56 replies to this topic

[david ellis]

Vitamin D, 25-Hydroxy results were 29.7, reference interval is 32-100 for LabCorp. I have supplemented with 2400 IU/day with D3 for the past two years. I am surprised and puzzled by a low reading. That is 6 times the RDA. What is happening?

[niner]

What form of vitamin D have you been taking? D2/D3, liquid in gelcap or dry?

[krillin]

There's a large variation in the serum response to D supplementation. Look at Figure 1 in this paper. Isn't it cute how they tried to draw a line through that mess?

Hey! I'm not so weird after all. 1000 IU gives me 113 nmol/L, and a couple of the 26 people who made it past 3 months got even higher results.

The average joe would need about 3000-5000 IU according to this paper.

[david ellis]

What form of vitamin D have you been taking? D2/D3, liquid in gelcap or dry?

Dry D3 in a capsule for 2000 IU units. 400 IU units mixed with Cal/Mag.

[niner]

What form of vitamin D have you been taking? D2/D3, liquid in gelcap or dry?

Dry D3 in a capsule for 2000 IU units. 400 IU units mixed with Cal/Mag.

William Davis, the Track Your Plaque guy, has put a lot of patients on D3 and monitored levels, and he reports that the dry form just doesn't seem to get people's levels up. I switched to gelcaps on the basis of that observation, and at 2400 IU/d, I recently tested at 46 ng/dl.

[pro-d]

Each 400IU roughly raises your status by 10nmol/L according to a study I read a while ago. Not sure if this is true for everyone, but it rings true for me. I've also seen dry tablet D2 be effective to a degree, but not as much as D3 in dry or capsules/gel caps.
Also bare in mind that, while rare, some capsules may contain more or less D than stated. Gel caps look more visibly 'packed' too. Other factors to include are D from diet and exposure to UVB. And rapid conversion to 1,25D may happen in the first year or so of effective strength D if your body needs it. You mightn't necessarily be ill, but your body will be happy to quickly make use of the new fuel stock.

It's worth getting a D read before and after a while of supplementation to see how you're going personally.

Edited by pro-d, 16 May 2008 - 10:40 AM.

[Matt]

What form of vitamin D have you been taking? D2/D3, liquid in gelcap or dry?

Dry D3 in a capsule for 2000 IU units. 400 IU units mixed with Cal/Mag.

William Davis, the Track Your Plaque guy, has put a lot of patients on D3 and monitored levels, and he reports that the dry form just doesn't seem to get people's levels up. I switched to gelcaps on the basis of that observation, and at 2400 IU/d, I recently tested at 46 ng/dl.

Just take it with some fat? I can't see why it wouldn't work

[david ellis]

Each 400IU roughly raises your status by 10nmol/L according to a study I read a while ago. Not sure if this is true for everyone, but it rings true for me. I've also seen dry tablet D2 be effective to a degree, but not as much as D3 in dry or capsules/gel caps.
Also bare in mind that, while rare, some capsules may contain more or less D than stated. Gel caps look more visibly 'packed' too. Other factors to include are D from diet and exposure to UVB. And rapid conversion to 1,25D may happen in the first year or so of effective strength D if your body needs it. You mightn't necessarily be ill, but your body will be happy to quickly make use of the new fuel stock.

It's worth getting a D read before and after a while of supplementation to see how you're going personally.

Whatever I do, I am going to do it carefully. Last month, I had a bout with a kidney stone. The stone disappeared and I didn't experience the bloody usual finish. But even so, I don't want to experience that again. This stone was the first one in my 69 years. I don't want to raise my blood calcium levels.

[david ellis]

There's a large variation in the serum response to D supplementation. Look at Figure 1 in this paper. Isn't it cute how they tried to draw a line through that mess?

Hey! I'm not so weird after all. 1000 IU gives me 113 nmol/L, and a couple of the 26 people who made it past 3 months got even higher results.

The average joe would need about 3000-5000 IU according to this paper.

Thanks krillin for the link, it's very good and has many links to interesting studies.

[FunkOdyssey]

3000iu of supplemental D3 (1000iu ortho-core, 2000iu Now oil-based gelcap) produced 46 ng/dl in my recent test. I do think varying rates of conversion to 1,25D might account for the differences in observed 25D levels after supplementation. I'm still waiting on my 1,25D result. Trevor Marshall has some interesting theories about this but I am not fully convinced he knows what he's talking about.

[edward]

Sun exposure is probably a pretty important variable here

[krillin]

I do think varying rates of conversion to 1,25D might account for the differences in observed 25D levels after supplementation.

So little gets converted to 1,25-D (it's measured in pg/ml) that I think it's a minor sink. Varying rates of 25-D production and breakdown are probably more important.

[pro-d]

The Vitamin D Council points out 'low-grade metabolic acidosis' as most contributive to kidney stones, which may be activated by D repletion: http://www.vitamindc.../2006-aug.shtml

Serum 1,25D isn't usually worth measuring as local tissue conversion doesn't significantly contribute to it. Elevations in 1,25D can be found in those who are vitamin D deficient, and calcium alone can lower this.

But as I said earlier if you're going to take more than 400/1000IU I'd recommend a 25D blood test first and then 4-6 months after being on it, simply to see if what you think you're going to achieve is achieved and nothing more or less. And then do so a few times more.

When you initiate stoss therapy on a visibly ill D deficient person, they will feel better but you also won't see them reach optimal 25D until much later on a regular dose. At least, this is what I've observed in someone who took 1.5mg of D2 (prescribed) for about 6 months and reached just 48nmol/L (about 20ng/ml).

I also recommend taking a D supplement with some natural (could be fruit) yoghurt just so you secure it with fat - as it's fat soluble - and get some calcium.

[david ellis]

The Vitamin D Council points out 'low-grade metabolic acidosis' as most contributive to kidney stones, which may be activated by D repletion: http://www.vitamindc.../2006-aug.shtml

No worries about enough fat to help my vitamin D absorb, my diet is way over 50% fat. But just to make sure I am going to use the gel caps to get to a total 5000 IU.

Thanks pro-d, now I have a plan to get around the kidney stones. Just hanging in there with a low-vitaminD level was the first option I thought of. It is good to have a choice. Imagine how low my test results would have been if I hadn't supplemented.

From the Vitamin D Council in the link above-

"Does vitamin D cause kidney stones?

It may, at least for people on modern American diets. The reason this has come up is because a recent study found the relative risk for people taking 400 units of vitamin D and 1,000 mg of calcium daily was 17% higher than in the placebo group. To my knowledge, this is the first study to find an increased risk of kidney stones with vitamin D supplementation. I'm not aware of any reports of increased incidence of kidney stones in any other vitamin D supplementation trial. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 16;354(7):669-83.

However, at least two studies have linked kidney stones to latitude, with an increasing incidence of stones at lower latitudes. One also directly linked stones to sunlight. A Saudi Arabian study found kidney stones were more common in the summer. Eleven of 45 lifeguards in Israel had kidney stones, which is twenty times the rate of the general population. Am J Epidemiol. 1996 Mar 1;143(5):487-95. Kidney Int. 1994 Sep;46(3):893-9 J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2004 Jul–Sep;16(3):56-8. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1980;128:467-72

The largest study that looked at the risk of kidney stones with vitamin D came out of Harvard. They studied 45,616 men over 14 years for a total of 477,000 person-years of follow up. They found no increased risk of kidney stones with vitamin D intake but did not look at sun exposure or 25(OH)D levels. Of interest, they found three things in your diet that protect against kidney stones: high potassium (46% lower relative risk), high magnesium (29% lower relative risk), and high fluid intake (29% lower relative risk). For younger men, higher dietary calcium was associated with a reduced risk of kidney stones (31% lower relative risk)."

[ortcloud]

Vitamin D, 25-Hydroxy results were 29.7, reference interval is 32-100 for LabCorp. I have supplemented with 2400 IU/day with D3 for the past two years. I am surprised and puzzled by a low reading. That is 6 times the RDA. What is happening?

This just reinforces the fact that there is no one size fits all for vitamin d, because of this everybody should prob be tested until they dial in their correct dose.
life extension is having their sale on vitamin d blood testing right now.

[shuffleup]

Vitamin D, 25-Hydroxy results were 29.7, reference interval is 32-100 for LabCorp. I have supplemented with 2400 IU/day with D3 for the past two years. I am surprised and puzzled by a low reading. That is 6 times the RDA. What is happening?

This just reinforces the fact that there is no one size fits all for vitamin d, because of this everybody should prob be tested until they dial in their correct dose.
life extension is having their sale on vitamin d blood testing right now.

It probably takes more than that and don't use a dry d3.

Here's an excerpt from a post I made in February:

I've been using NOW brand's D3 which are 1000IU gelcaps, the d3 suspended in Olive Oil. I started taking this 3 months ago at between 4 or 5 per day, just depending on how many came out of the bottle when I poured it. I would say consistently I was between these units the entire time, with little to no sun exposure. The last meaningful sun exposure I had was in June in Mexico for a week.

I just bought a Vit D3 blood test through LEF and had it done a week ago. Results came in the envelope today and I was at 45.2 ng/mL which I asume is pretty decent. The ref range was 32.0 - 100. Below the test they write, "Recent studies consider the lower limit of 32.0 ng/mL to be a threshold for optimal health. Hollis BW. J Nutr. 2005 Feb; 135(2):317-22.

Davis recommends to get between 50 and 60. I'm unsure what to add to my doseage to get there, but I'm thinking a consistent 5000IU - 6000IU should do the trick for me. Maybe back to 4000IU in the summer.

I didn't have a previous test before supplementation so no clue where I was before, but quite possible I was under 32 if it took ~4500IU's to get me to 45.

I also take 100 micrograms of K2 daily from Source Naturals brand. This is the MK-7 form. Studies showed reduced cardiovasular problems at somewhere over 30-some micrograms / day levels.

[krillin]

Consider me surprised and puzzled too. Last year mine was 45.1 ng/ml, so I stayed with the 1000 IU I'd been taking for years. This year it came back 26.6. They can't have mixed up my blood with someone else's, because my cholesterol was almost identical to last year's (HDL 58->59, LDL 42->45, TG stable at 59).

Krillin is ready to eat crow.

[pro-d]

Good timing for new posts here. My brother got his recent vitamin D results and was 32nmol/L. The doctor put him on a lower dose after a period of stoss in the belief 1000IU can maintain levels, but after some relatively easy debate he conceded D3 is better (I'm from the UK where D2 is the most prescribed form by far) and that 3400IU would be appropriate to get above 50nmol/L (the NHS goes for sufficiency rather than optimal), so 4-5kIU really is the median magic dose. This is kind of a local success as a number of patients in London are on at least 3000IU D3 - this is new to hear.

In both me and my brother, each 400IU works out to 11nmol/L, so 4000IU (from ALL sources) will put you you to around 110nmol/L, or possibly lower as the raise in 25OHD has been shown to decrease as you reach near 100. But getting into the early triple figures is pretty much optimal enough.

I still wonder whether supplemental D decreases LDL (it's known to raise HDL), or if that can only be done via sun exposure. And indeed does LDL matter once you've addressed your vitamin D status? The idea of cholesterol clogging up your arteries is becoming accepted as absurd and arterial calcification is showing proof as a big cause.

Edited by pro-d, 15 June 2008 - 12:59 PM.

[krillin]

I've increased to 5000 IU/day. From link 1 of post 3, my 1000 IU result is right on the line they drew through their 1000 IU data. So I should be right on the line for their 4000 IU data, which is a bit too low at about 100 nmol/L. (Pro-d, if I understand your math I think you thought my result was in nmol/L instead of ng/ml.)

[pro-d]

...My only defense is lack of sleep lately!

Some patients, mostly the visibly ill/elderly, on Dr. Davis' Track-Your-Plaque programme (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/) take 6-8000IU to maintain healthy levels, even after recovery, so it just shows that correct dosage is one best measured than guessed for a variety factors.

But the data exonerates 5000IU D3 manufacturers as they're perfect average pills for those who depend entirely on supplements to maintain a healthy D level.

[Shannon Vyff]

Thanks pro-d for your involvement here at ImmInst, it is appreciated I've mostly been under the impression that no supplemental D can compare to the stimulation of D from the sun--I've followed these D threads with much interest as I do supplement and get sun daily, I'm always looking for an optimal treatment for my own body as I have chronically flirted with low D levels the past decade of my life. (I really need to get my blood levels checked again, I've not for the past two years--I've been banking on the fact that I've been getting more sun and taking supplements with healthy fats)

[pro-d]

Thanks Shannon. To my knowledge I don't think any studies have yet been done to validate any difference between sun produced vitamin D and oral consumption, all we know is that D3 is natural to humans and more efficient.
And consuming D3 isn't an alien thing as eskimos do it in optimal amounts, and animals too. I reason if our bodies have a problem with oral consumption they would outright reject it.

It's definitely advantageous to make it from the sun due to not having to worry about blood tests and that in this way it benefits the skin being exposed, i.e. UVB light is used to treat psoriasis. But I guess the underlying problem is that very few humans live to nature's design. It would be a great but unrealistic world if we had open ceiling places of work, for example.

America gets a better deal in that there's more - if not enough - food fortification with some form of D. In the UK and Europe it just doesn't happen to any significant degree at all.

Edited by pro-d, 16 June 2008 - 10:35 AM.

[pycnogenol]

My doctor increased my D-3 from 4,000 IU to 5,000 IU after a recent blood test revealed I was on the low end of optimal. I get re-checked in 5 months.

[stephen_b]

After supplementing 5667 IU per day D3, I am now at 39.7 ng/mL, which is almost where I want to be. I think I'll take another 1000 IU on days that I don't get outside, and less on days that I do. I guess you don't have to be old or in bad health to need 5000 + IU additional D, especially like most people nowadays if you work indoors.

Stephen

[jnutter]

I recently had someone [on a body recomposition forum] recommend upping my D3 from ~2500 to 5000 IU.

Here's some of his blood test results:
http://www.muscletal...b.asp?m=2801811

Edited by jnutter, 18 June 2008 - 10:44 PM.

[pro-d]

173nmol/L seems slightly excessive, but certain lifestyles in some parts of the world can reach that figure without supplementation so it's not a major concern as long as everything related to it's in check.

Interesting to see his calcium is 2.21mmol/L. At my last D deficient reading my calcium was 2.59mmol/L, which depending on which reference you use is either just within limit or slightly over.

Lower limit blood calcium level is advantageous for keeping blood pressure in check.

[FunkOdyssey]

I don't think you will notice a whole lot of correlation between 25OHD and blood calcium levels. Calcium levels are always regulated -- if you aren't getting enough Vit D to absorb dietary calcium, you'll just see parathyroid hormone levels rise and the body will get the calcium it wants from your bones.

Edited by FunkOdyssey, 19 June 2008 - 01:04 PM.

[pro-d]

Just something to add, not sure how newsworthy it is but when my brother tried to add high dose (5000iu) cholecalciferol to his GP prescription list on instruction of his hospital doctor recently, their computers stated they can't print it as it's listed as an 'unlicensed medicine' that can only be obtained from the hospital pharmacy.
This is ridiculous seeing as you can (or could before they became hard to source) get ergocalciferol 1.25mg from a GP. I think this shows - within England - that the NHS still sees D3 as something foreign and untouchable because it's not commonly prescribed. But kudos to a hospital doctor who swam against the tide anyway. But this is still no big deal to us and we can buy it from Bio Tech Pharmacal USA cheaply, but it just shows that you've got to jump hoops here for effective strength D3, and yet you can get antidepressants with almost no effort.

PS: This is the NHS' definition of a licensed/unlicensed: http://www.nhsdirect...ArticleId=1004#

Edited by pro-d, 07 July 2008 - 11:17 PM.

[neogenic]

Are there any acute actions or benefits to using Vit. D daily. I read a few studies comparing not only injection, but a massive oral dose to supplementing daily and they assessed them as being comparable in the study. So taking a 50,000 iu dose of D would be equivalent to 5000 over 10 days. I am curious to know if some of the other research coming out would carry over for D as being irrelevant whether its chronic dosing daily or massive dose less frequently.

Also I am curious with those taking high-dose Vit.D and K2, both have been shown in studies to have anti-aromatase activity. Anyone have labs showing higher test. or lower estradiol...improved body composition, libido, etc.?

[neogenic]

Are there any acute actions or benefits to using Vit. D daily. I read a few studies comparing not only injection, but a massive oral dose to supplementing daily and they assessed them as being comparable in the study. So taking a 50,000 iu dose of D would be equivalent to 5000 over 10 days. I am curious to know if some of the other research coming out would carry over for D as being irrelevant whether its chronic dosing daily or massive dose less frequently.

Also I am curious with those taking high-dose Vit.D and K2, both have been shown in studies to have anti-aromatase activity. Anyone have labs showing higher test. or lower estradiol...improved body composition, libido, etc.?

http://www.amazon.co...U/dp/B000A0F2B2
Here's a 50,000 IU capsule product. I am looking for the studies...I will post them when I find them. I did find a study that lends itself to the body composition question I asked even further as it has been shown to lower leptin as well.