Experience Life Magazine

The Vitamin D Debate

There’s been a lot of controversy lately about vitamin D recommendations. If you’re confused about how much you should be taking, you’re not alone.


Put 10 doctors in a room, goes the old joke, and you’ll get 10 different opinions. Unfortunately, that has become the story with vitamin D — and it’s no laughing matter. All the conflicting advice about how much to take has left many of us unsure of what to do.

The stakes are high. Inadequate vitamin D levels can increase your risk of dozens of serious health problems, including cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, asthma, Alzheimer’s disease, and even the common cold and influenza. And apparently, nearly all of us are at risk of vitamin D deficiency.

Adit Ginde, MD, MPH, of the University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, found that nearly three of every four Americans have either deficiencies or borderline deficiencies of the vitamin. But some experts contend the situation is far worse. “Ninety-five percent of Americans are deficient in vitamin D — that’s how big the problem is,” says John J. Cannell, MD, who heads the nonprofit Vitamin D Council. “It’s very difficult to overstate the seriousness of the situation.”

The main reason most of us lack adequate vitamin D is that we aren’t soaking up enough sun. When the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays strike the skin, they stimulate our bodies’ production of vitamin D. These days, though, warned about the risk of skin cancer, many of us don sunscreen whenever we go outside, inhibiting vitamin D production. And we don’t go outside nearly as much as we used to.

“Society has changed, and a lot of these changes have pushed us indoors,” says Robert P. Heaney, MD, of Creighton University in Omaha. “Our parents and grandparents spent significant amounts of time working or doing other activities outdoors. Until recently, children spent a lot of time playing outside. All of this enabled people to build up enough vitamin D reserves for wintertime, when it’s nearly impossible to make vitamin D in most parts of the country. Now, though, people go from homes to their cars to their work, and spend very little time exposed to sunlight. Computers, PlayStations and other electronics, along with 500 television channels, keep us occupied indoors,” he says.

Other changes have occurred as well: “In the 1930s, vitamin D was considered a miracle vitamin,” explains Michael F. Holick, MD, PhD, of the Boston Medical Center. That’s because researchers had just discovered that the vitamin prevented rickets, a near-epidemic bone-deforming disease among children in industrialized northern states and northern Europe. Dozens of foods were fortified with vitamin D, even hotdogs and beer. Then, in Great Britain during the 1950s, doctors started seeing cases of high blood calcium in young children that they mistakenly thought was due to overfortification of milk with vitamin D. As a result, doctors became wary of vitamin D, and Britain and most other European countries banned vitamin D fortification of foods.

Fast forward to the 1980s. That’s when doctors in India treated six tuberculosis patients with 3,800 international units (IU) of vitamin D daily for three months. The patients developed dangerously high blood levels of calcium. The doctors blamed the vitamin D, but they never measured the patients’ blood levels of the vitamin, or acknowledged that super-high calcium levels could be common in people with tuberculosis. That study added to the stigma, and five years later, based on the available evidence, the U.S. government warned that as little as 1,000 IU of vitamin D daily could be toxic.

All this shaped doctors’ feelings about vitamin D for years to come — and set the stage for today’s controversy about how much of the vitamin to take.

Reconsidered Recommendations

The tide of opinion started to change  in 1999, when Reinhold Vieth, PhD, a University of Toronto researcher, questioned the Indian study. Writing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vieth noted that up to 10,000 IU of vitamin D daily appeared to be safe. Indeed, that’s approximately how much vitamin D a person in a bathing suit, sans sunscreen, would make after spending 15 minutes in the summer sun.

Then, in 2004, there emerged a new wave of vitamin D research that continues today. Leading experts, including Cannell, Heaney and Holick, were recommending that adults routinely take at least 1,000 to 2,000 IU — and maybe even up to 5,000 IU — daily of vitamin D in specific circumstances. These recommendations were getting wide coverage in medical journals, magazines and newspapers, and vitamin D was again enjoying a renaissance.

But at the end of 2010, the federal government’s Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued more cautious recommendations. Although the IOM increased the recommended amount of vitamin D for most adults from 200 to 600 IU (up to 800 IU for those 71 and older), it also stated that most Americans have adequate vitamin D levels and that there was no need to take more than 600 IU of vitamin D daily to maintain healthy bones.

In our headline-driven world, this became big news, but the fact that the report focused on bone health was often lost. The IOM report did not address, in any substantial way, that larger amounts of vitamin D appeared to reduce the risk of infection, cancer and other diseases. Instead, the IOM noted that insufficient research prohibited recommending vitamin D to help prevent these diseases.

A firestorm of criticism ensued, mostly in medical journals and blogs, much of it coming from doctors who had anticipated the IOM would recommend larger amounts.

“The IOM report made absolutely no sense at all,” says Cannell. “If you take the report at face value, a baby and a 300-pound football lineman both need only 600 IU of vitamin D daily.”

The other view: “The IOM committee did its work without any preconceptions. It’s the data — the totality of data — that led to the numbers,” says Catharine Ross, PhD, a professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University, and the chair of the IOM committee. “The RDAs are for the general population, and from all the studies to date, there isn’t support for values higher than those that the report specifies.”

Cannell contends that the IOM report was filled with contradictions. “The IOM report acknowledged that people could safely take up to 4,000 IU of vitamin D daily. This amount of vitamin D will boost blood levels of vitamin D to 40 ng/ml (nanograms per milliliter of blood), but the IOM also stated that 40 ng/ml was potentially dangerous, which it isn’t,” he says.

“The IOM report doesn’t actually say ‘dangerous,’” responds Ross. “It says there is no solid evidence of benefit going above 20 ng/ml, and it raises caution that new data suggest that for some people, higher levels may increase risk.”

In June 2011 the Endocrine Society, whose members are hormone specialists, weighed in with its clinical guidelines for physicians. Considered the Holy Grail of vitamin D recommendations, the Society’s guidelines generally suggested larger daily amounts of vitamin D to prevent and treat vitamin D deficiency than did the IOM: 400 to 1,000 IU for infants less than 1 year old, 600 to 1,000 IU for older children and teenagers, and 1,500 to 2,000 IU for adults. The Society also advised doctors that obese adults might need up to 10,000 IU daily for two months to correct a deficiency.

“I never see a patient whose vitamin D I don’t measure, mainly because deficiencies are so common, especially in people with serious diseases,” says Ron Hunninghake, MD, chief medical officer of the nonprofit, nutrition-oriented Riordan Clinic in Wichita, Kan. And if a patient does show up deficient in the nutrient? “I won’t let them out of the office without recommending vitamin D.”

Top 3 Benefits of Vitamin D

So, what exactly makes vitamin D so important to our health? Quite simply, it directly and indirectly influences most of what happens in our bodies every second of every day.

To understand, you have to shift your thinking a bit. Vitamin D isn’t actually a vitamin. Rather, it’s a hormone precursor that our biological ancestors made from being in the sun. When exposed to UV rays, a chemical cousin of cholesterol in the skin converts to vitamin D, which travels to the liver and is changed to the prehormone calcidiol. Calcitriol (the actual hormone) attaches to more than 2,700 sites on the human genome, and it turns on more than 1,000 genes, prompting them to do their jobs.

Creighton University’s Robert P. Heaney, MD, points out that vitamin D is a key part of the biochemical machinery that opens up our entire genome, so cells can tap into the vast information it contains. In a remarkable feat of biology, individual cells synthesize calcitriol, which then turns around to regulate those cells’ activities. It’s these fundamental roles of vitamin D that affect our risk for so many different diseases. In fact, says Heaney, “Vitamin D probably affects every disease.”

The evidence is particularly strong when it comes to vitamin D’s role in resisting infection, maintaining bone and muscle, and reducing cancer risks. (For other potential benefits, see “Vitamin D: Good for What Ails You?” sidebar.)

1. Cold and Flu Protection
Is it a coincidence that the vast majority of cold and flu outbreaks occur during the winter, when people have less sun exposure and lower levels of vitamin D? Probably not. In 2009 researchers analyzed patterns of deaths and disease complications (typically pneumonia) during the influenza pandemic that raged through the United States in 1918 and 1919, killing at least one-half million people. The researchers reported that the fewest flu deaths and complications occurred in southern cities, where the sun shone brighter throughout the year and, presumably, people had higher vitamin D levels. In contrast, the most deaths occurred in northern cities, where there was less sun exposure.

Granted, this association doesn’t prove cause and effect, but it’s certainly suggestive, and other evidence does support the protective role of vitamin D. Over the 2008–2009 winter months, doctors gave 1,200 IU of vitamin D daily to Japanese school children. Compared with children getting placebos, those taking vitamin D were 42 percent less likely to contract the flu and 83 percent less likely to suffer asthma attacks.

The underlying mechanisms are now understood. Numerous immune compounds depend on vitamin D, including PCL-gamma1, a molecule that activates immune cells so they’re capable of fighting infections. In addition, lung cells are among those that secrete 1a-hydroxylase, an enzyme that converts inactive vitamin D to its active form, helping fight respiratory infections. The vitamin D then turns on genes involved in immunity and boosts levels of cathelicidin, a powerful germ-fighting compound.

2. Stronger Bones and Muscles
Vitamin D has long been recognized as essential for normal bone formation, largely because it is essential for calcium utilization. Numerous studies have shown that the majority of seniors hospitalized for hip fractures are deficient in vitamin D.

But the problem might not be just weak bones. Heike Bischoff-Ferrari, MD, of University Hospital in Zurich, and others have made the case that weak muscles lead to falls and broken bones. The argument has its merits. Vitamin D is needed for normal muscle production and strength, and a lack of the vitamin leads to muscle weakness, a reduced range of motion, and increased physical frailty. With each passing year, seniors are more likely to be affected by sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle, along with osteoporosis. After analyzing 20 studies, which included more than 44,000 patients, Bischoff-Ferrari wrote in Osteoporosis International that 1,800 to 4,000 IU of vitamin D could greatly reduce the risk of falls in seniors. In contrast, the IOM recommended only 600 to 800 IU daily.

3.Lower Risk of Cancer
In 1980 epidemiologists reported that low vitamin D levels were associated with a greater risk of developing colorectal cancer.

Since then, researchers from around the world have linked low vitamin D levels to a higher risk of breast, ovarian, kidney, pancreatic and aggressive prostate cancer.

Would vitamin D supplements or greater sun exposure help protect against these cancers? The answer is yes, according to research by Cedric F. Garland, DrPH, of the University of California, San Diego.

Garland and his colleagues calculated that the incidence of colon cancer in the United States and Canada could be cut in half if people took 2,000 IU of vitamin D daily, and that women would reduce the incidence of breast cancer by half if they took 3,500 IU of vitamin D daily

How Much Should You Take?

So all this comes back to the questions: Should you take vitamin D? And if so, how much? Here’s the best advice culled from experts.

• The ideal approach is to ask your doctor for a vitamin D blood test, which will eliminate the bulk of the guesswork — but not all of it. Because of individual differences in absorption and use, people may need to take differing quantities of vitamin D to achieve a healthy blood level. Make sure your doctor orders a “25-hydroxy vitamin D” test. Other tests might result in a false normal. Although levels below 30 ng/ml indicate a deficiency, many physicians haven’t kept up with the research on vitamin D and believe that this level is just fine. The optimal level is at least 40 ng/ml and perhaps 50 ng/ml, says Heaney. But higher amounts, within reason, aren’t necessarily bad. Surfers, lifeguards and people who spend a lot of time outdoors typically have levels of 70 to 90 ng/ml.

• If you don’t currently have a significant deficiency, and if during the summer you spend a lot of time in the sun, with at least your arms and legs exposed, and you are not always slathered with sunscreen, you probably don’t need to take vitamin D supplements. Holick, who wrote The Vitamin D Solution (Hudson Street Press, 2010), suggests getting approximately 10 minutes of sun exposure (depending on time of day, season, latitudinal location and skin pigmentation) before applying sunscreen. Vitamin D made from the sun actually lasts longer in the body, compared with vitamin D from supplements or foods (also note that with the exception of wild salmon and shiitake mushrooms, most foods aren’t great sources of vitamin D).

• If it’s fall, winter or early spring, if you don’t get a lot of sun exposure, or if you know you are D-deficient, you should definitely take vitamin D supplements (most health pros recommend vitamin D3, also known as cholecalciferol). Your need will be greater if you are north of the latitude of Atlanta, since you will make little if any vitamin D from sun exposure during the months of November through March.

• If you have not taken a vitamin D blood test and you’re looking for general guidelines, Holick suggests that children take 1,000 to 2,000 IU and adults take 2,000 to 3,000 IU daily. “The bottom line for me is that there is probably no evidence that these amounts pose any risk,” he says. Cannell’s recommendation: Don’t drive yourself crazy with all the qualifications. “Just take 5,000 IU a day, unless you’re going outside to work or to the garden or beach.” The higher amount might be particularly helpful for people with a chronic illness, such as fibromyalgia, arthritis or lupus, adds Hunninghake. “These high doses of vitamin D, while generally safe, should be monitored with follow-up blood level [tests],” he says.

And what of the risks? For most people, vitamin D toxicity occurs after taking more than 40,000 IU daily for months, says Cannell. So as long as you’re being moderate in your intake, don’t sweat it.

Jack Challem is the author of more than 20 books on nutrition, including No More Fatigue: Why You’re So Tired and What You Can Do About It(Wiley, 2011), and is a member of the American Society for Nutrition.

Related Content

The Lowdown on Vitamin D

Gregory Plotnikoff, MD, weighs in on the Institute of Medicine's vitamin D recommendations.…continued



Better Together

From green tea and lemons to red wine and fish, some foods deliver even more nutritional punch…continued



On the Bright Side

We know that excessive sun exposure is unhealthy, but there’s increasing evidence that…continued

8 Comment to The Vitamin D Debate

  • Narek Rose says:

    Dr. Michael F. Holick has a huge conflict of interest by being supported and paid for by the Tanning Bed Industry. Why don’t you make more of an effort to find the facts before recommending dangerous UVR to get Vitamin D when you can get it easily in other safe ways?

    In a research project funded by the United States National Institutes of Health and a grant from the UV Foundation, Tangpricha, V. et al. identified, “the regular use of a tanning bed that emits vitamin D–producing ultraviolet radiation is associated with higher 25(OH)D concentrations and thus may have a benefit for the skeleton.”[18] Michael F. Holick, an investigator in the study, declared a conflict of interest because he serves as a consultant to the UV Foundation. The UV Foundation garners financial support from the Indoor Tanning Association, OSRAM (a German lamp and lighting company), and Future Industries (a United States importer of tanning beds, tanning bed supplies, and lamps). Most scientists thus question the study’s validity and disagree with these conclusions. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently completed an exhaustive review of Vitamin D benefits and requirements, and concluded that at present, conclusive evidence of Vitamin D’s benefit can only be stated for bone health, but that many more areas require further study.[19]

    Humans can acquire Vitamin D from dietary sources and vitamin supplements, without the need for UVR exposure for vitamin D production, an exposure that carries substantial overlap with DNA damage. The European Commission Health and Consumer Protection Directorate (Scientific Committee on Consumer Products) has concluded that dietary vitamin D intake, along with oral supplements and intermittent testing of Vitamin D levels, is thought to be likely more effective than tanning, without incurring a carcinogenic risk[20]

  • John Manfred says:

    The best treatment for vitamin “deficiencies” is to eat a varied and normal diet, to get out into the sun on a regular but not extreme basis, and to determine the amount of time outside, during the peak period of UVB radiation (10 am to 3 pm), based upon latitude. For example, people living in Florida, in summer, should not stay out more than 10 minutes at a time, without protection, in the mid-summer. People in NY, in summer, can stay maybe 1/2 hour. In Florida, in winter, 1/2 hour might be appropriate, and in NY maybe as long as a few hours. Basically, the rule is to stay outside, in the sun, long enough to get a very light tan or a few freckles, but, as soon as the burning begins, you know you are out too long. You can learn how long you can tolerate by a few progressively longer tests, starting from a very safe amount of time (ie: 5 minutes unprotected in the peak summer sun in Florida, for example) and increase the time from there, gradually, until the first mild burn. Then, cut back to the maximum time prior to a burn, and you are set. If you move, you just start the testing process over again.

  • Nicole says:

    I have suffered terribly from Fibromyalgia for about 15 years. When I read an article by a woman who had taken mega doses D and it helped her substantially I decided to try it. When I told my doctor about a month later he checked my blood and I was indeed low in D. He said that my taking the 5-6,000 a day I told him was ok. It did help me so the pain was not as bad, particularly with pain from waist down legs, but did not alleviate it entirely…but made a big enough difference that I continued taking mega dose. A few months later I told him I was wrong about the dose as I had switched to 5,000 IU in place of the 1.000 after a month so I had calculated wrong and he said we needed to check my blood again as having too high D could be toxic, even deadly given time and I stopped taking D until result came back. Apparently the high level should not be more than 100 and mine was 150. So now will continue not taking until I see my doc in two weeks at which time we will discuss what to do at that point. Since it is having your D levels below normal that seems to affect FMS patients I am hoping I won’t get increased pain in time and that just keeping it at normal levels will give the same amount of relief. Only time will tell. I will report back. But I would recommend FMS patients check their Vitamin D levels and if low ask your doctor what the maximum safe amount to take is. I am aware of many FMS patients now who have been helped by Vitamin D treatment.

  • Louche says:

    Interesting article. Thanks for the comments, Denise. I also found the article a bit overly dismissive of a few important points, and a bit too suggestive of things without evidence. Remember, suggestive isn’t the same as fact.

    I just got tested for Vitamin D and calcium today and am awaiting results. I had previously been tested on October 10. Results then were: 30ng/ml (30-100ng/ml), and 9.8 of whatever units on the calcium test (upper normal). Shortly afterward I began experiencing a multitude of health problems that I initially thought were caused by iron supplements. However, my iron tests came back mostly normal / low end of normal (I was recovering from slight iron deficiency). I then stopped eating cheese because that was the one thing I’d be eating a lot of all this time, and suddenly I started to feel so much better. I believe I ate way too much cheese and developed hypercalcemia. Furthermore, it was a few specific types of cheese which I was eating for their high K2 contents. I believe the K2 actually depleted my body of Vitamin D, while the excess protein I was eating might have decreased my bone density. I may have also been getting excess magnesium from the cheese, which is high in magnesium. All these factors combined created a nightmare of health problems. I tried taking Vitamin D for a little while… at first it seemed to make me feel better, but before long, it was clear that it was making me feel worse. I took Vitamin in three different supplements: 10k IU A + 400 IU D; 1000 IU D; 100mg K2 MK-4 + 1000IU D. Based on these experiences, I believe all Vitamin D was actually making me feel simultaneously better AND worse. The K2 pills – both the one with Vitamin D and the other without (MK-7 + alfalfa) – made me feel worse. I believe the K2 was depleting my Vitamin D in part because my osteomalacia (sensitive bones) dramatically decreased when I stopped eating cheese, but increased again when I took the K2 + D. Osteomalacia is caused by either low D or low calcium. I have also read someone else reporting that K2 seemed to increase their need for Vitamin D. Then, the Vitamin D by itself seemed to decrease my bone sensitivity, decrease numbness in toes, and increase joint paints and possibly also chest pains, increase muscular problems (including spasms), increase strange pains in eyes and hands. I didn’t even take that much according to the recommendations of this and many other articles advocating Vitamin D for all. I was having osteomalacia even at and before the time of the 30ng/ml measurement, though it got worse.

    Also, magnesium supplements made me feel like I was going to have a heart attack and I only took 4. That makes me think I may have also been in excess of magnesium. I hoped the magnesium would boost D while lowering calcium, but I guess it either boosted D too much or lowered my blood calcium so much that my body responded by sucking the calcium out of my bones and depositing it in strange places… or perhaps it actually increased my calcium since magnesium increases absorption of calcium. I felt like I was getting calcium deposits in my fingers/eyes, and my voice got a little course like my vocal chord muscles could no longer stretch all the way due to depletion of calcium from the muscles.

    All this is very strange. But it’s a crappy place I’m in now because I can’t take Vitamin D without seemingly developing hypercalcemia immediately…… and my doctors are like “You’re young, I have no idea what you’re talking about.” I don’t even know if there’s anything they could do. Our bodies regulate calcium in the blood to stay roughly the same at all times, by either absorbing more from foods or removing calcium from bones and muscles. Thus, hypercalcemia isn’t easy to measure. Same with magnesium. Getting a bone density test would be ideal for me right now, but I’m on Medicaid, so I’d have to spend more time than I have shopping around to find a doctor to do more in-depth testing. If the problems persist, I’ll try harder for that.

    With sun exposure, the body is good at removing excess Vitamin D, but this function is lacking when Vitamin D is acquired through food.

    I have no idea how I’ll ever recover from this – all supplements made me feel like I was dying of a degenerative disease or three. I am 24 years old. I guess all I can do is avoid all supplements and just eat a nutritionist recommended diet until my calcium levels go back down. If the test comes back high in calcium then it’ll be easier to request more tests / treatment, but otherwise I’m a little screwed here. Winter is just getting started, so I’m scared of waiting …. I don’t want my hands to suffer a lot of irreparable damage from this… my bones generally seem to be smaller.

    I advise caution in taking all supplements, even those recommended by doctors, though to a lesser extent. At least doctors are held accountable for their mistakes, unlike all the random people on the internet – and that includes the random doctors who are trying to make money by advertising products online. It’s irresponsible of them to be making near blanket recommendations for vitamins to people who haven’t even made an appointment with them and who they know nothing about and have no responsibility for.

  • Kip says:

    “And apparently, nearly all of us are at risk of vitamin D deficiency.”
    I find it min blowing that 50 – 75% of all Americans have a vitamin D deficiency. It would be interesting to see (although impossible) whether this was already the case way, way back. So in other words, is it something of our time (we’re just sitting inside too much), or is it an inherited human “defect”… Well, get some sun everybody!

    • John Manfred says:

      Or, is it simply a case of doctors who need an excuse to “treat” more people for illnesses that really don’t exist but for the need for physicians to earn money. I am not saying that this is true with the Vit. D issue. There does seem to be considerable evidence that because of doctors and their extreme and utterly stupid medical recommendations of the past (ie: slather on sunscreen before any outside exposure), many people may now have Vit. D deficiencies, if they’ve listened to those past recommendations. However, various illnesses, “deficiencies” and treatments are constantly being newly created to satisfy the financial needs of the medical community. That might be true here also.

  • maria blare says:

    Mind boggling thought in here. Vitamin D, which we usually get from sunlight is really good and an essential element that we need to keep our bones healthy and is also we need to strengthen our immune system. However, too much exposure to the sunlight could also bring negative effects on our general health. What’s good to be done is to read more and know more information, facts and study about the benefits of sunlight particularly the Vitamin D.

  • Denise Testa says:

    There is a lot of slight misinformation in this report.

    It is true that there was an outbreak of idiopathic infantile hypercalcaemia in the UK during the 1940s and 1950s. It is not true that none of these infants had their vitamin D assayed. It is true that few did. The bioassay of D at this period was difficult. Some of these infants ended up with stunting of growth, kidney defecit and facial deformity and decreased mental function. Many fully recovered. When vitamin fortification dropped from 2000 IU per quart to 400 IU per quart of milk, the rash of admission for IIH dropped significantly. Since then the cause of this malady has been recently discovered. It is a genetic mutation in the CYP24A enzyme which breaks down surplus 1,25D3, the active D metabolite. Because the infants had a dearth of this enzyme in the kidney, it made them more sensitive to vitamin D, and therefore increased calcium absorbtion and resorption, resulting in hypercalcaemia.

    As to the Indian Study above, which was dismissed out of hand by the D cabal, tuberculosis causes granulomatous inflamation. This inflammation produces a 1-alpha hydroxylase enzyme. This enzyme is identical to the kidney enzyme which converts 25D3 to its active metabolite 1,25D3. When the the tuberculosis patients were given extra vitamin D, they were more sensitive to it because of their disease process. The 1 alpha hydroxylase enzyme increased levels of 1,25D in their blood, and this in turn increased blood levels of calcium. This is why they became more ill on vitamin D. Some people with cancer, lymphoma, granulomatous diseases such as TB, sarcoidosis and Crohns, are more sensitive to D than the healthy population. 50,000 IU doses have killed people with these diseases within a couple of weeks.

    Denise Testa

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

City and state are only displayed in our print magazine if your comment is chosen for publication.

Experience Life welcomes your comments and suggestions. We simply ask that they be on topic and respectful of the conversation. Here's our full comment policy.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>