56 replies to this topic

[pro-d]

To my knowledge, the argument for supplementing daily is basically to mimic daily or at least regular UVB exposure. The obvious benefit of stretched out pharmaceutical doses is patient compliance (e.g. the elderly and disabled).

Vitamin D has been shown to bring about weight loss in the obese - and only the obese - and like testosterone it helps preserve bone mass and contribute to mental sharpness. But it doesn't raise testosterone or improve libido. However testosterone and D work in concert, and indeed in men the first thing looked for in osteoporosis diagnosis is testosterone deficiency, and D *should* be the second: http://www.springerl...lt7d0lndum7g8y/

[HighDesertWizard]

A couple of insights from my own experience and reading of the experience of others with supplementation with D3.

- Almost everyone I've read who has posted about their D3 supplementation experience assumes that the level of supplementation they need is smaller than it actually is.

- Getting a D3 test is the ONLY way to know for certain what your level of D3 level is. I have never read a person report that they "get a lot of sun" and then took a test and then reported that their ACTUAL level was HIGHER than their expected level. I'm certain it could occur. I've just never read anyone say that. Almost everyone reports "surprise" at how low their tested level is.

- Someone wrote upthread about waiting 6 months for another test. In my experience and the experience of others I know, it only takes 4 to 6 weeks for the value to change significantly based on a change of dosage. That's also the experience of the health care professional I see who tests everyone he sees for D3 level.

- "G", a frequenter of Davis' blog and site, writes that supplementation with Vitamin A decreases the need for D3 supplementation somewhat and I have found that to be true also.

[pro-d]

How does vitamin A decrease the need for D3? Just curious.

[HighDesertWizard]

How does vitamin A decrease the need for D3? Just curious.

"G" is pro-D and is a medical professional seeing patients. I know she believes this because I have an email to that effect and I know she said this is a phenomenon she observed over a number of patients. I vaguely remember her posting about it somewhere but can't remember where and haven't found any studies noting this.

I'll put the question to her and get back to you.

[neogenic]

To my knowledge, the argument for supplementing daily is basically to mimic daily or at least regular UVB exposure. The obvious benefit of stretched out pharmaceutical doses is patient compliance (e.g. the elderly and disabled).

Vitamin D has been shown to bring about weight loss in the obese - and only the obese - and like testosterone it helps preserve bone mass and contribute to mental sharpness. But it doesn't raise testosterone or improve libido. However testosterone and D work in concert, and indeed in men the first thing looked for in osteoporosis diagnosis is testosterone deficiency, and D *should* be the second: http://www.springerl...lt7d0lndum7g8y/

Anything that has anti-aromatase activity, like K2 and D3 have been shown in studies to have, will naturally increase testerone and decrease beta-estradiol through limiting aromatase's activity. That's basic biochemistry. I wanted to know whether anyone's seen it directly in labs.

As far as taking it daily, weekly, monthly, yearly...sure, people may take it daily, because that's the way most caps come...there's less chance of some taking a weekly or monthly dose daily and becoming toxic. There's a study on a case that did just that, she took some crazy dose like the 50,000 IU daily. But there are studies showing equivalency of doing doses any which way in terms of timing at the equivalent dose (e.g. 5000 IU's qd or 50000IU q 10d). My question is beyond, simply, "it simulates daily sun exposure"...it is whether there is some acute impact before its stored in adipose tissue that would yield more frequent dosing advantageous.

As far as weight loss and leptin...I could flip that right back too and say...it hasn't been shown that it does not promote weight loss in the non-obese...more specifically fat loss. Yes, it is shown with an obese study group, but it could go beyond that. Further, how many people in the country and even on this board are obese/overweight? It is worth exploring and certainly worth asking the question of those consistently taking a high dose of D (e.g. 4000IU's or more a day) whether they are seeing body composition changes that they may attribute to D3.

[pro-d]

That's possible. Testosterone deficiency has been observed in diabetics, and diabetes has been associated with vitamin D deficiency. Studies have found vitamin D improves insulin sensitivity in diabetics so it might be that testosterone rises significantly.

I haven't noticed any personal changes in libido or body composition but then I'm slim and in my late 20's despite addressing a general illness unrelated D deficiency. But you're right, it's possible that positive weight loss could be observed in the non-obese.

This is just speculation but I think the idea of promoting daily dosage, perhaps in a physician's point of view is to accurately work out your desirable daily IU and keep it steady state (if this term applies here).
What I mean is you could take 50,000IU over 10 days but your body might use more of that daily depending on the state of your health. Which would then result in a trough in the last days before the next dose. That said if your body's using more than 5000IU a day, at least to start with, you're kind of pushing it by not having enough there daily, but then in either case blood tests are your friend.

I don't think there's anything negative about stretched out doses though, I've not seen any studies on that. And indeed humans don't make much, if at all D in the Winter so we rely on optimal stores created in the Summer. Once you reach above 40ng/ml with either method you begin storing it in fat which means it's there in reserve rather than just being gobbled up.

Edited by pro-d, 14 July 2008 - 03:56 PM.

[neogenic]

Thanks. That was a helpful and well-thought out post.

[neogenic]

Here's a study comparing 10d Tx with 50,000IU qd, a single dose of 300,000IU & 500,000IU (comparable in units to the 10d course) titled:
Efficacy of an oral, 10-day course of high-dose calciferol in correcting vitamin D deficiency. The compared levels using 25-OH-D. This was one of the ones I was referring to. http://www.nzma.org....l/116-1179/536/

Here's the report on the Vitamin D intoxication I mentioned. Her 25-OH-D serum lelvels were 1171 nmol per liter! Funny this study mentions that the tolerable upper limit is 2000IU's of Vit.D. Oddly, this is what Canada's RDA is set at. We all know the US is far behind on Vit. D, but still noteworthy.
http://content.nejm..../full/357/3/308

Here's the abstract for the K2 anti-aromatase study:
A calcium-deficient diet caused decreased bone mineral density and secondary elevation of estrogen in aged male rats-effect of menatetrenone and elcatonin

Abstract
In view of the fact that a deficient calcium (Ca) intake results in osteoporosis in elderly males, we conducted an animal experiment on aged male Wistar rats given a Ca-deficient diet. The rats were divided into 2 groups according to diet: a Ca-deficient diet group (Ca content, 0.08% to 0.1%) and a regular diet group (Ca content, 0.8% to 1.2%). The Ca-deficient diet reduced bone mineral density (BMD) by approximately 12%. Administration of menatetrenone or elcatonin was able to reverse the reduction in BMD induced by Ca deficiency. The mean estradiol level in sera of rats fed the Ca-deficient diet was significantly increased to 4.3 times that in the regular diet group. However, the increased estradiol concentration was reduced after the administration of menatetrenone or elcatonin. The estrone concentrations in sera of menatetrenone- or elcatonin-treated rats fed the Ca-deficient diet decreased to a level lower than that of animals fed the regular diet. Testicular aromatase cytochrome P450 (P450arom; estrogen synthetase) activity was significantly increased by 2.4-fold in the Ca-deficient diet group compared to that in the regular diet group, and the aromatase mRNA level was also significantly increased 1.45-fold. Testicular aromatase activity was strongly correlated with aromatase mRNA level and serum estradiol level. These data suggest that the change in testicular aromatase expression might be, in part, a compensatory mechanism for the bone mineral deficiency induced by the Ca-deficient diet in aged male rats.

Looking back through some of the research and I trying to find some good studies, but its seems that D3 may have promote aromatase activity with bone, but inhibit in other tissues, which makes sense and would be win-win their for a male.

[pro-d]

1171nmol/L...Yikes! Just goes to show that manufacturer error, albeit rare, is a good reason to at least measure once a year at the absolute minimum.

In England it seems common to initiate high dose treatment too because you can't get 5000IU capsules on our National Health Service and they're also hard to find in local outlets. The most you can get is 3000IU per 1ml as paediatric cholecalciferol formulation (and even this is currently a new thing), so for tablets it's looking to the US which even with delivery is cheaper than the price of a prescription, for those who pay anyway.

Either way it's not how you achieve your level but acheiving it.

[david ellis]

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.?

From the dose/response curve in Krillin's post 10-11 K IU's seemed the appropriate dose for me. My blood test result was 45.7 ng/ml.

I supplement with DHEA and use Arimidex to control the conversion of testosterone to estrogen(Some of the DHEA converts to testosterone). The conversion affects my prostrate and I can tell when I need to take 1/4 of an arimidex tablet. I haven't needed Arimidex for the last six weeks, so I would think that Vitamin D has an anti-aromatase effect.

No body composition effects to report maybe because I have been on a low-intensity posture improvement program.

[yoyo]

have you considered an typeII 5ar inhibitor

[david ellis]

have you considered an typeII 5ar inhibitor

Nope, the ar inhibition was an unexpected benefit of getting my Vitamin D , 25-hydroxy into a healthy range. I had to supplement at a dose 11 times the recommended amount. Most folks will respond to a much smaller dose. Because my results are atypical they may not support neogenics question about "high dose VitD".

[krillin]

From the dose/response curve in Krillin's post 10-11 K IU's seemed the appropriate dose for me. My blood test result was 45.7 ng/ml.

Thanks for the data points.

[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.

I'm still too low and am increasing my dose to 7200 IU. Assuming I'm still on the linear part of the curve, this should put me at 41.3 ng/ml. I'm glad this stuff is cheap.

1000 IU: 26.6 ng/ml
4800 IU: 35.6 ng/ml

[pro-d]

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.

I'm still too low and am increasing my dose to 7200 IU. Assuming I'm still on the linear part of the curve, this should put me at 41.3 ng/ml. I'm glad this stuff is cheap.

1000 IU: 26.6 ng/ml
4800 IU: 35.6 ng/ml

My brother's recently been shifted to just under 6000IU. Some people seem to achieve really high levels with 2000IU, but most need more than that, from what I know.

Regardless, the cost difference between 400IU and anything much higher is hardly noticable.

[HighDesertWizard]

Dr. Davis, of TrackYourPlaque.com, has several years experience with Vitamin D3 supplementation for his patients with Coronary Artery Disease. He recommends a target D3 level of 60 ng/ml and doing whatever D3 dose is necessary to get it there.

Because the serum D3 measure vis-a-vis D3 supplement dose is unpredictable by person, it makes no sense really to talk about a "recommended" dose. The only way to know how much you need to supplement D3 is to get a blood test.

Edited by wccaguy, 27 August 2008 - 02:40 AM.

[david ellis]

Group A below received 1000 IU units. Notice how varied the response curve is. Some folks get a large response, others get very little. On average, the increase is not dramatic. In Group B(4000 iu) the average increase is dramatic as expected.

The conclusion I drew is that I was a low responder starting at a low reference range 29, even though my supplement dose was almost halfway between A and B. So I was an even lower responder, and needed to do something dramatic, so I jumped from 2400 IU to 10k-12K units. A to B was a 4 times jump. So I did about a 4 time jump. And landed close to where I wanted to be.

Note that D(OH) levels off at three months for Group B, an increase from two months for Group A, so maybe I won't level off until four months.

[pro-d]

Just got my latest D3 results. I've been on 5000IU for a year and I'm up from 21nmol/L to 76nmol/L (30ng/ml). Looks like I'll be going to 10,000IU.

I have however as expected reduced my PTH a few notches (4.1 is now 3.7) and total cholesterol (no mention of LDL/HDL/Triglyceride specfics) - although this time I wasn't checked after a 12hr fast which is bizarre - has gone down from 5.61 to 5.4. That's kind of interesting as my Dad and my girlfriend's Dad have had exactly the same cholesterol reading for 10-15yrs.

[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.

Ok, update time. I finally got my vitamin D-3 blood levels re-checked last week. Here are the results: 46 ng/mL (reference lab range 30-80).

I'm currently at 5,000 IU per day (2500 IU in the AM, 2500 IU in the PM) with no plans to drop down. I may even go up a tad to 5,400 IU with doctor's approval. I'm trying to get to about 50 ng/mL.

That's the good news. The bad news is my glucose and A1c has been spiking recently even though I walk nearly every day (2+ miles, weather permitting) and lost 5 pounds.

So I gotta work on that and watch my dietary habits a little more carefully. Baby steps.

My doctor explained that if I lose an additional 10 (or more) pounds my glucose/A1c should go back down to the normal range. I do have a family history of type 2 diabetes
(my mom and sister) so I have to take that into account as well.

Edited by pycnogenol, 25 November 2008 - 05:30 PM.

[stephen_b]

That's the good news. The bad news is my glucose and A1c has been spiking recently even though I walk nearly every day (2+ miles, weather permitting) and lost 5 pounds.

Do you supplement with benfotiamine or pyridoxamine?

StephenB

[pycnogenol]

That's the good news. The bad news is my glucose and A1c has been spiking recently even though I walk nearly every day (2+ miles, weather permitting) and lost 5 pounds.

Do you supplement with benfotiamine or pyridoxamine?

StephenB

Hi Stephen,

Yes, I take 150 mg of benfotiamine per day and have for about a year or so but perhaps I should increase the amount to 300 mg.

As for pyridoxamine, no I don't take that but do I take this product:

http://www.iherb.com...c...d=1642&at=0

Life Extension now makes pyridoxamine so maybe I should get a bottle and give it try.

Edited by pycnogenol, 26 November 2008 - 01:35 AM.

[Tsukimi]

Ive only been supplementing with Vit D3 for two weeks and been taking 2400IU per day. After reading this thread I now want to get blood tests to check my levels and adjust. Is two weeks long enough to check my levels or should I wait a few more weeks to get accurate results?

Edited by Tsukimi, 28 November 2008 - 02:57 PM.

[david ellis]

Ive only been supplementing with Vit D3 for two weeks and been taking 2400IU per day. After reading this thread I now want to get blood tests to check my levels and adjust. Is two weeks long enough to check my levels or should I wait a few more weeks to get accurate results?

No, two weeks is not long enough. It took three months for a group of people taking 1000 IU/day to level off. It took about 4 months for the group taking 4000 IU/day to level off. See the A & B chart in the link, or look at the A & B chart in my Aug 26th post. The response curve to supplementation varies wildly. Some people get a lot of results and some people get very little. The drawn curve is the average response. When you get your test result you can guess where you are on the response curve.

[david ellis]

Group A below received 1000 IU units. Notice how varied the response curve is. Some folks get a large response, others get very little. On average, the increase is not dramatic. In Group B(4000 iu) the average increase is dramatic as expected.

The conclusion I drew is that I was a low responder starting at a low reference range 29, even though my supplement dose was almost halfway between A and B. So I was an even lower responder, and needed to do something dramatic, so I jumped from 2400 IU to 10k-12K units. A to B was a 4 times jump. So I did about a 4 time jump. And landed close to where I wanted to be.

Note that D(OH) levels off at three months for Group B, an increase from two months for Group A, so maybe I won't level off until four months.

I decided to go for a 60 ng/mL blood level. So, increasing from 2.4K IU to 12K IU moved me from 29 to 45, So I decided 22K IU might get me to 60. Result just came back. I reached an 88.3 ng/mL blood level. So the response curve isn't straight after storage of Vitamin D in fat starts, or it is the fact that I switched from dry to oil, or ? My plan is to drop sharply back to 12K for a month, and resume then at 17K. Use blood tests, you don't to overshoot much more than I did.

[niner]

or it is the fact that I switched from dry to oil, or ?

Heart Scan guru William Davis has looked at a lot of patients taking variously dry or gelcap formulations, and he has come to the conclusion that dry D just isn't absorbed worth a damn. It probably would be ok if you took it with a ton of fat, but most people aren't likely to do that.

[pro-d]

Liquid D3 is getting popular in the UK too.

I respect Dr. Davis' opinion (very highly) but I'm not too sure about dry form being worthless. It does work, in fact even D2 does 'work (therapeutic)' - nowhere as effectively and cheaply certainly - so there is the issue that dose response could be somehow eronneously correlating with supplement type. That would need to be investigated.
But to back up Dr. Davis, when we consume foods with vitamin D it is in an oily form naturally, so supplementing this way mimics natural ingestion. And also D2, to my knowledge, is only in powder (aside from injectable) form which probably makes that form even more redundant.

To be safe I would buy gelcaps but if you've got capsules/tablets at the mo. or that's all you can find, just take it with a daily pot of yogurt (low fat at minimum).

Edited by pro-d, 13 December 2008 - 11:29 PM.

[david ellis]

My plan is to drop sharply back to 12K for a month, and resume then at 17K. Use blood tests, you don't to overshoot much more than I did.

After more thinking I decided to just drop back entirely to 12K. Based on the possibility that a substantial portion of the 22K I was taking ending up being stored. And the fact that supplementing way more than the body can make in a day doesn't seem right.