• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Do you look YOUNGER ?


  • Please log in to reply
137 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#61 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 30 March 2009 - 02:17 PM

I have read some Dr's who advise against taking more than 2000 units per day. That is the amount that I take. I suggest further research. No point in possibly hurting yourself. If you get a definitive answer then post it. I live in a northern state with a great number of overcast days and I have found taking vitamin D has improved my mood and added to a general sense of physical well being.


This is easy to google. There has been a push to raise the minimum from 400 to 1200. If you re in the noon sun during summer without much clothing you get 10,000 within 45 minutes.

2000 is fine. so is 5000. The good Dr is typically behind the times.

#62 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 March 2009 - 02:29 PM

yes but it seems to be the running theme of studies that i have read as well. i would advise taking resv but there are set backs. the joint pain comes from the fact that i am a power lifter by hobby and resv makes healing from injury or workouts longer.


So you are experiencing identifiable harm from resveratrol. Obviously you must be experiencing benefits that make up for this or you would not be taking it. May I ask what they are?

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#63 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 March 2009 - 02:33 PM

2000 is fine. so is 5000. The good Dr is typically behind the times.


This blanket statement has been called in question by some vitamin D supplementation proponents in this thread or the vitamin D thread. They have cited research and/or blood tests to back themselves up. Do you have something new to show us to support your claim?

Edited by andre, 30 March 2009 - 02:35 PM.


⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#64 2tender

  • Guest
  • 672 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 March 2009 - 01:38 AM

Yes, I would be interested in a reply to that statement also. Ive been tak.ing an oral and transdermal Resveratrol for a few months now. I did experience mild joint pain in the elbows that resolved itself, as well as some exacerbation of a previous transmandibular condition, that may not be attributed to Res. I have also lost some weight. I have noticed increased stamina and energy, particularly during exercise and work. I only take the Res. thats compounded with D on occassion, as the Res. it contains is low milligram and I think Im sensitive to some of the components. Im thinking of includeing some Niacinamide into my regimen and see if it alleviates the TMJ. Comments?

#65 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:47 AM

2000 is fine. so is 5000. The good Dr is typically behind the times.


This blanket statement has been called in question by some vitamin D supplementation proponents in this thread or the vitamin D thread. They have cited research and/or blood tests to back themselves up. Do you have something new to show us to support your claim?


The Vitamin D Council:
"Well adults and adolescents between 80–130 pounds should start with 3,000 IU per day while those over 130 pounds but less than 170 pounds should take 4,000 IU per day. Those over 170 pounds should receive 5,000 IU per day."

About two years ago there was a study that stated under 10,000 a day was fine. Supposedly there has been talk of moving the RDA up from 400 to the 1200-2000 range.

#66 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 31 March 2009 - 03:58 AM

Yes, I would be interested in a reply to that statement also. Ive been tak.ing an oral and transdermal Resveratrol for a few months now. I did experience mild joint pain in the elbows that resolved itself, as well as some exacerbation of a previous transmandibular condition, that may not be attributed to Res. I have also lost some weight. I have noticed increased stamina and energy, particularly during exercise and work. I only take the Res. thats compounded with D on occassion, as the Res. it contains is low milligram and I think Im sensitive to some of the components. Im thinking of includeing some Niacinamide into my regimen and see if it alleviates the TMJ. Comments?


This Science Daily article inspired some investigation and speculation on my part.

"Studying laboratory mice, the researchers found a daily oscillation of the metabolite NAD (nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide), an important compound that is the body's way of exchanging energy and moving it where it's needed. Previously, scientists believed the amount of NAD in the body's cells stayed fairly constant."


Resveratrol and Sirt1 and NAMPT and clock genes are intimately involved with NAD levels. The study alluded to in the above report indicates natural fluctuation in NAD levels. They are higher in the morning, when this was interfered with, it messed up the animals. Speculation: would time of day of administration of resveratrol affect such adverse symptoms as joint pain? 2tender: do you take your res in the morning, evening, or both? Does switching to morning-only dosing alleviate the joint symptoms? And the TMJ pain? If you try it, do report back. My own experience has been better joint-pain relief (from arthritis) with morning supplementation than with night-time dosing.

And do please try a more pure form of resveratrol. I don't think the phytates or IP6 in what you are taking do you any good.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#67 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 31 March 2009 - 04:06 AM

And do please try a more pure form of resveratrol. I don't think the phytates or IP6 in what you are taking do you any good.

Why do you think Longevinex includes IP6?

#68 2tender

  • Guest
  • 672 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 March 2009 - 05:02 AM

Thanks for your reply and question. I work late nights, normal sleep, wake cycle is interrupted. I take it within a few hours of wakeing, 9 at night. I did try taking it before bed but it interfered with sleep, Im sure of that. Im considering a break in the regular oral dosing to see if the TMJ is related. I have tried the other lower dosed Res. before bed, it doesnt interfere with sleep, but gives a hang-over type of effect upon wakeing.

#69 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 31 March 2009 - 12:20 PM

2000 is fine. so is 5000. The good Dr is typically behind the times.


This blanket statement has been called in question by some vitamin D supplementation proponents in this thread or the vitamin D thread. They have cited research and/or blood tests to back themselves up. Do you have something new to show us to support your claim?


The Vitamin D Council:
"Well adults and adolescents between 80–130 pounds should start with 3,000 IU per day while those over 130 pounds but less than 170 pounds should take 4,000 IU per day. Those over 170 pounds should receive 5,000 IU per day."


The vitamin D council isn't. (In other words, its name is misleading in suggesting that it is something that it is not.)

On the other active vitamin D thread there were reports of individuals whose serum levels became arguably too high with supplementation in the range you suggest.

Edited by andre, 31 March 2009 - 12:22 PM.


⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#70 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 31 March 2009 - 02:02 PM

There is vit. D and other things in longy, I wouldnt take as much as you do of that, as I would be concerned about vit. D toxicity. It could be a vitaminosis type thing. Maybe switching to a straight 99% pure micronized Res. or just stopping the longy would be in your best interest. Regular periods of no supplements is advantageous, 1-3 days off can help. If you experience the same after a break and resumation its probably the cause, sensitivities to fillers, excipients and the actual active itself are known to develop for some people.


I have take 100 to 200mg now. I took 400mg was when longy didn't contain vitamin D. I wouldn't be worried at all about D toxicity under 10,000 based on study summaries I've read , so that would be about 8 capsules per day.



Holmes,

it is cheaper to buy resveratrol and vitamin D separately (or resveratrol and many other combinations).
This is specially if your doctor suggests different amounts of vitamin D than those you can get in a combined capsule.

A doctor once explained to me that if folks are taking combined capsules, they can't get an accurate measurement of what the patient is taking. Specially when some of the ingredients are combined into "formulations" which do not show the doctor how much of each ingredient is being consumed. The doctor cannot get accurate metrics for these folks when it comes down to changes in blood tests that they are experiencing.

On the other side of the coin, if you are taking a high amount of calcium that your doctor recommended for you, and then some self appointed cancer guru (and there are many!) who has no medical degree, or does not know about your intake tells you that you need alot more than 10,000 iu of Vitamin D to solve your ailment. Well... if you decide to follow his/her medical advice without talking to your real doctor, you may certainly end up getting a heart attack with this combination.

Please check with your doctor before going big time on Vitamin D, specially if a doc is giving you exact amounts or large amounts of certain vitamins/minerals to take. Calcium is considered great for the most part, but combine high amounts of calcium and high amounts of vitamin D and you got a recipe for disaster.

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 31 March 2009 - 02:21 PM.


#71 2tender

  • Guest
  • 672 posts
  • 34
  • Location:USA

Posted 31 March 2009 - 09:47 PM

I agree, when taking supplements it is best to be prudent.

#72 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 01 April 2009 - 10:14 AM

The vitamin D council isn't. (In other words, its name is misleading in suggesting that it is something that it is not.)

On the other active vitamin D thread there were reports of individuals whose serum levels became arguably too high with supplementation in the range you suggest.


People can go read up on this. I don't take any calcium, and how could 2000 or 3000 pose any risk when people get 10,000 with just 30 - 45 minutes of summer sun?

#73 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 01 April 2009 - 11:46 AM

The vitamin D council isn't. (In other words, its name is misleading in suggesting that it is something that it is not.)

On the other active vitamin D thread there were reports of individuals whose serum levels became arguably too high with supplementation in the range you suggest.


People can go read up on this. I don't take any calcium, and how could 2000 or 3000 pose any risk when people get 10,000 with just 30 - 45 minutes of summer sun?


It is unlikely to hurt a healthy person, but there is genetic variation in the vitamin D receptor. Too much can lead to a calcium overload, eventual arthritic and joint problems. It's a good idea to have one's blood levels checked to determine one's optimum dosage.

Edited by maxwatt, 01 April 2009 - 11:46 AM.


#74 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 01 April 2009 - 01:01 PM

People can go read up on this. I don't take any calcium, and how could 2000 or 3000 pose any risk when people get 10,000 with just 30 - 45 minutes of summer sun?


I believe the argument is that vitamin D from sun exposure could also be harmful if the average serum levels obtained are too high. That would happen if this amount of sun exposure is repeated too often. As for oral dosage, see the thread http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=28674 for a case where 4000 IU each day raised someones levels too high. That is less than the 5000 IU that you previously claimed to be harmless.

It is unlikely to hurt a healthy person, but there is genetic variation in the vitamin D receptor. Too much can lead to a calcium overload, eventual arthritic and joint problems. It's a good idea to have one's blood levels checked to determine one's optimum dosage.


Would genetic variation in the D receptor necessarily be reflected in serum levels?

Edited by andre, 01 April 2009 - 01:03 PM.


#75 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 01 April 2009 - 01:36 PM

Advising all people to take 2000-4000 (yeah, 5000 may be going slightly overboard) is still better than advising to drink milk (i.e. not take any vitamin D). The hundreds of millions saved from reduced muscoskeletal morbidity (and presumably all the other benefits of vitamin D) would make up the damage from the very few people having too high levels. Personally I recommend blood testing no matter how much vitamin D you take, during winter I advise people to take up to 2000 IU (no not because it's the UL, just because it's a nice number) without testing - but only if they are somehow too lazy to test, which is always advisable.

Cannell certainly is right, as he says, which people should include in their quote: "Two months later have a 25-hydroxy-vitamin D blood test, either through ZRT or your doctor." Short term high doses won't do any damage, if 4-5k raise your vitamin D levels to supraphysiologic levels (assuming up to 50ng/ml is still physiologic) you'll achieve those levels only after weeks of supplementation, then get the test and adjust your intake, no big deal.

Andre, I believe most polymorphism don't show in the serum levels, but I avoid the literature on receptor polymorphisms on purpose...

Edited by kismet, 01 April 2009 - 01:40 PM.


#76 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 01 April 2009 - 02:12 PM

Andre, I believe most polymorphism don't show in the serum levels, but I avoid the literature on receptor polymorphisms on purpose...


Any specific reason?

#77 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 01 April 2009 - 03:56 PM

Andre, I believe most polymorphism don't show in the serum levels, but I avoid the literature on receptor polymorphisms on purpose...


Any specific reason?

I think it's not worth the hassle (I've already spent a million hours reading vitamin D related studies, so I want to take a rest from vitD research). It's mostly very inconclusive, early research in its infancy and I consider it difficult reading (hard to say as I never read more than abstracts if a study only deals with polymorphisms) which won't do enough to broaden my knowledge.

Edited by kismet, 01 April 2009 - 03:57 PM.


⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#78 nancyd

  • Guest
  • 249 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bay Area, California

Posted 02 April 2009 - 02:36 AM

Im in my fifties, I took Res in the early nineties and felt placebo better, I had to quit taking it because of GI and joint problems from the high emodin content. I recently found products with low emodin content and started using them, I feel more energy during my work day and seem to recover better from exercise after I added Res. to my regimen. It's not scientific, but it is placebo.


Which brand are you currently taking?

#79 nancyd

  • Guest
  • 249 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Bay Area, California

Posted 02 April 2009 - 02:40 AM

It is always amusing when someone in their 20s claims to look younger. Anyone in their 20s who think that resveratrol is reversing the outward signs of aging is likely deluded. You should not have visible signs of aging in your 20s unless you have exceptionally bad genes, although you might be confusing it with something else that is going on, like weight gain, untreated hair loss, bad skin from being burnt to a crisp while tanning, or simply the natural change of features from paedomorphic to adult that often lasts well into the 20s. The majority of my friends who take care of themselves looked the same or better at 33 than they did at 23 without resveratrol.


I know. This is so funny. When I was in my 20s people would be shocked that I was 28 as opposed to 23, etc.. What?!?! Now someone just thought I was in my 20s recently and I'm 36. They acted so shocked and wanted to know what creams I use. Ummm...I don't think age should catch up with a person so fast. However I'm sure it will catch up with me-at the appropriate time, but the difference between 20s and 30s is so small.

#80 bluemoon

  • Guest
  • 739 posts
  • 90
  • Location:south side
  • NO

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:27 AM

Calcium is considered great for the most part, but combine high amounts of calcium and high amounts of vitamin D and you got a recipe for disaster.


Thanks for the info Anthony. I looked up Vitamin D and heart attacks, and I only found that levels that were too low could put someone at risk. I had also read before that high calcium could be risky in older people. Not that you are wrong, but what source do you have to show high combinations could be a disaster?

Since we get 10,000 units with 30-45 minutes in the summer noon sun, is 5,000 risky? Lots of guys in Africa and Panama getting some strong D.

And I'd still apreciate if anyone can explain why IP6 is bad.

Edited by Holmes, 02 April 2009 - 06:31 AM.


#81 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 02 April 2009 - 10:26 AM

Calcium is considered great for the most part, but combine high amounts of calcium and high amounts of vitamin D and you got a recipe for disaster.


Thanks for the info Anthony. I looked up Vitamin D and heart attacks, and I only found that levels that were too low could put someone at risk. I had also read before that high calcium could be risky in older people. Not that you are wrong, but what source do you have to show high combinations could be a disaster?

"Disaster" sounds more dangerous than I believe it is. >1000mg supplemental calcium and 800-1100IU vitamin D (add to that incidental exposure) are regularly used without apparent ill-effects, apart from one recent trial which showed increased CVD mortality. This trial is under heavy attack, as presumably it's flawed. Throughout the literature we also have reports of calcium levels within the physiologic range being associated with CVD (but also null-results).
There's some evidence that high vitamin D levels (but still considered non-toxic) could be harmful, for one the (heavily criticised and pretty obscure) Indian study showing  high 25(OH)D levels of ~90ng/ml were associated with CVD and the anomalous NHANES III data showing that >50ng/ml was associated with higher mortality (don't forget correlation does not imply causation).
I believe we should caution people, but at worst they trade slightly increased CVD mortality vs decreased cancer risk if they use higher doses of calcium and vitamin D: there's no free lunch!
I'd love to see the issue resolved (and I'm going to take a look at the literature and report back), but I'd wager that 1000mg calcium from diet (and maybe even additional 1000mg from supplements) and <50ng/ml 25(OH)D provide more benefits than they do harm (oh, and vitamin K2 could play a role in the whole CVD issue too).

Since we get 10,000 units with 30-45 minutes in the summer noon sun, is 5,000 risky? Lots of guys in Africa and Panama getting some strong D.

Well, it's a fallacy. People in Africa, our ancestors and most other people who have high sun exposure (and therefore high vitamin D levels) live short  and dangerous lives. So we really can't extrapolate anything (other than maybe - if we had the data to begin with - that highish vitamin D levels are good for temporary fitness; but I think even when it comes to physical fitness the optimum is at ~50ng/ml).

And I'd still apreciate if anyone can explain why IP6 is bad.

It isn't and never was. If, however, you follow a mediterranean or other balanced diet (>200g grains and some nuts per day) you will probably get enough IP6 from diet, only up to 2g are absorbed. I'd advise low carb people to supplement IP6 if their diet does not provide enough. Chelation of nutrients is a non-issue at those levels. Maybe dosing and application of IP6 for cancer prevention is different, I've only read some CVD data.

Edited by kismet, 02 April 2009 - 10:30 AM.


#82 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,944 posts
  • 1,616
  • Location:New York

Posted 02 April 2009 - 11:49 AM

.....

And I'd still apreciate if anyone can explain why IP6 is bad.

It isn't and never was. If, however, you follow a mediterranean or other balanced diet (>200g grains and some nuts per day) you will probably get enough IP6 from diet, only up to 2g are absorbed. I'd advise low carb people to supplement IP6 if their diet does not provide enough. Chelation of nutrients is a non-issue at those levels. Maybe dosing and application of IP6 for cancer prevention is different, I've only read some CVD data.


IP6 can result in anemia. In countries where there are high IP6 levels in the diet anemia is a problem (Egypt, I've heard tell.) Women of childbearing age particularly should be careful with it, and one should know one's iron status if using it. If one's hematocrit is in the low-normal range IP6 is at best redundant. Iron-overload diseases are best treated with more consistently effective methods. Periodic "bleeding" is more effective and with similar benefits.

⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#83 kismet

  • Guest
  • 2,984 posts
  • 424
  • Location:Austria, Vienna

Posted 03 April 2009 - 10:31 AM

Yes, but only if the diet is high in IP6 and/or low in minerals which are chelated (or if you supplement carelessly?) I think it's not happening in the western world at the levels commonly consumed, is it?
On topic:
I'm not using resveratrol and I'm not looking younger, unfortunately.

Edited by kismet, 03 April 2009 - 10:32 AM.


#84 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 03 April 2009 - 01:45 PM

From a few sources:

Toxicity/ Risks:

"Vitamin D is the most toxic of all the vitamins. As little as 2,000 IU a day - only five times required amounts - can be toxic to children." (McDonald)

"Vitamin D overdose becomes evident in elevated blood calcium levels causing symptoms of anorexia, nausea and vomiting, polyuria [the passage of a large volume of urine], polydipsia [chronic excessive intake of water], weakness, pruritus [itching], and nervousness, potentially with irreversible calcification of soft tissue in the kidney and liver. As newer, more highly active forms of vitamin D are developed, it becomes imperative to monitor even more carefully for this potential toxicity." (Spencer)

"Large doses of vitamin D also are linked to increased risk for premature heart attack, atherosclerosis, and possibly kidney stones in people who are predisposed to kidney problems. Vitamin D overdose develops over time and there is wide variation among individuals in their tolerance to toxicity." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

"Elevated doses increase risk of hypercalcemia." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

References:

McDonald A, et al. Complete book of vitamins and minerals. Publications International, Ltd., 1996;95,185.

Spencer JW, Jacobs JJ. Complementary/alternative medicine: an evidence based approach. Toronto: Mosby, 1999:148.

Herb, nutrient, and drug interactions: clinical implications and therapeutic strategies
By Mitchell Bebel Stargrove, Jonathan Treasure, Dwight L. McKee
Edition: illustrated, revised
Published by Elsevier Health Sciences, 2007
ISBN 0323029647, 9780323029643
932 pages


I understand the quotes from McDonald and Spencer are from older references, but the newer published manual appears to be more upto date. Pick up the book, it is interesting. Since my source was a doctor who mentioned this, I figured the issue with hypercalcemia could be found in various places:

http://www.cancer.go...a/Patient/page5
http://www.nacc.org.ge/hyper.htm

"Hypercalcemia affects normal heart rhythms and increases the sensitivity to some cardiac medications (such as digoxin). As calcium levels increase, irregular heartbeats may develop, that may lead to the heart attack."

Then this study:
http://www.ajcn.org/...tract/36/5/1014

Excess intake of vitamin D or of its metabolites may result in hypercalcemia and extra-osseous calcification, particularly in arterial walls and in the kidney, leading to chronic renal failure. The dose of vitamin D that causes significant hypercalcemia is highly variable between individuals but is rarely less than 1000 micrograms/day. Smaller doses can cause hypercalciuria and nephrolithiasis and possibly impaired renal function. Vitamin D administration may raise plasma cholesterol but there is no convincing evidence that the risk of myocardial infarction is increased. The recommended total supply for the elderly of 20 micrograms/day is most unlikely to be harmful, except in patients with sarcoidosis or renal calculi.


As I mentioned before, Large Doses of Vitamin D (which can cause hypercalcemia) and additional large doses of Calcium... a dangerous combination. Please talk to your doctor before dramatically increasing your Vitamin D dose. Or... get sunlight, as nature and the body can regulate Vitamin D intake from sunlight. (http://ods.od.nih.go...ts/vitamind.asp)

Excessive sun exposure does not result in vitamin D toxicity because the sustained heat on the skin is thought to photodegrade previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 as it is formed.

This one quotes these sources for sunlight Vitamin D:
Hayes CE, Hashold FE, Spach KM, Pederson LB. The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol 2003;49:277-300.
Holick MF. Photobiology of vitamin D. In: Feldman D, Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D, Second Edition, Volume I. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2005.



Cheers
A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 03 April 2009 - 02:15 PM.


#85 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,869 posts
  • 285
  • Location:Florida

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:27 PM

From a few sources:

Toxicity/ Risks:

"Vitamin D is the most toxic of all the vitamins. As little as 2,000 IU a day - only five times required amounts - can be toxic to children." (McDonald)

"Vitamin D overdose becomes evident in elevated blood calcium levels causing symptoms of anorexia, nausea and vomiting, polyuria [the passage of a large volume of urine], polydipsia [chronic excessive intake of water], weakness, pruritus [itching], and nervousness, potentially with irreversible calcification of soft tissue in the kidney and liver. As newer, more highly active forms of vitamin D are developed, it becomes imperative to monitor even more carefully for this potential toxicity." (Spencer)

"Large doses of vitamin D also are linked to increased risk for premature heart attack, atherosclerosis, and possibly kidney stones in people who are predisposed to kidney problems. Vitamin D overdose develops over time and there is wide variation among individuals in their tolerance to toxicity." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

"Elevated doses increase risk of hypercalcemia." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

References:

McDonald A, et al. Complete book of vitamins and minerals. Publications International, Ltd., 1996;95,185.

Spencer JW, Jacobs JJ. Complementary/alternative medicine: an evidence based approach. Toronto: Mosby, 1999:148.

Herb, nutrient, and drug interactions: clinical implications and therapeutic strategies
By Mitchell Bebel Stargrove, Jonathan Treasure, Dwight L. McKee
Edition: illustrated, revised
Published by Elsevier Health Sciences, 2007
ISBN 0323029647, 9780323029643
932 pages


I understand the quotes from McDonald and Spencer are from older references, but the newer published manual appears to be more upto date. Pick up the book, it is interesting. Since my source was a doctor who mentioned this, I figured the issue with hypercalcemia could be found in various places:

http://www.cancer.go...a/Patient/page5
http://www.nacc.org.ge/hyper.htm

"Hypercalcemia affects normal heart rhythms and increases the sensitivity to some cardiac medications (such as digoxin). As calcium levels increase, irregular heartbeats may develop, that may lead to the heart attack."

Then this study:
http://www.ajcn.org/...tract/36/5/1014

Excess intake of vitamin D or of its metabolites may result in hypercalcemia and extra-osseous calcification, particularly in arterial walls and in the kidney, leading to chronic renal failure. The dose of vitamin D that causes significant hypercalcemia is highly variable between individuals but is rarely less than 1000 micrograms/day. Smaller doses can cause hypercalciuria and nephrolithiasis and possibly impaired renal function. Vitamin D administration may raise plasma cholesterol but there is no convincing evidence that the risk of myocardial infarction is increased. The recommended total supply for the elderly of 20 micrograms/day is most unlikely to be harmful, except in patients with sarcoidosis or renal calculi.


As I mentioned before, Large Doses of Vitamin D (which can cause hypercalcemia) and additional large doses of Calcium... a dangerous combination. Please talk to your doctor before dramatically increasing your Vitamin D dose. Or... get sunlight, as nature and the body can regulate Vitamin D intake from sunlight. (http://ods.od.nih.go...ts/vitamind.asp)

Excessive sun exposure does not result in vitamin D toxicity because the sustained heat on the skin is thought to photodegrade previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 as it is formed.

This one quotes these sources for sunlight Vitamin D:
Hayes CE, Hashold FE, Spach KM, Pederson LB. The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol 2003;49:277-300.
Holick MF. Photobiology of vitamin D. In: Feldman D, Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D, Second Edition, Volume I. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2005.



Cheers
A



Anthony ...your thoughts on K2 in the mix given the research that has been presented/linked in these forums?

#86 Matt

  • Guest
  • 2,836 posts
  • 145
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:49 PM

Long-term effects of giving nursing home residents
bread fortified with 125 microg (5000 IU) vitamin D(3)
per daily serving.

Mocanu V, Stitt PA, Costan AR, Voroniuc O, Zbranca E, Luca V, Vieth R.

Department of Pathophysiology,
University of Medicin and Pharmacy Iasi Gr T Popa,
Iasi, Romania. vmoc...@iasi.mednet.ro

BACKGROUND:
In older adults, a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D]
concentration >75 nmol/L lowers the risk of fracture.
An oral intake of 125 microg (5000 IU) vitamin D(3)/d
may be required to achieve this target.

OBJECTIVE:
The objective was to characterize the safety and efficacy
of fortifying bread with a biologically meaningful
amount of vitamin D(3).

DESIGN:
In a single-arm design, 45 nursing home residents consumed
one bun daily that had been fortified with 125 microg
(5000 IU) vitamin D(3) and 320 mg elemental calcium.

RESULTS:
The initial mean (+/-SD) serum 25(OH)D concentration
was 28.5 +/- 10.8 nmol/L. After 12 mo,the 25(OH)D concentration
was 125.6 +/- 38.8 nmol/L, and it exceeded 74 nmol/L in
92% of the patients. At every 3-mo follow-up, serum
parathyroid hormone was lower than at baseline (P = 0.001).
No changes in serum calcium or cases of hypercalcemia were
observed at the follow-up assessments. Both mean total
urinary calcium and the mean urinary calcium-creatinine
ratio increased from baseline at one follow-up time
point (P < 0.05). Between baseline and the 12-mo visit,
z scores for bone mineral density at the lumbar spine
and the hip both increased significantly (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:
Fortification of bread with much more vitamin D than
used previously produced no evident adverse effects on
sun-deprived nursing home residents and improved bone
density measures. Fortification of bread with 5000 IU
vitamin D(3)/d provided reasonable assurance that
vitamin D-deficient older adults attained a
serum 25(OH)D concentration greater than the desirable
objective of >75 nmol/L. This trial was registered at
(ClinicalTrials.gov) as: NCT00789503.

#87 hmm

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 April 2009 - 06:08 PM

From a few sources:

Toxicity/ Risks:

"Vitamin D is the most toxic of all the vitamins. As little as 2,000 IU a day - only five times required amounts - can be toxic to children." (McDonald)

"Vitamin D overdose becomes evident in elevated blood calcium levels causing symptoms of anorexia, nausea and vomiting, polyuria [the passage of a large volume of urine], polydipsia [chronic excessive intake of water], weakness, pruritus [itching], and nervousness, potentially with irreversible calcification of soft tissue in the kidney and liver. As newer, more highly active forms of vitamin D are developed, it becomes imperative to monitor even more carefully for this potential toxicity." (Spencer)

"Large doses of vitamin D also are linked to increased risk for premature heart attack, atherosclerosis, and possibly kidney stones in people who are predisposed to kidney problems. Vitamin D overdose develops over time and there is wide variation among individuals in their tolerance to toxicity." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

"Elevated doses increase risk of hypercalcemia." (Stargrove,Treasure,McKee, page 403)

References:

McDonald A, et al. Complete book of vitamins and minerals. Publications International, Ltd., 1996;95,185.

Spencer JW, Jacobs JJ. Complementary/alternative medicine: an evidence based approach. Toronto: Mosby, 1999:148.

Herb, nutrient, and drug interactions: clinical implications and therapeutic strategies
By Mitchell Bebel Stargrove, Jonathan Treasure, Dwight L. McKee
Edition: illustrated, revised
Published by Elsevier Health Sciences, 2007
ISBN 0323029647, 9780323029643
932 pages


I understand the quotes from McDonald and Spencer are from older references, but the newer published manual appears to be more upto date. Pick up the book, it is interesting. Since my source was a doctor who mentioned this, I figured the issue with hypercalcemia could be found in various places:

http://www.cancer.go...a/Patient/page5
http://www.nacc.org.ge/hyper.htm

"Hypercalcemia affects normal heart rhythms and increases the sensitivity to some cardiac medications (such as digoxin). As calcium levels increase, irregular heartbeats may develop, that may lead to the heart attack."

Then this study:
http://www.ajcn.org/...tract/36/5/1014

Excess intake of vitamin D or of its metabolites may result in hypercalcemia and extra-osseous calcification, particularly in arterial walls and in the kidney, leading to chronic renal failure. The dose of vitamin D that causes significant hypercalcemia is highly variable between individuals but is rarely less than 1000 micrograms/day. Smaller doses can cause hypercalciuria and nephrolithiasis and possibly impaired renal function. Vitamin D administration may raise plasma cholesterol but there is no convincing evidence that the risk of myocardial infarction is increased. The recommended total supply for the elderly of 20 micrograms/day is most unlikely to be harmful, except in patients with sarcoidosis or renal calculi.


As I mentioned before, Large Doses of Vitamin D (which can cause hypercalcemia) and additional large doses of Calcium... a dangerous combination. Please talk to your doctor before dramatically increasing your Vitamin D dose. Or... get sunlight, as nature and the body can regulate Vitamin D intake from sunlight. (http://ods.od.nih.go...ts/vitamind.asp)

Excessive sun exposure does not result in vitamin D toxicity because the sustained heat on the skin is thought to photodegrade previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 as it is formed.

This one quotes these sources for sunlight Vitamin D:
Hayes CE, Hashold FE, Spach KM, Pederson LB. The immunological functions of the vitamin D endocrine system. Cell Mol Biol 2003;49:277-300.
Holick MF. Photobiology of vitamin D. In: Feldman D, Pike JW, Glorieux FH, eds. Vitamin D, Second Edition, Volume I. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, 2005.



Cheers
A


In October 2008 I started taking 20,000 iu per day. In January, 2009 I had a medical checkup and the blood test showed calcium levels at basically the same normal measurement they have been at for years. (I think my HMO doctor would be too cheap to have the lab check the direct vitamin D levels.) Since one week ago I have dropped all supplements but 500 mg of the tween80 rsv product per day, so I can try to sort out what might be the main culprits behind some sharp stomach pains. With the sun coming out I guess I will resume D at a more sane level, but it's hard for me to believe that 5,000 iu per day would be overdoing it...

#88 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 436
  • Location:Earth

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:15 PM

In October 2008 I started taking 20,000 iu per day. In January, 2009 I had a medical checkup and the blood test showed calcium levels at basically the same normal measurement they have been at for years.


Normal blood calcium levels do not eliminate the possibility of abnormal calcium metabolism, venous and other organ calcification, etc. In other words, hypercalcemia is just one of many things that can go wrong with calcium metabolism.

Edited by andre, 03 April 2009 - 07:20 PM.


⌛⇒ support MITOMOUSE via LongeCity!

#89 Anthony_Loera

  • Life Member
  • 3,130 posts
  • 714
  • Location:Miami Florida

Posted 03 April 2009 - 07:17 PM

Hi guys,

I just wanted to clarify this... as you can see, I never said 5,000 iu in my original post...

On the other side of the coin, if you are taking a high amount of calcium that your doctor recommended for you, and then some self appointed cancer guru (and there are many!) who has no medical degree, or does not know about your intake tells you that you need alot more than 10,000 iu of Vitamin D to solve your ailment. Well... if you decide to follow his/her medical advice without talking to your real doctor, you may certainly end up getting a heart attack with this combination.

Please check with your doctor before going big time on Vitamin D, specially if a doc is giving you exact amounts or large amounts of certain vitamins/minerals to take. Calcium is considered great for the most part, but combine high amounts of calcium and high amounts of vitamin D and you got a recipe for disaster.

A



Cheers
A

Click HERE to rent this advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#90 hmm

  • Guest
  • 143 posts
  • 2

Posted 03 April 2009 - 08:12 PM

In October 2008 I started taking 20,000 iu per day. In January, 2009 I had a medical checkup and the blood test showed calcium levels at basically the same normal measurement they have been at for years.


Normal blood calcium levels do not eliminate the possibility of abnormal calcium metabolism, venous and other organ calcification, etc. In other words, hypercalcemia is just one of many things that can go wrong with calcium metabolism.

Thanks, after a few hours of reading various pieces of information on Vitamin D, one of my primary questions was just what you have answered above. Can you cite a few other things that can go wrong with calcium metabolism?

Edited by hmm, 03 April 2009 - 08:13 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users