Next Article in Journal
Iodized Salt Sales in the United States
Previous Article in Journal
Structures of Phytosterols and Triterpenoids with Potential Anti-Cancer Activity in Bran of Black Non-Glutinous Rice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nutrients
Volume 7
Issue 3
10.3390/nu7031688
nutrients-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Letter

Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472

by
Robert Heaney
1,*,
Cedric Garland
2,
Carole Baggerly
3,
Christine French
3 and
Edward Gorham
2
1
Creighton University, Omaha, NE 68178, USA
2
Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA
3
GrassrootsHealth, Encinitas, CA 92024, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nutrients 2015, 7(3), 1688-1690; https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031688
Submission received: 2 February 2015 / Revised: 3 March 2015 / Accepted: 5 March 2015 / Published: 10 March 2015
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Excerpt

Note: In lieu of an abstract, this is an excerpt from the first page.

Recently Veugelers and Ekwaru published data [1] indicating that, in its dietary reference intakes for calcium and vitamin D, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) had made a serious calculation error [2]. Using the same data set as had the IOM panel, these investigators showed that the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for vitamin D had been underestimated by an order of magnitude. Veugelers and Ekwaru, using the IOM’s data, calculated an RDA of 8895 IU per day. They noted that there was some uncertainty in that estimate, inasmuch as this value required an extrapolation from the available data, which did not include individuals receiving daily vitamin D inputs above 2400 IU/day.[...]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Heaney, R.; Garland, C.; Baggerly, C.; French, C.; Gorham, E. Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472. Nutrients 2015, 7, 1688-1690. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031688

AMA Style

Heaney R, Garland C, Baggerly C, French C, Gorham E. Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472. Nutrients. 2015; 7(3):1688-1690. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031688

Chicago/Turabian Style

Heaney, Robert, Cedric Garland, Carole Baggerly, Christine French, and Edward Gorham. 2015. "Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472" Nutrients 7, no. 3: 1688-1690. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031688

APA Style

Heaney, R., Garland, C., Baggerly, C., French, C., & Gorham, E. (2015). Letter to Veugelers, P.J. and Ekwaru, J.P., A Statistical Error in the Estimation of the Recommended Dietary Allowance for Vitamin D. Nutrients 2014, 6, 4472–4475; doi:10.3390/nu6104472. Nutrients, 7(3), 1688-1690. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu7031688

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop