LONGECITY

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Makes total sense given how far north this team lives.

I work with a game development studio in Finland, and after several months of hearing how many sick days people there were taking, I bought the studio a large supply of D3 and had them take 5000IU daily. The CEO there said it was like a miracle. Mood improved and sick days plummeted. He said he'll never run a company again without having everyone take D3.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Not going to happen (it *is* that obvious if you read the definition of 'doping'). It's like banning protein supplements or creatine and a bad political example w/ a little libertarian spin. If anything, anti-human enhancement bio-luddites (certain "ethicists") may try; but it won't be the fault of WADA or FDA.
Edited by kismet, 29 May 2010 - 03:31 PM.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Not going to happen (it *is* that obvious if you read the definition of 'doping'). It's like banning protein supplements or creatine and a bad political example w/ a little libertarian spin. If anything, anti-human enhancement bio-luddites (certain "ethicists") may try; but it won't be the fault of WADA or FDA.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I sensed a tone of facetious sarcasm in Mind's comment.

Yes, sarcasm, but unfortunately not out of the realm of possibility since professional sports leagues are no longer on the warpath against "doping" but all performance enhancing substances.

Yes, sarcasm, but unfortunately not out of the realm of possibility since professional sports leagues are no longer on the warpath against "doping" but all performance enhancing substances.

Yeah...... caffeine used to be illegal in cycling beyond a certain amount; I don't know if this is still true though.

I'd side with kismet regarding Vitamin D. If you lay naked in the sun long enough your D levels will increase. Cyclists who spend lots of hours in the saddle with arms and legs exposed would likely get a "natural" D boost anyway.

Anecdotally, a friend who is an avid tri athlete living is Washington state (not known for being sunny), consumes no supplemental D other than what's in his Centrium Performance multi, tested at 63.8 ng/mL.

Are Some People Pushing Their Vitamin D Levels Too High?

Are Some People Pushing Their Vitamin D Levels Too High?

I basically agree with Masterjohn here. That said, I think he should have put more emphasis on vit K and vit A deficiency and less emphasis on vit D toxicity. As with most things that are poorly understood, deference should be paid to the evolutionary/paleo/natural principal. People living outdoor lives, like paleolithic humans, undoutedly had serum 25(OH)D higher than 35ng/ml in the summer. However, in the summer, they would also eat lots of vit K and vit A from (green, yellow, and orange) plants or animals that eat them. A good rule might be not to go higher than 35ng/ml unless you also get an quantums of vit A and vit K that approximate paleo summertime intakes.
Edited by Jay, 17 June 2010 - 03:46 PM.

Dr Hollick(DukeNukem's video on another Vit D thread and Dr Heaney(Matt's video on this thread) don't worry about calcification for the normal reference blood. The reason is the increase in calcium uptake levels off after reaching about 49 ng/mL.

Elevated calcium isn't the only concern. Vitamin D causes smooth cells to differentiate into osteoblasts.

Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Sep;3(5):1542-7. Epub 2008 Jun 18.
Vitamin D and osteogenic differentiation in the artery wall.

Hsu JJ, Tintut Y, Demer LL.

Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California 90095-1679, USA.
Abstract

Vascular calcification is widespread, particularly in patients with chronic kidney disease, who receive, among other treatments, active vitamin D supplements. Emerging evidence indicates that vascular calcification is a regulated process that resembles embryonic endochondral osteogenesis, involving osteoblastic differentiation of vascular smooth muscle cells. In experimental animal models, high dosages of vitamin D consistently promote vascular calcification. In particular, the vitamin D-fed rat is frequently used as a model to assess putative regulators of calcific vasculopathy. The artery wall calcification in these animals most likely results from multiple mechanisms involving systems physiology of the complex, bone-vascular-renal-endocrine axis. Genetically engineered mice with upregulated vitamin D signaling pathways have also shed light on the molecular intermediaries, including fibroblast growth factor-23 and transcriptional intermediary factor 1-alpha. In contrast to the studies of animals, studies of humans show that vitamin D has an inverse relationship or little effect. This difference between in vitro and in vivo findings is most likely, again, due to the complex, systemic feedback regulatory mechanisms that control calcium-phosphate metabolism. Recent epidemiologic evidence suggests that there is a narrow range of vitamin D levels in which vascular function is optimized. Levels above or below this range seem to confer a significant increase in risk for cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence to suggest that dietary vitamin D may be carried by lipoprotein particles into cells of the artery wall and atherosclerotic plaque, where it may be converted to active form by monocyte-macrophages. These findings raise interesting questions regarding the effects of vitamin D intake on atherosclerotic calcification and cardiovascular risk.

PMID: 18562594

Also, has anyone debunked PMID: 18180395, where the full text's Figure 2 says the optimal D is 20-25 ng/ml for cardiovascular disease risk? Flies in the face of Dr. Davis's results.

I definitely want A to at least equal D but a higher ratio is better. I think 1000-2000IU would be ideal if D wasn't being supplemented in such a high amount. There are toxicity concerns so I may lower the dose.

PMID: 20093284 found that the lowest colorectal cancer risk was for the combination of > 30 ng/ml 25-OH D and < 503.5 mcg/day retinol (1678 IU/day). I thus take 10,000 IU vitamin A once per week and 5000 IU/day vitamin D3 (yielding 54.3 ng/ml).

Just read from this Dr. Michael Eades: Sunshine Superman. It's his review of the book The Vitamin D Solution by Dr. Michael Holick (the guy who actually discovered 1,25 (OH)D the major circulating form of vitamin D in humans back in the early 1970s).

Excerpt:

Why not just take the supplements and forget about the sun?

Vitamin D made in the skin lasts at least twice as long in the blood as vitamin D ingested from the diet. When you are exposed to sunlight, you make not only vitamin D but also at least five and up to ten additional photoproducts that you would never get from dietary sources or from a supplement.

Old Mother Nature is pretty parsimonious with her creations, and I suspect she wouldn’t have five to ten photoproducts circulating around if they didn’t do something good for us. Just because we aren’t advanced enough yet to figure out what it is they do, doesn’t mean they don’t do something. Thus Dr. Holick’s recommendation to hit the sun if at all possible instead of the supplement bottle.

What you guys think about this? What are these photoproducts and can we supplement them
Edited by e Volution, 23 June 2010 - 04:48 AM.

Well, among them are cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) and pyrimidine-pyrimidone 6–4 photoproducts (64PPs). Both of which are implicated in DNA mutation, skin cancer, and various other skin diseases.

I wonder what "Old Mother Nature" had planned for those chemicals? Must have been something good. Sorry to be such a downer, but using the keywords from that paragraph, I skimmed through like a hundred abstracts on DNA damage, cancer and photoaging before I gave up. Maybe someone else knows the identity of some possibly-neutral photoproducts that might be worth exploring?
Edited by chrono, 23 June 2010 - 07:09 AM.

Are Some People Pushing Their Vitamin D Levels Too High?

I basically agree with Masterjohn here.

This is where I'm at right now too with regard to Vitamin D supplementation philosophy (thinking ~40ng/mL is ideal).

That could change next week though.

Living in Italy and being able to get plenty of sun exposure, I decided to go for not more than 1000IU.

2000 IU for me.

when i tried to push my D from the low-mid 40's (2000iu) into the mid 60's (4000iu) i had all sorts of problems... specifically increase in muscle pain & trigger points. i had really bad, burning pain in certain muscles & developed bad trigger points all of which were resolved upon stopping vit D supplementation. i now only take 1000iu daily on days i dont get sun.

Currently, I take 2,500 IU from Jarrow Formulas every other day. I don't have insurance so I can't be going to the doctor constantly for blood work, so I'm following the directions on the bottle that state to take one every other day if you're not seeing a doctor about it.

Currently, I take 2,500 IU from Jarrow Formulas every other day. I don't have insurance so I can't be going to the doctor constantly for blood work, so I'm following the directions on the bottle that state to take one every other day if you're not seeing a doctor about it.

Since when do you have to go to the doctor for blood work?

http://www.lef.org/V...Blood-Test.html

Currently, I take 2,500 IU from Jarrow Formulas every other day. I don't have insurance so I can't be going to the doctor constantly for blood work, so I'm following the directions on the bottle that state to take one every other day if you're not seeing a doctor about it.

Yeh seriously if there is a single supplement no-one should be following the directions on the back on the bottle it is Vitamin D! Vitamin D supplementation depends on blood levels and how much sun you get, nothing else.

Currently, I take 2,500 IU from Jarrow Formulas every other day. I don't have insurance so I can't be going to the doctor constantly for blood work, so I'm following the directions on the bottle that state to take one every other day if you're not seeing a doctor about it.

Yeh seriously if there is a single supplement no-one should be following the directions on the back on the bottle it is Vitamin D! Vitamin D supplementation depends on blood levels and how much sun you get, nothing else.

I live in Texas and can't tolerate the heat, so I try not to go outside before 7:00PM. During the fall, winter and spring when I have classes I use sun block and try to stay out of the sun as much as possible. While I'm not getting enough sunlight, the fact I can't get my blood tested has left me with no other choice but to play it safe.
Edited by Dmitri, 15 July 2010 - 03:54 AM.

Currently, I take 2,500 IU from Jarrow Formulas every other day. I don't have insurance so I can't be going to the doctor constantly for blood work, so I'm following the directions on the bottle that state to take one every other day if you're not seeing a doctor about it.

Since when do you have to go to the doctor for blood work?

http://www.lef.org/V...Blood-Test.html

Thanks for the link, but I no longer have a job either (reason why I lost my membership here) and my parents won't pay for something like that; for one they already think the small number of supplements I'm taking (which they're paying for) is an exaggeration.

Article that came up on Science Daily today:
http://www.scienceda...00809133325.htm

Currently, the recommended daily intake of vitamin D in the United States is 200 international units (IU) for people up to 50 years old; 400 IU for people 51 to 70 years old; and 600 IU for people over 70 years old. Today there is a wide consensus among scientists that the relative daily intake of vitamin D should be increased to 2,000 to 4,000 IU for most adults.

"Worldwide public health is best served by a recommendation of higher daily intakes of vitamin D," Norman said. "Currently, more than half the world's population gets insufficient amounts of this vitamin. At present about half of elderly North Americans and Western Europeans and probably also of the rest of the world are not receiving enough vitamin D to maintain healthy bone."

High blood levels of vitamin D may reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 67%, compared with low levels of the sunshine vitamin, says a new study from Finland.

http://www.swansonvi...eCode=INTHIR378

Lee Swanson Research Update
Vitamin D Intake May Slash Parkinson’s Risk
August 2010

High blood levels of vitamin D may reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease by 67%, compared with low levels of the sunshine vitamin, says a new study from Finland.

Researchers from the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Helsinki analyzed data from 3,173 Finnish men and women aged between 50 and 79. Over an impressive 29 years of follow-up, the researchers documented 50 cases of Parkinson’s disease.

The study is reported to be the first longitudinal analysis of vitamin D status and the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

Writing in the Archives of Neurology, the authors note that the exact mechanism is unknown, but postulated that vitamin D may be exerting a benefit through antioxidant activities, regulation of calcium levels, detoxification, modulation of the immune system and enhanced conduction of electricity through neurons.

"Our results are in line with the hypothesis that low vitamin D status predicts the development of Parkinson[‘s] disease," the researchers wrote. "Because of the small number of cases and the possibility of residual confounding, large cohort studies are needed. In intervention trials focusing on effects of vitamin D supplements, the incidence of Parkinson[‘s] disease merits follow up."

In an accompanying editorial, Marian Leslie Evatt, MD, MS, from Emory University in Atlanta described the study as "the first promising human data to suggest that inadequate vitamin D status is associated with the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease."

Evatt cautioned however that "further work is needed in both basic and clinical arenas to elucidate the exact role, mechanisms and optimum concentration of vitamin D in Parkinson’s disease."

Previous studies have shown that the part of the brain affected most by Parkinson’s, the substantia nigra, contains high levels of the vitamin D receptor, which suggests vitamin D may be important for normal functions of these cells.

The study involved the measurement of vitamin D levels in over 3,000 people. The data showed that people with the lowest levels of vitamin D were three times more likely to develop Parkinson’s, compared to the group with the highest levels.

In the editorial, Evatt added that "it seems prudent to confirm the findings presented in this issue and investigate whether the apparent dose-response relationship observed in the current study maintains its slope, levels off or becomes negative with higher 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations."

"In the interim, data from interventional studies of fractures and falls appear to justify optimizing vitamin D levels to greater than 30 to 40 nanograms per milliliter," she concluded.

Archives of Neurology 57(7):808-811, 2010

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Ironically they won the Stanley Cup!

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Ironically they won the Stanley Cup!

Ya, but they only won 'cause they sing a Fratellis song when they score.

I take 2500-5000 IU a day/EOD, as well as 100mcg MK7 a day/EOD

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Ironically they won the Stanley Cup!

Haaaa.... you beat me by a couple of days for the news. This team is on fire since 2 years.

The only reason I went through this thread is because I discovered recently that vitamin D... is not a vitamin but a hormone. And I believe vit D is in the same category than sleeping well and eating well. No sun no life.
Edited by outsider, 17 August 2010 - 06:40 AM.

when i tried to push my D from the low-mid 40's (2000iu) into the mid 60's (4000iu) i had all sorts of problems... specifically increase in muscle pain & trigger points. i had really bad, burning pain in certain muscles & developed bad trigger points all of which were resolved upon stopping vit D supplementation. i now only take 1000iu daily on days i dont get sun.

It must be magnesium deficiency, not the vit D fault. All the enzymes that metabolize Vitamin D require magnesium.

From vitamin D Concil:

"In fact, it is common for rising vitamin D levels to exacerbate an underlying magnesium deficiency. If one is having problems supplementing with vitamin D, a magnesium deficiency could be the reason why."

when i tried to push my D from the low-mid 40's (2000iu) into the mid 60's (4000iu) i had all sorts of problems... specifically increase in muscle pain & trigger points. i had really bad, burning pain in certain muscles & developed bad trigger points all of which were resolved upon stopping vit D supplementation. i now only take 1000iu daily on days i dont get sun.

It must be magnesium deficiency, not the vit D fault. All the enzymes that metabolize Vitamin D require magnesium.

From vitamin D Concil:

"In fact, it is common for rising vitamin D levels to exacerbate an underlying magnesium deficiency. If one is having problems supplementing with vitamin D, a magnesium deficiency could be the reason why."

i hit the RDA for mg with my diet & throw an extra 200mg in there through supplements... i dont think its something lacking in my diet, i just think its not right for my body.

Chicago Blackhawks using higher doses of vitamin D.

Coming soon: Professional sports leagues and the FDA team up to ban vitamin D supplements.

Ironically they won the Stanley Cup!

wut

http://www.lef.org/n...&key=Body Title

If the Blackhawks win the Stanley Cup this year, other teams, from high school to professional, may start paying attention to the vitamin D status of their players. That would be a big boost to the Vitamin D Council's goal of educating the world about the importance of vitamin D.



http://www.nhl.com/c...und4/index.html

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman presents Blackhawks' captain Jonathan Toews with the Stanley Cup



http://en.wikipedia....urns_to_Chicago

The Blackhawks advanced to the Stanley Cup Finals for the first time since 1992. They faced the Philadelphia Flyers, and were able to win the series in Game 6 with Patrick Kane scoring the game-winning (and Cup-clinching) goal in overtime. It was the Blackhawks' first Cup win since 1961.

...whoa