing it?
Even increasing the commonly recommended daily dose of 400IU to let's say a 1000UI per day seems to be impossible, regardless of all the studies that show evidence of higher doses being beneficial for the mostly "indoorsy" lifestyle people in the western world have. Why would that be? Do interests of the pharmaceutical industry possibly play a role here? (Vitamin D is relatively cheap).
Looking forward to reading your comment or another article about the subject!
The main reason I think is that the previous meta-analyses have had mixed results.
It's possible but I think if Vitamin D did become "big" they would come out with a branded version. I think it is more likely that being a vitamin it doesn't get as much attention as other new agents because it is not "glamorous".