I’m not sure if today’s Dr. Oz show was a repeat or not. It may have been.
The topic in one segment was on Vitamin D.
He had a female doctor discussing vitamin D sources.
One of the first things I noted was how small the amounts were that the female was calling “substantial” amounts of vitamin D, mostly in the form of enriched foods.
Claiming 300 IU’s is a large amount…I guess relative to other foods, it IS…but it certainly is not when it comes to dietary need, at least not according to Dr. Holick, whose opinions on Vitamin D I respect a great deal. He believes the amount of D most of us need for optimal health goes way beyond the Daily Recommendations set out by the establishment.
And anyone who has ever experienced low D levels…and then experienced healthy high-end levels…knows the difference is profound, and can get even better with still higher levels (within reasonable limits). I’ve experienced this first hand.
The only other part I really cringed over was how the enrichment of our foods with D is so often the inferior D2 form, as compared to D3.
Everyone needs to pay close attention to their labels in this regard, specifically the ingredient list where the form of Vitamin D will be listed…and is very often the D2 instead of the D3.
Why wouldn’t he cover this commonly held fact, that D3 is superior to the D2 in this conversation? I was waiting…expecting it…but it never happened.
I like some of what Dr. Oz does very much. I just get frustrated about a whole hell of a lot of the other stuff he does as well.