• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Vitamin D3 deficiency

From the mentioned article:

Says 10,000 IU a day is unlikely to cause any adverse effects
 

Attachments

  • ImageUploadedByDCUK Forum1443514250.735993.jpg
    396.7 KB · Views: 247
Catlady
We seemed to have gotten off on the wrong foot here and I'm going to take the blame for that as I am a newbie here and I don't know you and I felt like you were trying to scare people into not looking into it.
I could be wrong about that and I probably am wrong about my assumptions concerning your post.
So I'm going to apologize to you publicly and ask that you forgive me for anything I might have said that struck you as argumentative because I know from my past that sometimes I come off that way.
Please forgive me for sounding combative.

I am here to learn and I'm excited to see new things that might help us all.
In my zeal, I may have acted defensive and for that I am sorry.
 
That's ok, and thank you for your post. I'm very pro-vitamin D3, as one of my above posts shows. I wish I'd started taking it sooner than I did. I just like to get my info from official sources if possible. There is so much information available to us these days, robust science, less than robust science, and non science. I'd hate for anyone to get adverse effects from a product or drug when they could have read some info that I or someone else can provide. Cheers and I hope you are having a good day where you are. It's almost bedtime here.
 
It's the crack of dawn here so I was very tired when I was posting last night.
That's a very good article posted above and now that I've read it all I tend to agree with it as it actually does have some of the new stuff in it but only up to about 2007 for the toxicity stuff according to their citations.
And much of that info is from 1984-1990 studies.
Some of it has nothing to do with the part we were discussing last night and the 4000 IU limit is for children nine years old.
This article did say that 10k-40k IU/day would be ok on normal adult men.
Knowing that they use the 20% uncertainty rule allows me to go on with the 50k IU per day doseage.
As I stated earlier that's a front loading technique and one should not exceed 300k IU per month.
Once desired serum levels are reached which can be checked by 25(OH)d then a maintenance doseage of 10k IU/day is fine.
Always use the least amount of supplement you can to achieve the serum level desired.

This article indicates keeping serums levels between 50 and 125 ng/ml
I suggest even under 100 is good
The old school data said 35 was normal, but as this article alludes that is outdated now and is actually deficient
 
Just. a note of caution I have a high calcium serum level and can't take Vitamin D so it may be good to have your calcium levels checked before taking the supplement
CAROL
 
carty said:
Just. a note of caution I have a high calcium serum level and can't take Vitamin D so it may be good to have your calcium levels checked before taking the supplement
CAROL
Click to expand...
Absolutely
Not having them checked would be like trying fill the car up with gas when it already has a full tank.
My 25(OH)D serum level goal is 75ng/ml
I have a ways to go yet.
 
I thought the table with the daily limits said 4,000 IU was the limit for anyone over 9? (there were lower limits for younger age groups). I didn't see where it said 40k IU/day was ok. But it's not a biggie for me because I'm happy to just take the level my GP prescribes - 1.25mg per month. I haven't converted that into IU because I am allergic to maths. Lol.
 
If the table says that then the article contradicts itself because in the above pictured paragraph it says that 5000IU daily produces lower than desirable serum levels. 40-60 ng/ml

I think it says children up to nine
That whole table is about children.
In many other parts of the article it says 5000iu/day and in one place 10000-40000iu/day was the threshold for toxicity.
This supports the idea that I stated yesterday that one should not exceed 300,000 IU in one month which is the low end of the above mentioned 10,000 IU/day.
The thing that may have been overlooked in our initial discussion yesterday was that I'm front loading to kick off the regiment by taking 50,000 IU/day for 6 days=300,000 IU
I WOULD NOT SUGGEST to anyone to stay on that high doseage for an extended period of time.
10,000 IU/day is sufficient to maintain 100ng/ml which is well below the 125-140ng/ml threshold of toxicity mentioned above.

I tried to take excerpts from the article above and paste them here for support but the picture was too large so you'll just have to go back up and look for yourself if so desired.

I'm excited to learn of the benefits that a balanced D3/calcium/magnesium levels will produce in net health and then of course drop to the lowest levels possible to maintain that health long term.
 
my thoughts on this are too scattered...for more info, i would recommend youtube videos by Dr.Micheal Holick, Dr.Robert Heaney, Dr.Bruce Hollis & both Chris Masterjohn & Ivor Cummins have good material on this.

the first three chaps have studied this for a long time. Dr.Holick is a noted endocrinologist with more than 400 publications & numerous awards. He points out that there is a marked difference in recommendations for general populations & recommendations for therapeutic purposes.

Dr.Heaney gives a seriously fascinating talk on why RCT's are not well designed for vitamins/minerals etc

Critics argue that Vitamin D is fat soluble & therefore is stored in the body for long periods (half life of about 8 weeks in one study i think). But all the latest research shows that it's more complex than that. Only about 5% is converted into the active format used to manage calcium in the body. More importantly, it has been shown that almost all cells in the body have vitamin D receptors and that it is taken up directly by the cell. AFAIK, preliminary research has identified over 300 gene expressions that have been positively affected by the presence of vitamin D.

They also all touch on how general recommendations for populations are arrived at & why just doing enough to avoid rickets may not be optimal & that Vitamin D toxicity is rare.

Full disclosure, I have been 20,000 daily for a month. Taken with sufficient Vitamin K2 of course. Two clear things I have noticed are better looking teeth and my severely crooked toes have straightened up significantly. I am going to taper down to 5,000 daily as of tomorrow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks @msmi1970

I was just about to weigh in with the Vit K suggestion too - VERY important. These things should be balanced.

Also, (to address the OP), when I was reading up on Vit D3, amongst other things I found a very interesting snippit on an MedicineNet website.
Basically, if you are obese (as I am) with low Vit D, then supplementing is a bit like filling in a bottomless sink hole. Obviously the article didn't use this phraseology!
www.medicinenet.com/vitamin_d_deficiency/article.htm

Apparently sun exposure or supplements will raise both non-obese and obese people's blood vit D levels the same. But 24 hours later, the obese person has approx half the Vit D circulating in their blood as the non-obese person. I expect that is because the Vit D is pulled out of the blood and into the tissues, where needed, and obese people pull more Vit D because they have more tissue...

Anyway, long story short, I supplement 10,000 units (plus Vit K) nearly every day, and will continue to do so until I pay for another private Vit D test, which is planned for the end of the year (it is only £28 and is done in an NHS lab). At that point, I will review my intake.
www.vitamindtest.org.uk/index.html
Am fully content to accept all warnings about toxicity, but considering that my body has probably been deficient in Vit D for 30+ years, and that I have a high BMI, I consider that general guidelines on Vit D supplementation are aimed at standard BMIs, and therefore won't be enough for me.

I have noticed significant improvements in muscle aches and mood since starting this D+K supplementation, and am absolutely f'ing delighted. Just wish that I had acted on this much sooner.
 
Along with vitK there also are a couple other key components to join with D3 that are just as important as K such as boron and vitA and a good calcium magnesium balance.


 
I took magnesium supplements to see if it would help to lower my calcium serum levels which it didn't but it did give me more energy The first ones that I used gave me stomach pains but I found Drs Best 100 per cent chellated high absorption magnesium which is fine
CAROL
 

Oh yes, pick your magnesium supplements wisely! Some of them are are nothing more than, um... bowel sweepers, if you know what I mean!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bowel sweepers hahahaha
It's the magnesium huh?
Ok I thought it was the vitD
Good to know thanks
(Slips away sheepishly)
 
This D3 regiment is keeping me wired all day.
Before I started it I was sluggish, lethargic and could not get through the day without a nap.
I woke at 6am and it's now almost 2am and I'm still buzzing
 
I am very excited to come across this thread on Vit D3, as it is a subject close to my own heart (liver, pancreas etc etc).

No, I am not a scientist doing any research, but a fellow traveller on the diabetes journey, as often found on the forum. . But one who has a very big interest in the topic, and has trawled as much info about it online as possible, and have been paying close attention to my own VitD3 story now.

First of all, I just want to remind us all of the wonderful diversity of our planet - both in terms of sunlight exposure (my understanding is the best source of this essential hormone), and among ethnic groups in terms of barriers and protectors and reflectors of sunrays - ie skin lightness or darkness, eye colour and hair colour. I am very aware of this trotting between a subarctic region and a subtropical region as I do, and have done over different periods of my life, and experienced the what I believe now to be the effect of Vit D3 deficiency on my own insulin sensitivity over three decades, at least as a contributing factor.

The internet is global, and the English language is popular and widespread globally. How lucky are we! And it means for us in the internet generally, and in this forum in particular, experience of the sun (and Vit D3!), and health parameters are not the same for us all. Including the info given out by GPs.

I say this, as in Sweden the official parameters of sufficiency, optimal, and potentially toxic might be quite different? As one would logically expect perhaps? Vit D3 not being stored for much longer than 8 weeks, is my understanding. And here the season of extreme lack of sunlight is three months a year. (The darkness is coming!)

On the other hand, as Indy in Australia knows very well, as do I as a Kiwi (I have no idea where CatLadyNZ actually lives), the lighter your skin the more dangerous the sunrays in that part of the world is, and sun exposure and risk of skin cancer is a very real and daily consideration. (It is in Scandinavia too, because of the full-on nature of the summer sunlight levels, but nothing compared to Australia and NZ re UV rays). It is no small matter for people in that part of the world to have to pay very close attention to what time of the day, and exactly how much time to spend in it, depending on your skin's natural protection (ie colour/melanin levels).

Sunlight aside, and onto supplementation and optimum levels.

Here in the subarctic:
levels of 25-74 nmol/L are considered insufficient.
Levels of 75-250 are considered optimal.
And only over 250 is it considered potentially toxic.

And from my own experience - it is exceedingly hard to get to that toxic level! Complete with daily sunning, when the temperature permits, and high level of supplementation - 6,000 IU daily, and at least three subtropical summers in the last six years. VERY hard, at least, it is for me, to get anywhere near toxic levels. My own Vit D level is only on the upper end of the 'insufficient' scale, at 68 nmol/L (after months of 6000 iu a day, during two same year winters, and a recent half-a-summer-sunning regime reminiscent of the 1970s!). I do have fat absorption issues, with my gallstone, which apparently affects how much VitD you need to operate efficiently too (as in you need more) if I have understood correctly. But there you are.

Apparently, in western countries, and as diabetics with all sorts of digestion/hormone/ organ functioning issues - the last thing we probably need to worry about is too high levels of vitamin D3! (Region, skin colour, food, skin cancer risk dependent of course.) But of course - get yourself tested, and discuss with your doctor, absolutely. I just wanted to get potential toxicity, with D3 supplementation, into perspective.

And it says something that in Sweden you can get your vit D levels tested on socialised medicine/the state - and one should be able to! (Taxes are, um, rather high here .) But I believe all diabetics should have access to nutrient-level screening included in their taxes (which is what socialised medicine is after all), as it is such a huge part of treating the dysfunction with diet, after all. Think of how much we save the taxpayer, and ourselves, in untaken metformin! But that's just what I think. (You have to pay for a Vitamin D test in NZ - with NZ's MUCH higher rates of T2D compared to Scando countries. A silly illogical 'saving' on a Government's part, but I digress.)
 
I've never had to pay for any of the vitamin D tests I've had in NZ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…