Older Adults Need More Vitamin D

Not only do older people require more vitamin D, but so do people of color, people who do not go in the sun, those wearing clothing that fully covers the body from head to toe, but those dealing with obesity (this group may need up to 5x greater doses).

Find our many articles on Vitamin D using the search box.  You can also order the vitamin D test and your quality vitamin D supplements to help support Natural Health News.

By Mike Stones, 18-May-2010

Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review.

The study, Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults?, concluded that: “The doses and total time for repleting older adults with vitamin D3 appeared to be greater than for younger adults, in part due to the lower starting baseline vitamin D status.”

Oral supplementation

To ensure almost all patients receive sufficient vitamin D, a daily dose of 125 mcg (5000 IU) is required for older people, aged 65 and above, while for younger patients, below the age of 65, a rate above 50 mcg (2000 IU) was sufficient.

The results applied whether Vitamin D was taken daily or as a bolus oral supplementation. Adults classed as deficient were those with levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D less than 75 nmol/L.

The researchers further concluded that several regimens, such as loading with a high dose (12500 mcg) of vitamin D3 and then giving 1250 mcg monthly, provide enough vitamin D3 for most patients to achieve and maintain 25(OH)D levels at or above 75 nmol/L.

According to the research review, a promising loading regimen is to provide calcidiol (25(OH)D) itself.

Since information on repletion with vitamin D2 has been published recently, the researchers decided to focus on the use of vitamin D3 from dietary supplements, prescriptions for large oral doses, and bolus dosing or injections.

Most published dosing regimens failed to achieve 75 nmol/L in almost all subjects, whether young adults (below 65 years) or older adults (above 65 years).

The authors, Susan Whiting, College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Mona Calvo, US Food and Drug Administration, noted many differences among studies, including baseline levels, endpoints, study duration, and compliance.

Adverse effects

All the studies reviewed reported that subjects were free of adverse effects, indicating that the vitamin D3 protocols were safe during the observed dosing periods.

Meanwhile, the researchers noted that: “Vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency is at epidemic proportions worldwide. In temperate countries more than half of the population is at risk and worldwide, even in tropical countries, vitamin D deficiency is a very serious concern due to changes in living and working conditions.”

Vitamin D has been shown convincingly to have many functions beyond its role in calcium and bone health, they added.

In addition to maintaining normal blood levels of calcium and phosphorus, Vitamin D aids in the absorption of calcium, helping to form and maintain strong bones. Recently, research also suggests vitamin D may provide protection from osteoporosis, hypertension, cancer, and several autoimmune diseases.

Source: Molecular Nutrition and Food Research -

Title: Correcting poor vitamin D status: Do older adults need higher repletion doses of vitamin D3 than younger adults? Authors: S. Whiting, M.Calvo

Older adults need higher remedial doses of vitamin D deficiency: Study: "Older adults suffering vitamin D deficiency need higher remedial doses than younger adults, according to a new research review."

EU Moves to Block Natural Health Care

As the European Union (EU) moves to limit right of choice and access to supplements, while turning over this industry to Big PhRMA, the plan there will have an impact in the US and other countries.

If you read Natural Health News you are aware of the shift in ownership of supplement firms to PhRMA, and you know too that PhRMA is boosting sales by promoting engineered supplement type Rx drugs.

Here's what's ahead in the EU - "From What Doctors Don't Tell You" - email news Aug. 2010.

How Big Pharma plans to kill off alternative medicine
Within two years, nutritional medicine - as a viable alternative therapy to conventional medicine and pharmaceuticals - will be a shadow of its current self in Europe. By then, four laws will be fully implemented throughout the European Union, and they will effectively remove consumer choice. In 2012, the only show in town - in terms of genuine therapy - will be prescription drugs. This bleak landscape - and what we all can still do about it before it's too late.

From 2012: High-dose vitamins will be barred, and will be available only by prescription from your doctor, who may be less than sympathetic.
a.. sales of health products will start to slow as manufacturers will be barred from making even the most obvious claim for their product
b.. Chinese and ayurvedic herbs will start disappearing from the shelves
c.. Herbal practitioners in the UK may be going out of business unless they can get themselves registered to a standard acceptable to the EU. They have until April next year to do this.
If you care about nutritional and alternative medicine - and if it's an important part of your life - you need to know what's happening now.  - 'The assault on natural medicine'.

No matter where you are, if this issue is important to you, tell your Member of Congress that you want freedom of choice and right of access, and coverage under health insurance for supplements.

Natural Medicine was cut from health insurance reform.

Most doctors are not sympathetic nor do they know about nutrition or therapeutic use of supplements.

What Health Stores are Permitted to Tell You

There was a news report earlier today about problems with supplements.  I was laughing pretty loudly when the noon news interviewed one of the study's authors about colloidal silver.  She said it makes you turn blue, and this couldn't be further from the truth.

This information just arrived in another newsletter I receive, and it certainly is timely.

While ficused for those who own and operate health food stores, I think the consumer surely has a right to the information.  It can help you be a better and more informed natural health advocate and shopper.

By Charles J. Raubicheck, Esq., Sidley & Austin
Given the many DSHEA-related legal and regulatory developments over the past several years, natural products retailers often ask: "What can I say when selling supplements and not break the law?" To update retailers who sell dietary supplements as to what health-related information about their products they can properly give their customers, this guide is was created by Natural Products Association and Natural Products Foundation general counsel, Sidley Austin.
Verbal communications from retailer to customer about the health benefits of dietary supplements should be based on reliable information from suppliers and other sources. Typically, this information is documented in one or more of the written forms described below. Further, a retailer can convey product health benefits by providing access to, or by distributing, these written materials themselves.
Label and Package
The primary source of health information about dietary supplements is the list of claims made on the product label (including the package). Under DSHEA, suppliers of dietary supplements are permitted to make claims about their products called "statements of nutritional support" (which must be substantiated by data maintained by the supplier). These statements include claims about:

(a) a benefit relating to a classic nutrient deficiency disease;

(b) how a product affects any part of the structure of the human body, (e.g., "Glucosamine helps promote connective tissue"), or any function of the human body (e.g.,"Echinacea helps support the immune system");

(c) the mechanism of action by which a product acts to maintain body structure or function;

(d) general well being.

The most prevalent of these types of claims in the current marketplace are structure/function claims [(b)]. As a starting point, a retailer can use the body structure or function claims made on the label and package when telling customers about product benefits.
However, explicit claims about how a given dietary supplement may play a role in preventing or treating a particular disease condition are not permitted by the Dietary Supplement Health Education Act. Hence, structure/function claims are often vague, or not sufficiently specific for some consumers. The quandary often faced by the retailer is how to help this type of customer. Certain disease-specific information may be imparted to the customer, but only under the conditions explained in sections 3 through 6 below.

Promotional Literature
Structure/function claims can also be made in promotional materials for supplements e.g., brochures, booklets, flyers). These materials are allowed to be displayed and offered to consumers in retail stores. They are usually placed adjacent to the producton the shelf, in a product information section, or on a counter near a cash register.
Often, a supplier will make one or more structure/function claims in a promotional piece that is not made on the label or package. It therefore pays the retailer to be familiar with the promotional literature provided by suppliers.
Third Party Literature
Under DSHEA, publications written by third parties about the health benefits of dietary supplements may be distributed to consumers in connection with the sale of supplement products. This is so-called "third party literature."
Significantly, third party literature can lawfully discuss the role of dietary supplements in preventing or treating diseases, without subjecting the supplements to regulation by the FDA as drugs. To do so, the publication involved must satisfy all of the following conditions:

(i) it must be a reprint of an entire article authored by someone other than the supplier or retailer;
(ii) it must be physically separate in a store from the product it describes;
(iii) it must present a balanced view of available scientific information about the supplement and its health benefits;
(iv) it cannot mention the name of a manufacturer or the brand name of a product; and
(v) it cannot have any sticker or other information attached to it.

The obvious advantage to third party literature is that it can present health benefit information beyond structure/function claims, particularly statements about how a given dietary supplement can be useful in the prevention or treatment of some disease condition. Congress intentionally meant for consumers to have this type of information when it enacted the third party literature section of DSHEA. Many retailers may not be aware of this provision, or how to use it effectively.
To get the most advantage from third party literature, retailers should keep abreast of scientific studies or articles about particular dietary supplements, or request suppliers to supply them with third party literature pieces. Such pieces can be distributed by retailers directly to customers in retail stores (and can even be mailed with store catalogues). It is important, however, that these publications not mention particular companies or brands, or be displayed in a store in immediate physical proximity to the actual dietary supplements which are mentioned in the article.
Of notable importance, the piece should present a balanced view of available scientific information on the supplement being discussed. While neither Congress nor the FDA has defined "balanced" in the third party literature section of DSHEA, from other contexts this term can be construed to mean reporting or discussing negative or inconclusive studies as well as positive data, and not exaggerating benefits over known risks of taking a product.
To what extent can retailers talk to their customers about the information in a third party literature piece? This issue has not yet been addressed by the FDA or decided by the courts. While two recent court cases (Pearson and Washington Legal Foundation) suggest that some verbal communications about third party literature may be protected by the First Amendment, state laws governing the practice of medicine or pharmacy will have to be considered as well. Therefore, at this time, it is advisable to let third party literature pieces speak for themselves.
Software
Certain software programs that supply health benefit information about dietary supplements are available, and are intended for use in the retail sale context. The programs are designed to qualify as third party literature (note that DSHEA does not restrict the term "publication" to a published journal article). As such, specific diseases that supplements may help to prevent or treat are covered. These programs are offered for viewing by the consumer at kiosks or other discrete places, physically apart from supplement products, in a number of retail establishments.
Retailers should not verbally answer questions about, or summarize, software program information, for the reasons noted in section 3 above. They may tell consumers that they stock a particular type of dietary supplement, and where to find it in the store, but they should not mention particular companies or brands.
Book Section
DSHEA has an additional section whereby Congress explicitly recognizes the right of retailers to have separate sections in their stores (where no products are sold) in which they sell books and similar publications on dietary supplements. These books and publications can include information about disease prevention or treatment benefits of dietary supplements. They do not have to qualify as third party literature to do so.
Nonetheless, retailers should be careful about verbally summarizing books to customers; the publications are often lengthy, and may not always have balanced presentations about product-disease relationships. Again, the advisable course is to allow the books to speak for themselves.
Health Claims
Under the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, the FDA has approved some health benefit claims (called "health claims") for dietary supplements. Health claims communicate the message that particular supplements play a role in reducing the risk of the occurrence of particular disease conditions. The permitted claims for supplements include the benefit of calcium in reducing the risk of developing osteoporosis, and the benefit of folic acid taken during pregnancy in preventing neural tube birth defects. There are other health claims permitted for particular foods (e.g., the benefit of low fat foods in reducing the risk of developing cancer; the benefit of soy protein in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease).
Health claims can be made on labels, packages and promotional literature. Retailers can use these sources to deliver the pertinent health benefit messages for the products involved.
Nutritional Benefits
The nutritional benefits provided by many dietary supplements, which can be gleaned from the Supplement Facts box on the product label, statements of nutritional support, third party literature, and books and other publications on particular supplements, can also be verbally communicated by retailers to consumers.
One caveat in this regard: a number of states have enacted dietitians' laws, which define "nutritional information" and state or imply that only licensed dietitians have the right to provide it. There have been a few states where the right of dietary supplement retailers to give nutritional information to their customers has been challenged by dietitians. NPA has consistently opposed these efforts, taking the position that DSHEA and the First Amendment permit retailers to verbally supply nutritional information that is supported by truthful and non-misleading labeling and other publications. To date, NPA has been successful in protecting retailers in this regard. However, individual retailers should check their own state laws and if any questions arise, should contact NPA.

SOURCE: http://naturalproductsfoundation.org/index.php?cid=203479&src=gendocs&ref=DSHEA_Quiz&category=FoundationPrograms&curlid=124

Industry Friendly Pros and Cons

UPDATE 4 August: Following ABC World News story regarding supplements last evening I wrote to them stating my concern about thier bad journalism and their reporter's failure to interview any one directly related to the suplpement industry or qualified, such as myself, in the field of herbalism. 

The Nutrition Business Journal is a publication I receive regularly.  Today, based on the Diane Sawyer's news story on Consumer Reports most recent attack on supplements, they issued this response:

A Response to Consumer Reports’ Scary Supplements

Marc Brush August 3rd, 2010

There is a very clear takeaway from the cover story in September’s Consumer Reports (CR): Modern media thrives on fear. Modern media thrives on any number of heightened human emotional responses, but fear is one of the biggies. Add in a health scare, and you can (presumably) sell lots of magazines. In a piece titled, “The 12 Most Dangerous Supplements,” CR profiles several adverse outcomes from consumers of supplements who ingested tainted or overhyped products that sent their bodies into dramatic disarray. One man in Signal Mountain, Tenn. took a general health supplement overloaded with selenium and his fingernails fell off. A woman in Bartlesville, Okla. took colloidal silver to fight Lyme disease and her skin turned blue. A man in Janesville, Wis. took Hydroxycut to lose five pounds and developed acute hepatitis. These are tragic outcomes, worthy of spotlight, and certainly worthy of a healthy dose of fearmongering to prevent repeat occurrences.

What seems less worthy is the prominence of this coverage, and the sure-to-become-viral nature of its impact. My father just emailed me a link to the story this morning, and the issue has barely hit the stands. Watch the nightly news this week, and you’ll have to fight back an impulse to clear out your medicine cabinet.

From my perspective, what’s most newsworthy about the news from CR is the immateriality of the supplements in question, a so-called “dirty dozen.” Colloidal silver? Kava? Coltsfoot? These are not mainstream supplement products. This is, yet again, a bright spotlight choosing to shine on the dark alleys and niche markets of the industry.

Here at NBJ, we thrive on research and quantitative results to fundamentally drive our colorful, insightful and qualitative commentary. In fact, CR cites our sizing of the overall supplement market ($26+ billion in 2009) in the first paragraph of the story. Here are a few more stats:

Top 3 Supplements by 2009 Sales Volume
Multivitamins, $4.8 billion
Sports powders & formulas, $2.5 billion
B vitamins, $1.2 billion

Dirty Dozen Supplements by 2009 Sales Volume
Kava, $20 million
Bitter orange, $20 million
Yohimbe, $10 million

The other nine are too small to track independently, so we lump them into an Other Herbs & Botanicals bucket.

To its credit, CR has a serious and important mission to protect consumers from the likes of colloidal silver and other supplements with dangerously inaccurate label claims. I do not mean to disparage CR’s right and duty to report a story like this. What I do want to suggest, for CR and the rest of the modern mainstream media to hear with wide-open ears, is this: The supplement industry is too big and too nuanced now to paint with one coarse brush. There is earnest and important research happening around the 12 least dangerous supplements, whatever those might be, and reporting of that nature might be more useful, though less frightening, to a population of consumers looking to stay healthy in a broken health care system.

Let’s talk more about the $2.5 billion market for sports supplements, which CR rightly highlights as more prone than others to adulteration. And let’s talk more about the supplements CR profiles as popular and “likely” safe. There are some material sales levels at play here, so I’ll close with a few more stats:

CR’s 11 Supplements to Consider by 2009 Sales Volume
Calcium, $1.2 billion
Cranberry, $78 million
Fish oil, $976 million*
Glucosamine sulfate, $803 million**
Probiotics, $527 million***
Psyllium, $89 million
Pygeum, $7 million
SAMe, $123 million
St. John’s wort, $57 million
Vitamin D, $425 million

*NBJ tracks a collective fish/animal oil.
**NBJ tracks glucosamine with chondroitin.
***CR lists lactase and lactobacillus, which NBJ does not track independently.

As always, NBJ welcomes your comments.
Related NBJ links:

‘09 Sales Growth Sputters in Every Nutrition Category as Economy Takes its Toll
2010 Nutrition Industry Overview Web Seminar
Supplement Research

 http://blog.nutritionbusinessjournal.com/nbj/2010/08/03/a-response-to-consumer-reports-scary-supplements/

ORIGINAL POST: I find it very interesting when I see a major - and often global - corporation influencing Congress to achieve industry friendly legislation and big tax breaks.

For a very longtime, maybe more than twenty years now, these same influence-peddling, handout-seeking businesses are in bed with DC agencies, and many of their staff attorneys are writing the legislation that gets forced down the throats of the people.

A couple of items are on this list for me, one being the cellular industry, and a second being supplements.

We know the telecommunication giants wrote the recent telecommunications bill and for this reason alone you can point your finger at these folks for blocking health as an issue to prohibit putting up cell towers and proliferating antennas in your neighborhood or at your child's school. 

The flash point is that the cellular folks do know that these EMF generating devices do harm your health.  You can find the data in their patent applications.

At the same time your health is under attack by Big Corp, your right of access to health care of your choice and your right to use supplements for health is attacked.  These attacks are ramping up as Big PhRMA moves in to take over this lucrative market, and the companies that have made them for decades.

Examples are Nature's Way that was taken over probably 30 years ago now.  And the buyouts haven't stopped.

Following on this move, Big PhRMA tries to limit competition by patenting vitamins and selected constituents of  natural substances that have maintained health for centuries.

The next move comes in the marketing of expensive prescription supplements like the newly advertised Lovaza.


And all the while they try to undermine your thinking by telling you supplements are bad and they all are contaminated -

U.S. dietary supplements often contaminated

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor   Tue Aug 3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Many popular dietary supplements contain ingredients that may cause cancer, heart problems, liver or kidney damage, but U.S. stores sell them anyway and Americans spend millions on them, according to Consumer Reports.
The consumer magazine published a report on Tuesday highlighting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's lack of power to regulate such supplements, and said the agency rarely uses what little power it does have.
The report from the influential group urged Congress to speed up small moves toward giving the agency more clout, especially in regulating supplements.
Despite the "natural" labels carried by many of the supplements, many are contaminated.
Yet Americans flock to take them, according to the magazine, citing the Nutrition Business Journal as saying the market was worth $26.7 billion in 2009. Read more...

I've been using supplements since the 1950s.  I know what the health food market place was like long before the current state of affairs.  I often shudder at what and where people buy product, but for the most part the mass public is less than properly informed.

Their education isn't helped by ignorant health practitioners, government agencies in bed with the corporations, or biased media articles.

Yes, some supplements (herbs as mentioned mostly in this article) are questionable.  Relying on China for your products can be dicey, yet we have so little choice since Bill Clinton brought us NAFTA and GATT.

ADM profits are up and they corner the soy and canola market, mostly GMO, and they are dumping these ingredients in "plant sterol" hyped items that are supposed to heal you of everything.

The list goes on and the media, especially AP, play right into the propaganda machine.  Yes, they do want to limit your access to supplements in case you didn't know.

The gist is, you really have got to start learning more about what's in your supplements, why you use them, and the best forms of products to use to achieve the end result you seek. 

You can't learn this from Mike Adams!