---
title: 'Your Vitamin D Dose Is Wrong (What the Evidence Actually Says)'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=BheOvgSXzUY'
video_id: 'BheOvgSXzUY'
date: 2026-07-30
duration_sec: 572
---

# Your Vitamin D Dose Is Wrong (What the Evidence Actually Says)

> Source: [Your Vitamin D Dose Is Wrong (What the Evidence Actually Says)](https://youtube.com/watch?v=BheOvgSXzUY)

## Summary

This video examines a 2014 study revealing a statistical error in the official vitamin D recommended dietary allowance (RDA). It explains that the 600 IU/day recommendation may be insufficient for most people, with corrected estimates suggesting up to 8,900 IU/day. However, it emphasizes the importance of testing individual blood levels and not megadosing without guidance.

### Key Points

- **Statistical Mistake in Vitamin D RDA** [00:01] — A 2014 paper argued that the 600 IU RDA for vitamin D was based on a statistical error, using group averages rather than individual responses, potentially underestimating true requirements by a factor of over 10.
- **Original 2011 RDA Basis** [00:41] — The Institute of Medicine set 600 IU/day based on bone health outcomes, targeting a serum level of 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L) for at least 97.5% of the population.
- **Flaw in Average-Based Analysis** [02:04] — The 2011 report plotted group averages from 10 studies to derive a dose-response curve, but this approach missed individual variability, leading to an underestimation of required intake.
- **Corrected Estimate: Up to 8,900 IU** [03:09] — Reanalyzing individual data, the 2014 authors found that 600 IU only ensures 97.5% of individuals exceed 26.8 nmol/L, not 50 nmol/L. To achieve 50 nmol/L for 97.5%, up to 8,900 IU/day is needed.
- **Deficiency Persists Despite Supplementation** [05:21] — Studies show 10-15% of supplement users still have vitamin D levels below 50 nmol/L, confirming the inadequacy of current recommendations for many individuals.
- **Optimal Vitamin D Levels for Health** [06:40] — Meta-analyses indicate lowest all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk at serum levels of 30-40 ng/mL (75-99 nmol/L). Levels above 40 ng/mL may increase risk.
- **Takeaway: Test, Don't Guess** [09:00] — The video concludes that rather than blindly following the RDA or megadosing, individuals should measure their vitamin D blood levels and adjust intake accordingly, considering factors like sun exposure, body fat, and skin pigmentation.

### Conclusion

The official vitamin D RDA of 600 IU/day appears to be based on a statistical error, potentially leaving many people deficient. Measuring individual blood levels and aiming for 30-40 ng/mL is the most reliable approach.

## Transcript

vitamin recommendations in America was based on a statistical mistake? This people to take far less vitamin D than the recommendation was supposed to guarantee. For years, most adults were told that 600 IU's of vitamin D per day
was enough. However, it might be that their required number is over 10 times greater, up to 8,900 IU's. Let me explain. In 2014, researchers Paul Veugelers and John Paul Ekwuru published a paper with a blunt title, A
Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. The paper argued that the recommended dose of vitamin D per day was not only too low, but it was statistically misinterpreted. The 600 IU
vitamin D recommended daily allowance was established in the 2011 report by the Institute of Medicine. They came to the 600 IU RDA by focusing on bone health outcomes, not broader claims about cancer, immunity, or longevity.
They conclude that that for vitamin D, an intake of 600 IU's per day for ages 1 to 70 and 800 IU's per day for ages 71 plus would correspond to a serum vitamin D level of at least 20 nanograms per milliliter, which they said would meet
the needs of at least 97.5% of the population. The RDA was never supposed to be about the average person. It was supposed to cover almost everybody. make sure that most people would meet their requirements. Vitamin D levels
below 20 nanograms per milliliter or less than 15 nanomoles per liter are associated with an increased rate of bone loss. Vitamin D levels over 20 nanograms per milliliter are considered sufficient. However, it's been suggested
that the insufficiency line should be at 30 nanograms per milliliter or 75 that there would be even more people at accounted for. The vitamin D intake of 600 IU's would get 97.5% of the people
threshold. The Institute of Medicine based that recommendation on 10 supplementation studies, which together produced 32 study averages. They plotted those averages against vitamin D intake, created a dose-response curve, and from
that concluded that 600 IUs per day would get 97.5% of individuals above the target level. But, here's where the problem begins. The authors of that 2014 study claimed that the 2011 study authors looked at group averages, but
not how individuals would respond to supplementation. And this difference changes a lot because the RDA, as I said, is supposed to cover most people, not the average person. It's like saying the class average on a test was high, so
everyone must have passed. In reality, some people passed, and some people paper, that's exactly what happened. So, the 2014 study authors went back and looked at the data. This time, they looked at how did supplementation affect
individuals individually. Their analysis suggested that if you take 600 IUs per day, 97.5% of individuals would be expected to get above 26.8 nmol/L, not
above 50 nmol/L, which is what the recommendation was assumed to achieve. level to be considered not deficient. This means that 97.5% of people taking only 600 IUs of vitamin D would be severely deficient unless they get a lot
of sun exposure. The authors estimated that to get 97.5% of individuals above 50 nmol/L, they needed to take up to 8,900 IUs per day of vitamin D. Now, of
should immediately start taking 9,000 IUs of vitamin D every day. The authors clearly warned against that. Whether or not you need vitamin D supplementation And you don't need to take vitamin D. You can realistically have optimal blood
supplementation. But, what it means is that the official gap between the RDA and the dose predicted to cover 97.5% of individuals is a lot higher than people expected. It's not 600 IUs. It's a lot higher. I want to take a quick break I'd
like you about the Bon Charge infrared sauna blankets, my go-to way of getting without needing to spend an hour to warm up a regular sauna. Taking a sauna is, for your overall health and heart function. Studies show that taking a
sauna regularly is associated with 63% lower risk of sudden cardiac death, 63% reduced heart disease mortality, 46% lower risk of hypertension, and 40% mediated by an increase in body temperature and increased heart rate
while at the same time improving arterial stiffness, endothelial function, blood pressure, and metabolic health. It doesn't matter if it's a sauna, an infrared sauna blanket, or anything else that elevates your body
Charge infrared sauna blankets have the advantage of shining far infrared light that can penetrate deeper into your tissues than regular saunas can. It warms up in 2 minutes to the optimal temperature of 70°C and it's low in EMF.
You can get a 15% discount by heading over to boncharge.com/ over to boncharge.com/ seem
where vitamin D deficiency remained common even among people who are supplementing. In one study, despite vitamin D supplementation of 400 IUs or more with a total intake of about 632 IUs, 10% of participants still had
levels below 50 nanomoles per liter. In another study, 15% of supplement users were still below that level. On page two, the figure based on study averages makes the 600 IU recommendation look to be enough, but on page three, once the
analysis shifts towards individual variability using the lower tail picture changes. The corrected lower line sits dramatically lower, which shows why a dose that looks sufficient on average may still leave many
individuals under the target. Unfortunately, the vitamin D RDA hasn't been updated. It's still at 600 IUs, but this doesn't mean that you should take 9,000 IUs of vitamin D. That's because the vitamin D dose isn't the same for
of vitamin D, and they respond differently to sunlight exposure and to supplementation. Things like your body size, your body fat percentage, your age, your skin pigmentation, they all influence your vitamin D status. So, the
most important lesson is to actually measure your vitamin D and to see if you are deficient or with optimal levels. So, what's a good vitamin D level to have? We've established that vitamin D levels below 20 ng/mL or less than 50
nmol/L are considered insufficient. Vitamin D levels over 20 ng/mL are sufficient, but it's likely that the insufficiency line should be at 30 ng/mL or 75 nmol/L. This would mean that the requirement for vitamin D would be even
requirement for vitamin D would be even higher than 8,900, probably up to 10,000 IUs per day. When it comes to the range for lowest all-cause mortality, then this 2017 meta-analysis showed that compared to vitamin D levels of 30 to 40
compared to vitamin D levels of 30 to 40 ng/mL or 75 to 99 nmol/L, those with vitamin D levels of 16 to 20 or 40 to 49 nmol had a 15% higher risk of all-cause mortality, and those with a vitamin D of below 12 ng/mL or less than 30 nmol/L
saw a 67% higher risk. Similar results have been found with cardiovascular disease mortality. A 2017 meta-analysis of prospective studies found that serum associated with cardiovascular disease events and mortality. The lowest risk
was at 30 to 40 ng/mL or 75 to 99 nanomoles per liter, which is the same range as the one in the previous study on all-cause mortality. Vitamin D levels above 40 nanograms per milliliter or over 100 nanomoles per liter are
cardiovascular disease mortality and myocardial infarction. It's very hard to exposure unless you're also supplementing with vitamin D. So, it looks like the vitamin D range of 30 to 40 nanograms per milliliter or 75 to 99
for the lowest all-cause mortality risk and cardiovascular disease risk. Yes, but you don't need to supplement if you get it from sunlight. Things that affect how much vitamin D you make from the sun include your skin pigmentation, with
sun, body fat percentage, being overweight makes you store vitamin D in the fat and less in the blood, time of the day, with morning and evening sun more time to get enough vitamin D, the season, summer providing more vitamin D
and winter less, and the UV index, higher UV index equals higher vitamin D, but also more skin damage. So, there is a fine balance between excess skin aging from UV damage and making vitamin D. You definitely don't need to roast out in
the sun for 8 hours to make enough vitamin D. When supplementing vitamin D, you should also take vitamin K2 MK7 to prevent calcification from excess vitamin D, especially when taking larger doses of thousands of IUs of vitamin D.
Overall, this study doesn't prove that 8,900 IUs is a dose for everyone, but it does suggest that the official recommendation of 600 IUs may how much most people would actually need. So, the real takeaway isn't that
everyone should megadose vitamin D or spend a lot of time in the sun. It means status to know what is your blood vitamin D status, and then adjust your accordingly. Vitamin D as a supplement is controversial. It has some evidence,
but it's not a panacea. Check out my video where I rank 100 supplements from video where I rank 100 supplements from worst to best next.