Can I stop my Coumadin?

Here I go again.

While I will try to keep this blog on topic, i.e., coronary heart disease prevention and reversal using nutritional and other natural strategies, I believe that a "critical mass" of frequently asked, though off topic, questions keep cropping up.

One such question revolves around Coumadin, or warfarin.

Somehow, my Nattokinase scam blog post draws traffic about Coumadin. I tried to make the point that a conventional blood thinning agent like Coumadin that undoubtedly has undesirable side-effects cannot be replaced by an agent that has an uncertain track record. In the case of nattokinase, no track record.

To illustrate how far wrong the "nattokinase as replacement for Coumadin" idea can go, here is a question from Anna:


I came across your blog while perusing.

I am a bit bummed because I have been on Coumadin (warfarin) for around 22 years since I was 6 years old. I have a mechanical heart valve (St. Jude's), as I have heart-related issues, including hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy.

Well, it is just that the warfarin seems to interact with nearly everything. I feel like I can not get the nutrients my body requires. I desire to consume more raw foods and vegan foods, though I do not want anything to damage my heart valve or risk a stroke/heart attack or internal bleeding.

I have been underweight the majority of my life, malnourished , currently am still somewhat underweight, though enjoying food again, as I had what mimicked Crohn's Disease for several years (horrendous pain), from which I am in remission now. I was diagnosed with osteoporosis, which may or may not be caused from consuming warfarin.

Is it possible to get off of warfarin and effectively keep my blood thinned ? I currently take 1.5 mg to 2 mg dosage. Does the warfarin destroy Vitamin K and if so does that mean while on warfarin I never get the Vitamin K nutrients even if I did consume foods with it in it?

Thank you
Anna


No, sorry, Anna. Stopping Coumadin with your unique issues, i.e., a prosthetic mechanical heart valve (likely mitral, judging by your history of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, in which the patterns of blood flow ejected from the heart disrupt the natural mitral valve function) and cardiomyopathy, can be fatal. Without blood thinning, the mechanical heart valve can trigger blood clot formation, since it is a foreign object implanted into the bloodstream.

There are no natural alternatives available with track records confident enough to bet your life on. Aspirin nor Plavix are blood thinners, but platelet inhibitors. These two agents, while they work for other forms of arterial (but not venous) blood clot inhibition, will not work for your unique situation.

Likewise, a purported oral lytic agent like nattokinase should not be substituted for Coumadin. Even if there was plausible science behind it, you should demand substantial evidence that it provides at least blood thinning equivalent to Coumadin. Should a blood clot, even a small one, form in or around the prosthetic valve, the valve can stop working within seconds. This can lead to death within minutes.

I believe it would be foolhardy to bet your life based on the marketing--let me repeat: MARKETING--of a "nutritional supplement" by supplement manufacturers eager to make a buck.

Nor are there any other nutritional supplements that can safely replace the Coumadin. I wish that were NOT true, as I am no stranger to the long-term dangers of Coumadin and I am a big believer, in general, in nutritional supplements. I am a BIGGER believer, however, in the truth. Weighing the options available to us today, there really is no rational choice but to remain on Coumadin.

By the way, I tell my patients to eat a substantial amount of green vegetables while they take Coumadin. I know that conventional advice is to reduce or eliminate green vegetables due to their content of Coumadin-antagonizing vitamin K. I think this is wrong, also. Green vegetables are the best foods on earth. They reduce risk for cancer, diabetes, bone disease, and coronary heart disease.

To obtain the benefits of green vegetables without mucking up your blood thinning (your "protime" or International Normalized Ratio, INR), I advise my patients who take Coumadin to eat green vegetables--but do so every day in relatively consistent quantities, so that the protime or INR is not disrupted and remains reasonably constant. It may mean that your total dose of Coumadin may be somewhat higher, e.g., 3 or 4 mg instead of 2 mg, but the dose is immaterial outside of blood thinning. That way, you obtain all the wonderful health benefits of green vegetables while maintaining fairly consistent blood thinning/protime/INR. Coumadin does not block all the health benefits of vegetables, only those related to vitamins K1 and K2.

With regards to protecting yourself from the osteoporosis promoting effects of Coumadin, I would be sure to follow a program of natural bone health, such as the one I discussed in Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal. You will have to be extra careful, however, with the vitamin K2. Ideally, you have a doctor knowledgeable about vitamin K2 who can assist you in managing K2 intake while on Coumadin. This is something you can definitely NOT manage on your own. (I am a big believer in self-managed care, but this is way beyond the limit.)

Lastly, it is my belief that anyone with an inflammatory bowel condition, such as Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis, should absolutely, positively, and meticulously AVOID WHEAT and all other gluten sources (such as rye, barley, and oats). Even if you test negative for celiac markers (e.g., anti-gliadin antibodies, emdomysium and transglutaminase antibodies), the enhanced intestinal permeability will allow wheat proteins, such as gluten, to gain ready entry into the bloodstream. Not to mention that wheat should have no place in the human diet anyway, in my view.

Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal

I don't like to stray too far off course from discussions of heart disease and related issues in this blog. But the question of bone health comes up so often that I thought I'd discuss the strategies available to everybody to stop, even reverse, osteoporosis.

Coronary atherosclerotic plaque and bone health are intimately interwoven. People who have coronary plaque usually have osteoporosis; people who have osteoporosis usually have coronary plaque. (The association is strongest in females.) The worse the osteoporosis, the greater the quantity of coronary plaque, and vice versa. The two seemingly unconnected conditions share common causes and thereby respond to similar treatments.

Incredibly, rarely will your doctor tell you about these strategies. Your doctor orders a bone density test, the value shows osteopenia or osteoporosis, and a drug like Fosamax or Boniva is prescribed. As many people are learning, drugs like this can be associated with severe side-effects, such as jaw necrosis (death of the jaw bone), a dangerous and disfiguring condition that leads to loss of teeth and disfigurement, followed by reconstructive surgery of the jaw and face. These are not trivial effects.

Note that drugs are approved by the FDA based on assessment of efficacy and safety, NOT proven equivalence or superiority to natural treatments.

In order of importance (greatest to least), here are strategies that I believe are important to regain or maintain bone health. Indeed, I have seen many women increase bone density using these strategies . . . without drugs of any sort.

1) Vitamin D restoration--Vitamin D is the most important control factor over bone calcium metabolism, as well as parathyroid function. As readers of this blog already know, gelcap forms of vitamin D work best, aiming for a 25-hydroxy vitamin level of 60-70 ng/ml. This usually requires 6000 units per day, though there is great individual variation in need.

2) Vitamin K2--If you lived in Japan, you would be prescribed vitamin K2. While it's odd that K2 is a "drug" in Japan, it means that it enjoys the validation required for approval through their FDA-equivalent. Prescription K2 (as MK-4 or menatetranone) at doses of 15,000-45,000 mcg per day (15-45 mg), improves bone architecture, even when administered by itself. However, K2 works best when part of a broader program of bone health. I advise 1000 mcg per day, preferably a mixture of the short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7. (Emerging data measuring bone resorption markers suggest that lower doses may work nearly as well as the high-dose prescription.)

3) Magnesium--I generally advise supplementation with the well-absorbed forms, magnesium glycinate (400 mg twice per day) or magnesium malate (1200 mg twice per day). Because they are well-absorbed, they are least likely to lead to diarrhea (as magnesium oxide commonly does).

4) Alkaline potassium salts--Potassium as the bicarbonate or the citrate, i.e., alkalinizing forms, are wonderfully effective for preservation or reversal of bone density. Because potassium in large doses is potentially fatal, over-the-counter supplements contain only 99 mg potassium per capsule. I have patients take two capsules twice per day, provided kidney function is normal and there is no history of high potassium.

5) An alkalinizing diet--Animal products are acidic, vegetables and fruits are alkaline. Put them together and you should obtain a slightly net alkaline body pH that preserves bone health. Throw grains like wheat, carbonated soft drinks, or other acids into the mix and you shift the pH balance towards net acid. This powerfully erodes bone. Therefore, avoid grains and never consume carbonated soft drinks. (Readers of this blog know that "healthy, whole grains" should be included in the list of Scams of the Century, along with Bernie Madoff and mortgage-backed securities.)

6) Strength training--Bone density follows muscle mass. Restoring youthful muscle mass with strength training can increase bone density over time. The time and energy needs are modest, e.g., 20 minutes twice per week.

Note that calcium may or may not be on the list. If on the list at all, it is dead last. When vitamin D has been restored, intestinal absorption of calcium is as much as quadrupled. The era of force-feeding high-doses of calcium are long-gone. In fact, calcium supplementation in the age of vitamin D can lead to abnormal high calcium blood levels and increased heart attack risk.

These are benign and easily incorporated strategies. They are also inexpensive. I challenge any drug to match or exceed the benefits of this combination of strategies. Keep in mind that strategies like vitamin D restoration provide an extensive panel of health benefits that range far beyond bone health, an effect definitely NOT shared by prescription drugs.

Your enlarged aorta

The thoracic aorta lives happily within the chest.

The aorta is the main artery of the body that emerges from the heart, located just under the sternum. It is the "tree trunk" from which all the major arteries branch off to the rest of the body: the arms, brain, abdominal organs, pelvis, and legs. The aorta receives the high-pressure blood ejected directly out of the heart muscle.

However, there are evil forces in the body that work to weaken the aorta. When the aorta is weakened, it enlarges. Enlarged aortas also tend to grow atherosclerotic plaque. Plaque in the aorta poses long-term risk for stroke and and mini-strokes ("transient ischemic attacks," or TIAs), due to fragmentation.

There are many enlarged aortas in this world. I see at least several every week. It is fairly common, particularly in people with high blood pressure and cholesterol abnormalities, as well as those who are overweight. Smokers get it really bad.

Conventional thinking is that, once an aorta enlarges, it will inevitably continue to enlarge at the average rate of 2.0 mm per year (resulting in 1.0 cm enlargement over 5 years). For this reason, conventional discussions on the topic of thoracic aortic aneurysms all say something like "Enlarged aortas should be monitored yearly. Surgical replacement should proceed when the aorta reaches a diameter of 5.5 cm."

This is because an aortic diameter of 5.5 cm is associated with much greater likelihood that the aorta will rupture (fatal within minutes) or the internal lining will tear, a "dissection." The surgery is a major undertaking that involves opening the chest and usually replacing the aortic valve and inserting a synthetic aorta. The procedure is high-risk, especially if any branch arteries are involved.

So putting a stop to any further aortic enlargement is a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, conventional thought is that there is nothing you can do to stop the inevitable growth of the thoracic aorta.

Nonsense. There are a number of efforts you can make to halt further increase in aortic diameter. (My experience in this is anecdotal and unpublished, but now numbers several hundred patients.)

There are two categories of factors that cause the aorta to increase in diameter:

1) Internal pressure--Think of blood pressure as the internal inflating pressure on this "balloon." Keeping the "inflating pressure," i.e., blood pressure, low exerts substantial effect on slowing growth of aortic diameter. I aim for normal BP or lowish BP (less than 130/80, preferably 100/70).

2) Factors that weaken the aortic wall--Processes like inflammation, glycation, lipoprotein deposition, and nutritional deficiencies will serve to weaken the supportive tissue of the aorta. For that reason, correction of lipoprotein abnormalities (e.g., small LDL and lipoprotein(a)), reductions in carbohydrate intake and thereby blood glucose/glycation, and "normalization" of vitamin D, vitamin C supplementation (for collagen crosslinking), and omega-3 fatty acids all play a role.

To push even farther, there may be additional advantage to following strategies that impair the production and activity of a crucial enzyme that lives within the aortic wall: matrix metalloproteinase, or MMP. MMP degrades the collagen and other supportive tissues within the aorta, weakening it and permitting expansion. Blocking MMP may prove to be among the most powerful new strategies to halt aortic expansion.

Compounds that have potential MMP-inhibiting effects include:
--Vitamin D--A substantial effect
--Resveratrol--One of the polyphenols from red wine
--Doxycycline--This old antibiotic often used for acne treatment has, in preliminary studies, shown important MMP-blocking effects and slowed aortic expansion.

Anyway, there you have it. A bit complicated, but a "recipe" that has failed me only rarely.

Extreme carbohydrate intolerance

Here's an interesting example of what you might call "extreme carbohydrate intolerance."

May is a 44-year woman who has now had her 7th stent placed in her coronary arteries. She lives on a diet dominated by breads, breakfast cereals, muffins, rice, corn products, along with some real foods.

Her conventional lipid panel and other lab values:

Total cholesterol 346 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 877 mg/dl
HDL cholesterol: 22 mg/dl
LDL cholesterol: incalculable
(Recall that LDL cholesterol is usually a calculated, not a measured value. The excessively high triglycerides make the standard calculation invalid--more invalid than usual.)

Fasting blood glucose: 210 mg/dl
HbA1c (a reflection of previous 60-90 days average glucose): 7.2% (desirable 4.5% or less)
ALT (a "liver enzyme"): 438 (about five-fold normal)


At 5 ft even and 138 lbs (BMI 27.0), May appears small. But the modest excess weight is all concentrated in her abdomen, i.e., in visceral fat.

By lipoprotein analysis via NMR (Liposcience), May's LDL particle number was 2912 nmol/L, or what I would call a "true" LDL of 291 mg/dl. (Drop the last digit.) Of the 2912 nmol/L LDL particles, 2678 nmol/L, or 92%, were small.

The bad news: This pattern of extremely high triglycerides, extremely high LDL particle number, low HDL, predominant small LDL, and diabetes poses high-risk for heart disease--no surprise. It earned her 7 stents so far. (Unfortunately, she has made no effort whatsoever to correct these patterns, despite repeated advice to do so.)

The good news: This collection is wonderfully responsive to diet. LDL particle number, small LDL, triglycerides, blood glucose, and HbA1c drop dramatically, while HDL increases. Heart disease will at least slow, if not stop.

It's amazing how far off human metabolism can go while indulging in carbohydrates, particularly a genetically carbohydrate-intolerance person. (Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if May's diet, as bad as it seems to you and me, still fits within the dictates of the USDA food pyramid.) The crucial step in diet to correct this smorgasbord of disaster is elimination of carbohydrates, especially that from wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

What's for breakfast? Egg bake

Heart Scan Blog reader and dietitian, Lisa Grudzielanek, provided this recipe in response to the post, What's for breakfast?

Lisa, by the way, is one of the rare dietitians who understands that organizations like the American Dietetic Association have made themselves irrelevant. She therefore advocates diet principles that work, not just echoing the idiocy that emanates from such organizations, often driven by economics more than science. Lisa works in the Milwaukee area and has proven a useful resource person for my patients who have required extra coaching in the Track Your Plaque diet principles.

Egg Bake
My favorite breakfast is what I call an "egg bake." Others may refer to it as a "quiche."

Take a variety of fresh vegetables. This time of year is great for farmers' markets.

I typically use fresh chopped organic spinach, bell peppers, red & white onions, scallions, broccoli, mushrooms, cherry tomatoes halved and, if desired, meat (nitrite-free ham or leftover chicken breasts).

1) Chop veggies and place in casserole dish.
2) Add meat and handful of cheese of your choice.
3) Scramble 8 eggs & little bit of milk & pepper.
4) Add to casserole dish and mix/coat veggies with egg mixture.
5) Put in oven at 450 degress for 30 minutes.

Yummy, ready to eat breakfast that is so easy for the work week.

What's for breakfast?

If you eliminate wheat from breakfast and otherwise adhere to a low-carbohydrate dietary approach, what is there to eat for breakfast?

If you take out English muffins, bagels, all breakfast cereals, pancakes, waffles, and toast, what's left to eat?

Actually, there's plenty left to eat. It just may not look like the traditional American notion of "breakfast." (The traditional idea of breakfast was is, in part, due to the legacy of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, who, in the latter part of the 19th century, ran a sanitarium in Battle Creek Michigan. He and his brother, Will Keith Kellogg, discovered the idea of turning grains into flakes, the birth of the breakfast cereal. Subscribe to the idea of breakfast cereal for breakfast and you subscribe to the ideas of a man who would administer four enemas for you today to cure your cancer or rheumatism.)

Here are a few ideas. By no means is this meant to be a comprehensive list, just a starting point for a few new breakfast food ideas.

--Eggs--Of course, eat the yolk. Eat three yolks. Scrambled, "fried," (not really deep-fried, of course), hard-boiled, poached, as an omelette. Add pesto, olive oil, vegetables, mushrooms, salsa.

--Ground flaxseed--As a hot cereal with your choice of water, milk (not my favorite because of insulin effects; the fat is immaterial), full-fat soy milk (yeah, yeah, I know), unsweetened almond milk. Add walnuts, blueberries, etc. Ground flaxseed is the only grain I know of that contains no digestible carbohydrates.

--Lunch and dinner--Yes, if you cannot have breakfast foods for breakfast, then have lunch and dinner, meaning incorporating foods you ordinarily regard as lunch and dinner foods into your day's first meal. This means salads, leftover chicken from last night, soup, raw vegetables dipped in hummus or guacamole, stir fry, etc.

--Cheese--For something quick, grab a chunk of gouda or emmentaler along with a handful of raw almonds, walnuts, or pecans. Because of the excess acidity of cheese (along with meats, among the most acidifying of foods), I usually try to include something like a raw pepper or avocado, foods that are net alkaline.

--Avocados--Cut in half, scoop out contents. They're quick and delicious, when available.

I hesitate to mention it, but I sometimes will have tofu, cubed and flavored with whatever is available--soy sauce, miso, pickled vegetables. My mother was Japanese, so I'm comfortable with this, though many people are not.

Anyway, that's a partial list that nonetheless can get you started on a wheat-free, low-carb breakfast.

If you are just starting out, you will notice a number of fundamental changes. You may first experience the characteristic "withdrawal" effect: mental fog and fatigue that lasts about a week. Energy then picks up, often substantially. This is followed by gradually reduced appetite: You will be far less hungry. You will require less food, less often, since appetite will be driven by physiologic need, not the appetite-stimulating properties of wheat (and cornstarch, high-fructose cornsyrup and sucrose).

By the way, do not skip breakfast unless it's part of an occasional fasting effort. Skip breakfast, wind down metabolism, get fat. I am impressed at how consistent skipping breakfast backfires in those who think that it helps you control weight.

I also welcome any suggestions on what you eat as part of your wheat-free, low-carb breakfast. (Thanks for the great suggestions on the last blog post, Anna.)

Wheat hip

You've heard of wheat belly. How about wheat hip?

Recall that the innocent appearing wheat belly is actually a hotbed of inflammatory activity beneath the surface. The visceral fat of the wheat belly, i.e., fat kidneys, fat liver, fat intestines, fat pancreas, produces abnormal inflammatory signals, such as various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor, and leptin. These are the inflammatory signals that create insulin resistance and diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and cancer.

These same inflammatory mediators are able to enter the joint spaces, such as those in your hips, knees, and hands. This leads to osteoarthritis, the exceptionally common form of arthritis that affects 1 in 7 Americans. In particular, the level of leptin in joints mirrors that in blood, a phenomenon that has been associated with joint destruction.

The previously widely-held notion that arthritis is simply a wear-and-tear phenomenon due to the mechanical stress of excess weight is proving to be an oversimplification. Arthritis is also part of the carbohydrate-driven, weight-increasing, inflammatory condition of insulin resistance or metabolic syndrome.

Throw into this cytokine storm the fact that glycation, i.e., glucose modification of proteins, also causes cartilage destruction. The cells of human cartilage lack the ability to divide, so the cartilage cells you had at age 18 are the cartilage cells that you will hopefully still have at age 80. However, high blood sugars (glucose) glycate the proteins in cartilage. (Wheat raises blood glucose higher than almost all other foods, higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar.) The process is irreversible and cumulative. Because cartilage has next to no capacity for repair or regeneration, it becomes brittle. Over years, it essentially crumbles, leading to the "bone on bone" that prompts conversations about total hip and total knee replacement.

So that ciabatta or blueberry muffin in your mouth takes you a step or two closer to joint destruction via heightened inflammation arising from the visceral fat of the wheat belly, worsened by glycation of high blood sugars after carbohydrate consumption.

My solution: Lose the ciabatta.

Men's lingerie is on the second floor

Consume wheat products, like poppyseed muffins, raisin bagels, and whole grain bread, and you trigger the 90- to 120-minute glucose-insulin cycle.

Blood glucose goes way up (more than almost any other known food), triggering insulin release from the pancreas. Glucose enters cells as a result, blood glucose plummets. You get hungry, shaky, and crabby, reach for another wheat or other sugar-generating food to start the roller coaster ride all over again.

Repetitive insulin triggering grows this thing I call a "wheat belly," the protuberant, hang-over-the-belt fat you see everywhere nowadays. Wheat belly fat is really visceral fat. Visceral fat means you have fat kidneys, fat intestines, fat pancreas, and fat liver, all causing the belly to protrude in the familiar way we've all come to recognize.

Visceral fat is special fat. Unlike the fat in the backside, thighs, or arms, visceral fat triggers inflammatory responses that are evident in such measures as tumor necrosis factor, interleukins, and leptin, as well as drops in the protective hormone, adiponectin.

Visceral fat also, oddly, triggers estrogen release. Estrogen triggers growth of breast tissue. That's why females with wheat bellies have up to four-fold (400%) greater likelihood of breast cancer.

Men also experience excess estrogen from the visceral fat wheat belly, causing "man boobs." This B-cup phenomenon means that inflammation is raging beneath the surface, all due to this thing you're wearing around your waist.

I wasn't aware until recently that male breast reduction surgery is a booming business growing at double-digit rates. So are special clothes to help men conceal their expansive breasts.

Perhaps the USDA is in cahoots with Playtex.

10,000 units of vitamin D

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.
What the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said

What the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said

The news is full of comments, along with many attention-grabbing headlines, about the announcement from the Institute of Medicine that the new Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D should be 600 units per day for adults.

What surprised me was the certainty with which some of the more outspoken committee members expressed with their view that 1) the desirable serum 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was only 20 ng/ml, and 2) that most Americans already obtain a sufficient quantity of vitamin D.

Here's what I believe the Institute of Medicine SHOULD have said:

Multiple lines of evidence suggest that there is a plausible biological basis for vitamin D's effects on cancer, inflammatory responses, bone health, and metabolic responses including insulin responsiveness and blood glucose. However, the full extent and magnitude of these responses has not yet been fully characterized.

Given the substantial observations reported in several large epidemiologic studies that show an inverse correlation between 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels and mortality, there is without question an association between vitamin D and mortality from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and all cause mortality. However, it has not been established that there are cause-effect relationships, as this cannot be established by epidemiologic study.

While the adverse health effects of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of less than 30 ng/ml have been established, the evidence supporting achieving higher 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels remains insufficient, limited to epidemiologic observations on cancer incidence. However, should 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels of greater than 30 ng/ml be shown to be desirable for ideal health, then vitamin D deficiency has potential to be the most widespread deficiency of the modern age.

Given the potential for vitamin D's impact on multiple facets of health, as suggested by preliminary epidemiologic and basic science data, we suggest that future research efforts be focused on establishing 1) the ideal level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels to achieve cancer-preventing, bone health-preserving or reversing, and cardiovascular health preventive benefits, 2) the racial and genetic (vitamin D receptor, VDR) variants that may account for varying effects in different populations, 3) whether vitamin D restoration has potential to exert not just health-preserving effects, but also treatment effects, specifically as adjunct to conventional cancer and osteoporosis therapies, and 4) how such vitamin D restoration is best achieved.

Until the above crucial issues are clarified, we advise Americans that vitamin D is a necessary and important nutrient for multiple facets of health but, given current evidence, are unable to specify a level of vitamin D intake that is likely to be safe, effective, and fully beneficial for all Americans.


Instead of a careful, science-minded conclusion that meets the painfully conservative demands of crafting broad public policy, the committee instead chose to dogmatically pull the discussion back to the 1990s, ignoring the flood of compelling evidence that suggests that vitamin D is among the most important public health issues of the age.

Believe it or not, this new, though anemic, RDA represents progress: It's a (small) step farther down the road towards broader recognition and acceptance that higher intakes (or skin exposures) to achieve higher vitamin D levels are good for health.

My view: Vitamin D remains among the most substantial, life-changing health issues of our age. Having restored 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels in over 1000 people, I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.

Comments (47) -

  • Peter

    12/1/2010 2:27:18 AM |

    The headlines could have sais IOM raises RDA of Vitamin D 50%.

  • Jenny

    12/1/2010 2:29:45 AM |

    There is as yet NO study where supplementation with Vitamin D was shwon to reverse or improve any of the conditions with which the deficiency is associated.

    We can't call for evidence based medicine and then dismiss that call when the evidence isn't there to support our pet theories.

    I have not found any studies suggesting that Vitamin D improves blood sugar control in people who had low levels, and though I get an avalanche of mail from the diabetes community I have not heard from anyone whose blood sugar improved after taking it.

    So my conclusion is that it is not the cure all that some people would like it to be. With the unhappy history of Vitamin A, C, and E supplementation (which turn out to be ineffective or in the case of the antioxidants correlate with higher mortality) the people making these kinds of recommendations are right to be cautious.

    And given the very bad outcome with the megadose injections, and the poor quality of the expensive supplements, it's probably good they didn't endorse it more enthusiastically. More study is needed, particularly in regard to setting doses so people don't end up with milk alkali syndrome.

  • Anonymous

    12/1/2010 5:01:18 AM |

    I'm somewhat convinced I've experienced many health benefits from D supplementation.  I'm also somewhat convinced it's played a significant role in my body's new habit of making kidney stones.

  • PY

    12/1/2010 11:10:26 AM |

    Isn't the burden of proof on vitamin D proponents to show supplementation has a unambiguously positive effect, particularly when there is concern that there may be negative effects?  Your response here unfortunately doesn't give us much to stand on as vitamin D users, in terms of any rigorous data-based conclusions (as opposed to observational conclusions).  That is somewhat concerning.

  • PY

    12/1/2010 11:14:37 AM |

    Here is one article on the ISM panel's conclusions.  I am re-posting it here, as it my previous comment with the link was deleted from the previous post on this blog:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html?src=me&ref=homepage

    From the article:

    "But Andrew Shao, an executive vice president at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group, said the panel was being overly cautious, especially in its recommendations about vitamin D.  He said there was no convincing evidence that people were being harmed by taking supplements, and he said higher levels of vitamin D, in particular, could be beneficial.

    Such claims “are not supported by the available evidence,” the committee wrote. They were based on studies that observed populations and concluded that people with lower levels of the vitamin had more of various diseases. Such studies have been misleading and most scientists agree that they cannot determine cause and effect.

    It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels — 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher — were needed.

    After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was “inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality.”

    Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote.

    That is what surprised Dr. Black. “We thought that probably higher is better,” he said.

    He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: “I think this report will make people more cautious.”

  • Jim

    12/1/2010 11:46:18 AM |

    Just wanted to say that I really appreciate what Dr. Davis brings to this site.  

    And I also appreciate the community here that is not afraid to push back from time to time with thoughtful opposing comments.  

    After what we have seen in the last 30 years, at this point, it should take a lot of convincing any time vitamin x or food y is offered up as the next great health wonder.

  • qualia

    12/1/2010 2:33:20 PM |

    @jenny i really can't take your comments seriously. you doesn't seem to know what you're talking about at all.

    "poor quality of the expensive supplements"

    SERIOUSLY?? vitamin D3 is one of the cheapest and simplest supplement you can get on the market. a years supply of 5000IU even from high-quality, reputable brands rarely costs more than 15-20$ on-line. wtf are you talking about?

  • Anonymous

    12/1/2010 2:52:38 PM |

    Jenny's right, when I take anything above 1500 IU/day (conservative according to more and more proponents of D3 supplementation) I get sign of hypercalcaemia immediately.

    And yes, I have tried adding K2, makes no difference.

    I'm from Northern European heritage and suspect that we need very little D.

  • Nigel Kinbrum

    12/1/2010 3:15:48 PM |

    Anonymous said...
    "Jenny's right, when I take anything above 1500 IU/day (conservative according to more and more proponents of D3 supplementation) I get sign of hypercalcaemia immediately.

    And yes, I have tried adding K2, makes no difference.

    I'm from Northern European heritage and suspect that we need very little D."


    I'm descended from Poles & Lithuanians and have normal serum Calcium (by blood test) on 5,000iu/day D3. Have you been tested for Sarcoidosis, Primary Hyperparathyroidism, Milk-alkali Syndrome or any other medical condition that can result in hypercalcaemia?

    K2 doesn't prevent hypercalcaemia. It only reduces inappropriate calcification that can occur even with normocalcaemia.

  • Anand Srivastava

    12/1/2010 3:40:54 PM |

    When taking supplements that should not cause problems normally, and you experience problems there is normally an underlying problem.

    My brother was detected Hashimoto's when supplementing iodine.

    My wife has a single kidney, and very high doses of vitamin D causes her problem. But 4000IU is not a problem.

    If you are getting a problem at 1500IU, you should get yourself tested for hyperparathyroidism. It is a pretty common result of Vitamin D supplementation. There may be other reasons why Vitmain D3 may cause problems, particularly in renal system.

    It is good to take these vitamin once in a higher dose to determine if you have any problem related to their dosage.

  • Anne

    12/1/2010 7:11:10 PM |

    Jenny - Here's a study: 'Vitamin D and diabetes Improvement of glycemic control with vitamin D3 repletion':

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2426990/

  • Anonymous

    12/1/2010 11:00:35 PM |

    Anyone here ever read "The Real Truth About Vitamins and Antioxidants" by Judith DeCava ?

    Most "vitamins" are actually very high doses of only parts or fractions of naturally occuring vitamins. Therefore they act like drugs, not like nutrition. They CANNOT help organs heal.
    Dr. Gus

  • Anonymous

    12/1/2010 11:47:41 PM |

    I weigh 114 lbs and take 2400 IU daily (softgels). I recently tested at 56 after 2 years of supplementation. Although, last summer I took 5000 IU daily. I am concerned about excess D, but I don't have a doctor. I won't be stabbing my fingers again since my finger still hasn't recovered from a home test. It still hurts after 6 weeks. I believe vitamin D has helped me, and I don't really want to cut back on the dose. However, I'm reducing the dose to an average of 2000 IU daily. I will try to test with Life Extension next time if I can find a lab around here - definitely vein jab only! I wish I had a good doctor.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 12:42:37 AM |

    Well I guess most of the time we Canadians are in lock-stock with our neighbors on the continent

    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/nutrition/vitamin/vita-d-eng.php

    that is a big improvement though.  The 4000IU max is half what I take but then again, this is a recommendation for a healthy individual not someone with a family history of heart disease like me.

    K2 max is about a quarter of my daily:-
    http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/nhpid-bdipsn/singredReq.do?id=546&lang=eng

    But apparently for fish oil I am on target:-
    http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodnatur/applications/licen-prod/monograph/mono_fish_oil_huile_poisson-eng.php

    I tell people about this site every chance I get

  • Peter

    12/2/2010 1:09:20 AM |

    There is one study referred to in The Perfect Health Diet (which parallels the advice in this blog very closely) that people who had blood levels of Vitamin D over 80 had triple the heart disease.  This from southern India.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 1:51:33 AM |

    and what do you expect from a self styled government organization?
    At least people with any sort of common sense and knowledge will know to disregard their "advice". And there is really no difference between 20 or 30 or 50 to 60. The gene transcription only starts after 100, I know I am supplementing vitamin D up to a million units per day to deal with various issues and I must say it works. I feel that vitamin D in such doses has a real effect on athletic abilities, I am sprinting like a teenager again and many other health improvements. Bottom line Dr. Davis, don't lose your time and nerves with the noise from governments and various "experts" , that's just barking up a wrong tree. They have an agenda to rule over us and it's only a matter of whether we allow them or not.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/2/2010 2:06:33 AM |

    I put as much stock in the Institute of Medicine's advice on vitamin D, or any other vitamin for that matter, as I do the advice of the USDA on nutrition. Both have declared themselves irrelevant by their almost ridiculous detachment from reality.

    The data are overwhelming: Vitamin D is intimately associated with multiple facets of health.

    Another issue: The committee appears to be applying a drug-like standard to vitamin D: They require placebo vs. treatment clinical trials, a standard that other vitamins have not been held up to.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 2:07:28 AM |

    Goodness!  All of this focus on "science."  There really should be focus on just getting enough of this nutrient on a regular basis without interference from sunshine phobia and the lack of good nutrition from fats.

  • Dr. William Davis

    12/2/2010 2:09:40 AM |

    Sorry, Jenny, but I believe that you are flat wrong.

    While the studies tend to be small, there are indeed studies that have shown reversal of various conditions, including reversal of blood markers for bone resorption, insulin resistance, c-reactive protein, hyperparathyroidism, hypercalcemia, etc.

    Just because vitamin D has not enjoyed the deep-pocketed budget of a drug company's backing and therefore does not yet have a vitamin D vs placebo trial does not mean that humans do not need it or don't need more of it.

    I am personally appalled at the committee's closed-mindedness at what I believe is an incredibly important "supplement." Frankly, I don't care what the IOM says; I continue to do what I believe is right and what has worked for me and my patients time and time again.

  • Garry

    12/2/2010 2:24:11 AM |

    Dr. Davis,
    Do you routinely monitor blood calcium levels in your vitamin D-supplemented patients?  Thanks.

  • Daniel A. Clinton, RN, BSN

    12/2/2010 6:25:05 AM |

    This new recommendation accomplishes absolutely nothing. Those who are still ignorant as to the absurd irrelevance of consensus opinions by government health offices or medical professional organizations will continue to be Vitamin D deficient. And those of us who are really good at interpreting data and have thoroughly researched Vitamin D will trust our read of the data over all the propaganda.  All this does is show that we are at least 15 years ahead of most everyone else, and that's actually really sad, and something I refuse to accept because America deserves better.

  • Patricia D.

    12/2/2010 8:54:15 AM |

    Regarding the above mentioned statement by Dr. Cannell of the Vitamin D Council: Today, the FNB has failed millions... - Toward the end, Dr. Cannell discusses his intention to have the suppressed reports - by Vitamin D experts associated with the decision by the FNB - made public.  Which would be great.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 9:49:15 AM |

    Hey, if they go on "progressing" that way the RDA will be quite allright in...em... 250 years...
    Let's celebrate!

  • Drs. Cynthia and David

    12/2/2010 10:34:11 AM |

    Many of the studies that have been done have used very small doses of vit D, so the failure to show unequivocal results is not surprising.  The associational studies don't prove causation of course but certainly provide hypotheses for testing.  So the conservative approach (CYA) is to recommend low doses still.  A search of clinicaltrials.gov for vit D trials shows a ton of trials being initiated.  We will have to wait a few years for the results to be reported and interpreted.  Meanwhile, I supplement with 5000 units per day but don't take calcium as that doesn't seem to be necessary with adequate D levels, and my calcium level is right where it should be.  

    Cynthia

  • Adam

    12/2/2010 1:01:32 PM |

    I'm tempted to write a faux press release from the IOM saying that there is little conclusive evidence that Vitamin C is related to scurvy and that we should be cautious in making radical arguments for fruit in the navy. ;)

  • Steve Cooksey

    12/2/2010 1:36:37 PM |

    I agree with Dr. Davis on D3.

    Primarily due to my own experience. I supplement with Vit D3 (4-6k) and Omega 3 Daily.

    I am a type 2 diabetic who has normal blood sugar AND I take -0- drugs and -0- insulin.

  • Peter

    12/2/2010 1:50:27 PM |

    One study that would be very cheap and fast would be to test Dr.Davis's observation that vitamin D from tablets doesn't reliably raise blood levels like gelcaps do.

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2010 7:26:26 PM |

    The Vitamin D issue is becoming the Global Warming controversy of the medical world. I haven't seen such sharp divisions in the medical community over the efficacy of any other drug/supplement as this one. The usual way this goes is that for any non-pharmaceutical/non-prescription item, there always strong push back from the governing medical bodies, despite empirical data suggesting benefit.

  • DK

    12/3/2010 2:32:46 AM |

    I have no doubt whatsoever that vitamin D achieves substantial benefits in health with virtually no downside, provided 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels are monitored.

    Don't you think such statements are a tad cavalier? Literature certainly does not give one such level of confidence. There are several indicators that some cancers increase with increasing Vit. D. Plus, there are bound to be ethnic and gender differences in response to vit. D. And you have no doubt that treating everyone the same to achieve the same and largely random number is a good thing? Wow, just wow.

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2010 8:27:18 PM |

    This seems scary, Vitamin D associated with increased risk of pancreatic cancer:

    http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2010/11/vitamin-d-linked-to-pancreatic-cancer.html

  • Travis Culp

    12/3/2010 9:00:55 PM |

    Just wait until there is a Lovaza-like pharmaceutical D3 that costs 1000 dollars a month and suddenly the RDA will rise to where it should be.

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2010 11:01:48 PM |

    Jenny,

      I have seen HbA1c improve in couple of cases with Vitamin D supplementation. Here's a reference to a similar observation http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Lack-of-vitamin-D-poses-diabetes-risk/articleshow/6922336.cms

    -- DK

  • Anonymous

    12/7/2010 4:58:12 PM |

    Make sure to avoid vitamin A supplements (including cod liver oil), unless you're truly deficient. Excess vitamin A blocks vitamin D benefits. I read this on the vitamin D council site.

  • Anonymous

    12/8/2010 12:07:23 AM |

    Relevant articles:

    "Anticancer Vitamins du Jour—The ABCED's So Far"

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/1.full

    "Vitamin D in Cancer Patients: Above All, Do No Harm"
    http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/13/2117.full?ijkey=e5433c6693ba2181f407767e5368af0d4a110ea5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

  • O Primitivo

    12/8/2010 12:18:29 AM |

    There are only 8 trials on vitamin D and Diabetes, and some of them are null - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=vitamin%20d[title]%20AND%20diabetes[title]%20AND%20%28Clinical%20Trial[ptyp]%20OR%20Randomized%20Controlled%20Trial[ptyp]%29

  • Nigel Kinbrum

    12/8/2010 2:04:04 PM |

    RE Null Trials:-
    In Avenell et al, only 800iu/day was used.
    In de Boer et al, only 400iu/day was used.
    In Orwoll et al, calcitriol 1ug/day for only 4 days was used.

  • O Primitivo

    12/8/2010 5:45:35 PM |

    Nigel, thanks for the correction. I truly believe vitamin D supplementaion and more exposure is beneficial. The full IOM ob-line report is available here - http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13050

  • O Primitivo

    12/8/2010 5:59:12 PM |

    The "desirable" levels this institute assumed are not based on evolutionary evidence, they only considered the minimum level to avoid rickets. Here is a free 29-page pdf summary of the report: http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=13050&type=pdfxsum

  • Dana Seilhan

    12/11/2010 9:07:51 AM |

    I don't know what Jenny means by studies done on vitamin A.  They did a study on beta carotene and smokers.  I have my own pet hypothesis about that:  there's some thinking that cancers eat so much glucose not only because it's the only fuel many of the cancer types can use, but because it protects them from oxidation.  It makes me wonder if beta carotene encouraged lung cancer in that smokers study because the cancer cells were vulnerable to oxidative damage and the BC protected them!

    Be that as it may, beta carotene is not vitamin A, any more than clay is a brick.

    I cured a three-year run of excessive menstruation by supplementing retinol from fish liver oil.  Anecdotal evidence, I know, but the more I dig around on Science Daily and similar websites, the more I find connections between vitamin A and reproductive health, including sound development of the embryo and fetus.  I don't know where researchers get the notion that vitamin A causes birth defects;  it may actually do the exact opposite.

    I have heard criticisms that where researchers have made claims about the harmfulness of vitamin A, they are doing so based on data about synthetic vitamin A.  Fish liver oil--and hey, land-animal liver if you like to eat it--shouldn't be a problem then.

    And anyone who intakes the fat-soluble vitamins all out of balance is going to have a problem.  I'd recommend reading the Weston A. Price Foundation's information on the subject.  For instance, the ratio of vitamin A to vitamin D intake in the diet should be at least 10 to 1 or better (9 to 1, 8 to 1, etc.).

    There is still so much we don't know about these vitamins.  But in healthy populations with low dental caries and birth defect rates and with ideal or near-ideal development of facial bone structure, the intake of fat-solubles was several times the American intake in the early 1900s, when it was still considerably higher than it is in the U.S. today!  They had lab tests back then for all the fat-solubles except K, which was discovered later.  So this was documented.

    More recent studies have shown that calcium is not as well absorbed in a diet that is too high in fiber relative to fat intake.  WAPF claims that fat-soluble vitamins are necessary for the assimilation of minerals;  we've seen that with vitamin D and calcium and (if I'm not mistaken) vitamin A and iron.  There are definite connections between FS vitamins and health, even if no one's handed stone tablets down from heaven to show us either way.  There is evidence.  You just have to want to see it.

  • Kathy Kaufman's blog

    12/11/2010 12:27:17 PM |

    Dr. Davis, I had an interesting anecdotal experience from taking vitamin D.  I have suffered from canker sores since I was a young child. I'm in my sixties now and they seem to be getting worse and more frequent with multiple outbreaks to the point sometimes it was hard to speak.  Recently my MD tested my vitamin D levels and said they were too high (100) and I should cut back. I cut back and 2 days later I got 3 canker sores.  I hadn't even realized I didn't have one in the 8 months I'd been taking vitamin D.  I know the experts need to see all the clinical studies. The rest of us just want to be healthy! ( Prevention Magazine said broccoli could protect against cancer in the 1960s. Its taken the experts 50 years to catch up. )

  • Anonymous

    12/15/2010 11:13:52 AM |

    In light of the fact that the body can synthesis 10,000 IU of D3 in a short time exposed to UVB (AKA, Sunlight)...With no adverse effects, I dont understand how supplementing with say 5000IU daily, is a bad thing.

    These paltry, overly conservative recommendations are coming from  organization(s) who have got a whole lot of things wrong in the past regarding diet etc. And for the most part still are.

    Its funny that we live in a society that has a complete meltdown about supplementation issues, but doesn't generate the same hysteria or debate about the amount of diet soda, cheetos, processed foods in general, that are consumed. Funny time we are living in.

  • Garry

    12/17/2010 11:25:48 PM |

    Along the lines of Dana's comment, here's an interesting blog article by Chris Masterjohn on the topic of D, A and K.
    http://foundation.westonaprice.org/blogs/is-vitamin-d-safe-still-depends-on-vitamins-a-and-k-testimonials-and-a-human-study.html

  • George

    2/2/2011 10:42:55 PM |

    Dr Davis, I have had good lipid results, overall health with a lowercarb, nonprocessed food, no wheat diet and vitamin D suppplementation over the last 3 years. Unfortunately, have also discovered the agony of calcium oxalate kidney stones (3 episodes/3 years). Have seen some studies implicating higher protein diets and vitamin d supplementation. Have you run into kidney stones with any of your patients on vitamin d supplemention?

  • Dave

    5/12/2011 7:14:31 PM |

    To whom it may concern.  I began supplementing with Vitamin D3 a few years ago.  Right at first, I was having a considerable amount of restless legs and restless sleep.  There were other side effects that included increased muscular spasms.  Upon further research, I started supplementing with extra Magnesium. ( I was already taking MagOx which obviously was not getting absorbed).  The magnesium was a highly absorbable magnesium malate. (Magnesium glycinate is good too).  Anyway, after a few weeks the side effects disappeared and I have not had those problems since.  Vitamin D3 increases calcium absorption.  We must have an increase of magnesium to balance calcium.  Just a little FYI for those of you having kidney stones or other side effects from your vitamin D3 supplementation.

Loading