The Nutritional Supplement Debate Continues: If Vitamin D Isn't A "Sure Thing," What Is?

Two years ago, my very conservative and traditional Oncologist, Dr. Suzanne Hayman, recommended I begin taking 1000 IU's of vitamin D, along with my 500 mg of calcium daily. The vitamin D "helps the calcium work" Dr. Hayman said. A well known nutritional guru and author, Dr. Andrew Weil, only recommends people take a few nutritional supplements: A high quality multi-vitamin, 1000 IU's of vitamin D and omega-3 fish oil. Dr. Arcola, promoter of the raw diet, raves about the health benefits of vitamin D. I believe them! But then you read an article like the one I posted here yesterday from the New York Times about vitamin D and it leaves lots of room for doubt! Taken in moderation, vitamin D should be very safe. It is relatively inexpensive and shouldn't cause any side effects. So what's the harm in taking some? Nothing! Take it! Little risk for significant possible reward. That's how I have come to view most vitamins and supplements. Go ahead--take some! But use common sense and don't go overboard or the scale tips back the other way--now the risk may outweigh the reward.

But that isn't my point. I have written here before about the disappointing results from nutritional studies about the benefits of selenium and vitamins E and C. Years and years of recommendations and assumptions proved to be wrong! Selenium doesn't help prevent prostate cancer. Vitamin E doesn't help prevent breast cancer. Does vitamin D help improve bone health? Maybe. Probably.

Feel good, keep smiling and eat lots and lots of fresh fruits and vegetables! The rest is just inexpensive insurance that may or may not work! Pat