Any one lese having difficulties with Vit D level....had a terrible few weeks waking at night my arms in agony...went to the doctors who did blood tests and came bakc to me saying Vit D is very low and to go to chemist and buy some?
Where did you get the above 100 range from, and do you know which units it is?
My lab report does not give a reference range. It actually says "not applicable". The test was a 25-OH vit D. The units were nmol/L
I have been trying to find a UK official reference range without much success. The goal posts move. I have seen that 50 is the lowest adequate level, that between 50 and 100nmol/l (20-40ng/mL) is normal, also seen that 75 is adequate. 200 is too much. No-one seems to know for sure, which may explain why my lab doesn't give one.
My report says I am 43 nmol
less than 25 is deficient 25-50 insufficient
> 200 is too much.
Dr Mercola is BIG on vitamin C and lots of it so maybe google him and see what he has to say about why .
For a moment I thought you said Vit B
But then I read Vit D - that's self synthesised by exposure to sun light? So forgive me for sounding like I'm off topic but what's the weather like where you are and are you able to get out (totally understand if you can't)
She sounds like she knows her job - which is a nice change. Definitely a keeper. My neurologist when I mentioned this said that most people in the northern hemisphere are likely to be vitamin D deficient (particularly in the winter/spring). Oh the joys of living in the UK!Just remember to supplement with D3 (it is most accessible to the body) and add in Vitamin K2 (not K1!) as well.
Since K2 helps you to use D3.
The nurse I spoke to last week (routine checkup) stressed both of these things and said that unless we take K2 with our D3 we are wasting our time. Her actual words were 'no point taking D3 without K2 as well.'
She is a keeper.
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/the-word-is-filtering-through-about-vits-d3-and-k2.125842/
Yes indeed - there are genetic SNPs that affect the Vitamin D Receptor. I'm one of the unlucky ones who naturally have inhibited Vitamin D absorptionI concluded that some folks just have higher or lower levels naturally.
When I last had my Vit D tested, the Endo asked me what I took, and was astonished to find I have never supplemented, but still tested at 90.
Two Endos now have proclaimed they haven't seem anyone with natural levels of 90 for a very long time.
I hadn't even been away in the sun just beforehand, so I concluded that some folks just have higher or lower levels naturally.
Mmm interesting. I tested at <10 back in February and put on high dose of vit d. I have always burnt when out in the sun, so wear a complete sunblock cream and tended to sit in the shade.Interestingly, it seems to be a rather vicious circle. The lower you are on Vit D, the more likely you are to burn in the sun - making you more likely to stay out of the sun. Very annoying, especially for those of us told to stay OUT of the sun because of skin cancer risks.
My own experience is that during the last 2 years of supplementing generously with VitD3 and K2 (and natural source C) I have been able to tolerate much more sun without burning, and my skin has gone light brown from the sun rather than lobster before going back to pastywhite.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X17315580
I hear all this about not absorbing D without K2. Not the case for me. I take 2000iu per day. Little ore or less season dictated. At DX I was 24. 3 months later , no K2 and I was 58. I'm sure insulin helped with absorption ( and lack of insulin depletion) but I've never taken K2
Vit D is our anti cancer vitamin. People are slathering on sunscreen and skin cancer has gone way up. I've had numerous moles that were precancerous and they were all where the sun doesn't shine. Of course too much sun and burning is no good but some early morning or later afternoon sun within reason is always good IMO
If you have a read of the various articles and discussions (Mercola is a good springboard)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/28/vitamin-k2-health-benefits.aspx
then it becomes clear that good VitD levels are great - but they definitely don't tell the whole story. Even with good VitD, if Vit K2 is insufficient, there is increased risk of calcium being deposited in places where it shouldn't be deposited, including arteries. This is why some people with calcium deposits are told not to take VitD, when better advice would be to keep optimum levels of VitD and add in enough K2 so that the calcium is sent to places where it does good (strengthening bones, etc.) and not to line the artery walls.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?