It seems that science is a very inexact…science.
not too long ago, I posted some of the latest info, from newspaper review, of vitamin D requirements based on a large body of studies reviewed by experts. seems the numbers just keep getting more confusing – not too much, just this amount, no more than that amount, etc etc. now, here’s a study that shows 
you need waaaaaaaaaaaaay more than what’s been recommended to fight off cancer: Higher Vitamin D Intake Needed To Reduce Cancer Risk
So what should we make of this? First of all, I’m not a biochemist, a dietitian, nor even a nutritionist – I’m just a personal trainer who’s very well educated in the exercise and wellness field. an expert – I hesitate to claim that for myself, esp when it refers to nutrition. But I am smart enough, and well read enough, and maybe even intelligent enough to know this: just wait long enough and whatever else i think i know will probably be wrong. until then, however, you gotta keep on truckin’.
So, here’s my spin on this controversy. While most of the data suggests a multivitamin is probably unnecessary, for some nutrients most of us require supplementation. If you don’t spend a lot of time outside in the sun year ’round, and if you don’t do vitamin d-reinforced dairy products in large amounts, and if you are older than, say, 55 and at risk of osteopenia/osteoporosis, then you need to supplement with vitamin D, and most likely calcium. how much to take? Well, you can ask a doc, a dietitian, or read this article – which calls for way more than the newer recommendation of 800 IU – or at least get that minimum of 800. in the end, you will die either way, and who knows if it’s from lack of victim D or other aspects of your life and lifestyle. But if you read this while young enough, let’s just hope these docs are not too aggressive and you die from vitamin d overload. That’d be a real bummer.
