Note the caveat at the end:

> "Remember, this RDA is for bone health only," Gallagher cautioned. "It may be different for other diseases. Although trials looking into cancer, diabetes, and other diseases are ongoing, we do not have information about this yet."

The actual RDA for Vitamin D is set based on bone health, since there is not sufficient data for other conditions it may effect, so that's not a significant caveat when it comes to a recommendation to change the RDA.

The RDI baseline is always set to bone health. It's an indicator for the general population, not people with illnesses that may increase their RDI amount.

Except Vitamin D influences more than just bone health, and the recent research suggesting we should increase recommended dosages has centered on that.

No, it reduced what the same authors recommended the RDA should be based on the same researchers previous work by half, but that's only a reduction by a third from what the actual RDA is.

Please read the study. They tested at what the earlier study listed as a "correct" level of Vitamin D, and the tests showed that the lower amount was correct.

"The participants were randomized to one of seven vitamin D3 doses: 400, 800, 1600, 2400, 3200, 4000, 4800 IU/day or placebo, for 1 year, and all the women were given calcium supplements to maintain a total calcium intake."

> Please read the study

I did. The earlier study cited recommended the RDA should be 800, this study recommends 400; that cuts it by half from the earlier study.

The actual government issued RDA, now and at the time of the study, however, is 600, not 800, so it's only recommending the actual RDA be reduced by 1/3, not 1/2.