132 replies to this topic

[tunt01]

i watched these videos. they are good; thx for linking.

i can agree w/ the fructose/sucrose issue. but the blatant labeling of all carbs as bad/pro-aging doesn't comport w/ this guys statements or my own reality, i guess.

[niner]

i can agree w/ the fructose/sucrose issue. but the blatant labeling of all carbs as bad/pro-aging doesn't comport w/ this guys statements or my own reality, i guess.

Yeah. He's not particularly down on glucose. I think that's because relative to fructose, glucose is not that bad. What this guy is saying is that most of the health problems of the modern industrialized diet can be pinned on fructose, which he calls (rightly, I think) a chronic toxin. Once you've lost most of your fructose intake, there would still be an anti-aging benefit to keeping your post prandial glucose under control. I'm not going to give glucose a free pass, but Lustig's point is that fructose is SO much worse. I don't think any of us are saying that ALL carbs are bad, but sometimes we get a little imprecise in our language.

Regarding the Calorie is a Calorie issue, I'm not talking in a thermodynamic sense. People aren't bomb calorimeters, after all. Fructose leads to overconsumption by screwing up our satiety mechanisms, and has metabolic pathways that lead to rapid lipogenesis, steatosis, and insulin resistance. It's also a severe glycator, which is a somewhat different issue. If you put people on a ward and control their diet, then yes, a calorie is a calorie in terms of ultimate weight gain, but the long term health consequences would vary, and in the real world, a whole different scenario would play out. Also, if you are looking at the difference between 20g/d of CHO and 30g/d, then a kcal is a kcal. If you look at 200g/d of fructose versus an equivalent number of kcals of various other nutrients in a free-feeding situation, things will look different.

[Sillewater]

Regarding the Calorie is a Calorie issue, I'm not talking in a thermodynamic sense. People aren't bomb calorimeters, after all. Fructose leads to overconsumption by screwing up our satiety mechanisms, and has metabolic pathways that lead to rapid lipogenesis, steatosis, and insulin resistance. It's also a severe glycator, which is a somewhat different issue. If you put people on a ward and control their diet, then yes, a calorie is a calorie in terms of ultimate weight gain, but the long term health consequences would vary, and in the real world, a whole different scenario would play out. Also, if you are looking at the difference between 20g/d of CHO and 30g/d, then a kcal is a kcal. If you look at 200g/d of fructose versus an equivalent number of kcals of various other nutrients in a free-feeding situation, things will look different.

Exactly.

[s123]

If we concede that the Paleo is evolutionarily accurate, then we must also concede that it is the best diet for short-term survival and reproduction as that was the primary prerogative for Paleolithic peoples. If their diet raised androgen hormones, GH, and IGF-1, it would have helped them thrive at the expense of longevity -- longevity that would rarely be realized due to the harsh environment in which they lived.

I agree, a diet that is optimal for survival in a Paleolithic world is probably not optimal for longevity in our protected world. For example people with a higher BMI would have a higher survival change in the Paleolithic world where food shortages were common but these people would today die sooner and experience a higher risk of diabetes type 2, cancer, cardiovascular diseases,... In fact, some of the genetic manipulations that have been proven to extend the lifespan of animals in the lab, such as the age-1 mutation, may be delirious in nature because they lack resistance against starvation. That's probably the reason why these mutations were not selected for.

[oehaut]

Regarding the Calorie is a Calorie issue, I'm not talking in a thermodynamic sense.

I think this is where the problem lies. A calorie refers to a mesure of energy, hence it's related to the thermodynamic laws. People seems to blend calorie with macronutriments, which is a misused of the term. You cannot use the word calorie if you mean to talk about the metabolic faith of fructose. Or if you do, it will bring confusion, as it does here. It's obvious that different nutrient have different metabolic faith, but then lets not use the word calorie to talk about it, because it's not appropriate. If we agree on that, the peer-review litterature is quite clear that it is fallacious to say that if you have someone who need 2000 calories to maintain, and he eat 2000 on a 15/20/65 (P/F/CHO) or 2000 on a 15/65/20 (P/F/CHO) he would maintain on the low-fat and lose weight on the low-carb. Else than the water weight, there is no difference long-term.

So, to me, a calorie really is a calorie because it refers to the laws of thermodynamic which absolutly works.

Edited by oehaut, 10 January 2010 - 04:32 PM.

[oehaut]

in the Paleolithic world where food shortages were common

What evidence is there that there was food shortages in the paleolithic world? Acknowledging so would mean that you think the thrifty-gene hypothesis is right, whereas it's very own author have said it was no longer likely. I though that we were nomad people, moving along the animal herd, hence I doubt that there were really food shortage. Also, since most of our time was spent around africa or where the climat was good, it's not likely that the argument that plant were only seasonal is true. Plant were probably available all year long, and probably in huge amount. I'm not sure it was very hard to get food in the paleolithic world, and so I doubt we needed to have evolved a mechanism to put on fat when we were not eating for 1 day or 2.

Anyway, that's speculation from my side too, but I've never seen evidence that there were food shortage in the paleolithic world. James Neel refuted his own hypothesis himself in the '80.

Edited by oehaut, 10 January 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[wydell]

Duke:

What is your opinion on the methionine issue? Since the Paleo diet is high in methionine, perhaps it is a more life limiting than a low methionine diet with several fruits per day. All the long-lived culture diets seem to be low in animal products, and consequently, are probably low in methionine. I believe that the low methionine diet show similar benefits to CR in rats. Likewise, a higher methionine diet showed a higher mortality rate in rats. My guess is that people following the Paleo regime may be doing themselves in if longevity is the goal due to the methionine content.

If one assumes, that methionine is bad for longevity and fruits are also bad (though I am not sure I buy into the fruit is bad theory), then there is really is not that much healthy left to eat except olive oil , coconut oil ,vegetables and nuts.

Well, IF "methionine restriction plus" mimics the benefits of CRON, or is responsible for the benefits of CRON, would that not be superior to Paelo and easier than CRON? I know that I put a big "IF" in there.

Duke: When we look at our ancestry and how it affects optimum nutrition should we consider theories that the first human civilisations were settlements of highly advanced space faring civilizations?

Joking or not, the best guide we have for any diet is how it normalizes our bodyfat, and how it affects (hopefully improves) our health stats. By this measure, CRON is likely #1. But, most of us won't do CRON, and the life extending benefits to humans are still uncertain.

Paleo plus, IMO, is the next best choice, and one that is far easier to do long-term versus CRON.

I say "paleo plus," because I do believe their are neolithic food additions and supplements that improve long-term health.

[chilp]

Duke -

where do you stand regarding Xylitol or Stevia ?

Thanks.

Edited by chilp, 10 January 2010 - 09:00 PM.

[s123]

in the Paleolithic world where food shortages were common

What evidence is there that there was food shortages in the paleolithic world? Acknowledging so would mean that you think the thrifty-gene hypothesis is right, whereas it's very own author have said it was no longer likely. I though that we were nomad people, moving along the animal herd, hence I doubt that there were really food shortage. Also, since most of our time was spent around africa or where the climat was good, it's not likely that the argument that plant were only seasonal is true. Plant were probably available all year long, and probably in huge amount. I'm not sure it was very hard to get food in the paleolithic world, and so I doubt we needed to have evolved a mechanism to put on fat when we were not eating for 1 day or 2.

Anyway, that's speculation from my side too, but I've never seen evidence that there were food shortage in the paleolithic world. James Neel refuted his own hypothesis himself in the '80.

The paleolithic human didn't live till old age. That means that there wasn't any selection pressure for life extending mutations. In that case a slight survivial disadvantage of a gene during young age would probably be enough to cause a selection against that mutation. Except for food shortages, the example I used, there are other possible reasons. For example, some mutations that increase the lifespan impair mitochondrial function (and thus likely decrease the mitochondrial energy production). I guess that this might decrease our running speed and/or the duration at which we could run. This would of course have been delitrious in a paleolitic world with predators around. However, you should also not forget that homo sapiens left Africa and evolution hasn't stoped since then. The skin color is probably the most obvious example. The Africans adapted to a sunny climate and we to a climate with less sunshine. If we had kept our dark skin colour then we wouldn't have made any vitamin D and thus we would have become very deficient in this vital vitamin. On the other hand, if the people in Africa would have developed a light skin colour than their risk of skin cancer would been much higher. What I try to say is that the risk of certain diseases will also be different because the ancesters of the European people did suffer from food shortages and this would have resulted in a more efficient (less energy waisting metabolism) and thus a higher risk of obesity and the related ilnesses. Eating the diet of your African ancestors might thus not be a good idea even eating the diet of your European ancestors from thousands of years ago might not be a wise thing to do. According to the American Heart Association, 40 percent of African Americans suffer from hypertension, much more than caucasian people.

Evidence suggests that genetic susceptibility to hypertension is ancestral and was magnified during early human evolution. Furthermore, differential susceptibility among human populations is due to differential selection during the out-of-Africa expansion 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. The most important selection pressure was climate, which produced a latitudinal cline in hypertension susceptibility. Therefore, the current epidemic of hypertension is likely due to new exposures of the modern period (eg, higher salt intake) interacting with ancestral susceptibility. Worldwide populations may differ in susceptibility to the new exposures, however, such that those from hot, arid environments are more susceptible to hypertension than populations from cold environments.

Source: J. Hunter Young. Evolution of blood pressure regulation in humans. Current Hypertension Reports, 2007, 9(1): 13-18.

[niner]

According to the American Heart Association, 40 percent of African Americans suffer from hypertension, much more than caucasian people.

Evidence suggests that genetic susceptibility to hypertension is ancestral and was magnified during early human evolution. Furthermore, differential susceptibility among human populations is due to differential selection during the out-of-Africa expansion 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. The most important selection pressure was climate, which produced a latitudinal cline in hypertension susceptibility. Therefore, the current epidemic of hypertension is likely due to new exposures of the modern period (eg, higher salt intake) interacting with ancestral susceptibility. Worldwide populations may differ in susceptibility to the new exposures, however, such that those from hot, arid environments are more susceptible to hypertension than populations from cold environments.

Source: J. Hunter Young. Evolution of blood pressure regulation in humans. Current Hypertension Reports, 2007, 9(1): 13-18.

Evolutionary pressures might have come more recently as well. There is a hypothesis that high blood pressure in African Americans can be traced to the horrid conditions on slave ships that brought many of their ancestors to the New World. From bnet:

Slave-ship hypothesis of hypertension

Conditions on slave ships traversing the Atlantic Ocean during a 350-year period beginning in the 16th century may be responsible for the increased prevalence of high blood pressure among blacks in the United States, according to a hypothesis by Clarence E. Grim of the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles. After studying rates of hypertension among blacks on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as historical data about the slave trade, Grim concludes that voyages on the ships could have resulted in "survival of the fittest," with those better able to retain salt more likely to live through the lack of food and water and the dehydrating seasickness and diarrhea. This more efficient use of salt, however, has subsequently caused problems among slave descendants with salt-rich diets, suggests Grim.

[mustardseed41]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

[Logan]

According to the American Heart Association, 40 percent of African Americans suffer from hypertension, much more than caucasian people.

Evidence suggests that genetic susceptibility to hypertension is ancestral and was magnified during early human evolution. Furthermore, differential susceptibility among human populations is due to differential selection during the out-of-Africa expansion 30,000 to 100,000 years ago. The most important selection pressure was climate, which produced a latitudinal cline in hypertension susceptibility. Therefore, the current epidemic of hypertension is likely due to new exposures of the modern period (eg, higher salt intake) interacting with ancestral susceptibility. Worldwide populations may differ in susceptibility to the new exposures, however, such that those from hot, arid environments are more susceptible to hypertension than populations from cold environments.

Source: J. Hunter Young. Evolution of blood pressure regulation in humans. Current Hypertension Reports, 2007, 9(1): 13-18.

Evolutionary pressures might have come more recently as well. There is a hypothesis that high blood pressure in African Americans can be traced to the horrid conditions on slave ships that brought many of their ancestors to the New World. From bnet:

Slave-ship hypothesis of hypertension

Conditions on slave ships traversing the Atlantic Ocean during a 350-year period beginning in the 16th century may be responsible for the increased prevalence of high blood pressure among blacks in the United States, according to a hypothesis by Clarence E. Grim of the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science in Los Angeles. After studying rates of hypertension among blacks on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as historical data about the slave trade, Grim concludes that voyages on the ships could have resulted in "survival of the fittest," with those better able to retain salt more likely to live through the lack of food and water and the dehydrating seasickness and diarrhea. This more efficient use of salt, however, has subsequently caused problems among slave descendants with salt-rich diets, suggests Grim.

Plus, you have to consider that many African Americans have been brought up in conditions where diet and stress may play a role.

Hey Duke, what do you think about sprouted grain bread? I have been eating this brand for a while now.

http://www.google.co...W2dtxTivosBklTA

Edited by morganator, 11 January 2010 - 09:53 AM.

[Luna]

I checked my bread! it doesn't say it have fructose :D but it says in bold that it contains gluten @@.. fail.

[Athanasios]

On a calorie is a calorie, quite a few healthy foods work as carb/glucose/fat "blockers".

Example:

Current developments on the inhibitory effects of berry polyphenols on digestive enzymes.
McDougall GJ, Kulkarni NN, Stewart D.

Plant Products and Food Quality Programme, Scottish Crop Research Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee, Scotland, UK. gordon.mcdougall@scri.ac.uk
The recent developments and evidence for the effect of polyphenol components of berries on digestive enzymes has been reviewed. Certain plant polyphenols can inhibit starch digestive enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract and modulate blood glucose control in vivo. Certain berry polyphenol components can inhibit protease activities at levels which could affect protein digestion in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, other polyphenol components show potential for the inhibition of gastrointestinal lipase activity, which is a proven therapeutic target for the control of obesity through reduced fat digestion. Taking into account the potential synergies for inhibition of starch and lipid digestion by the spectrum of polyphenol components present within berry species, the inhibition of digestive enzymes by dietary polyphenols may be another important mechanism for the health benefits attributed to a diet rich in fruit and vegetables.

PMID: 19706974 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Notable sources of polyphenols include berries, tea, beer, grapes/wine, olive oil, chocolate/cocoa, coffee, walnuts, peanuts, borojo, pomegranates, popcorn, yerba mate, and other fruits and vegetables.
High levels of polyphenols can generally be found in the fruit skins. Research published in August 2009 showed that the measured polyphenol content of fruit is only a fraction of the total content, which includes "non-extractable" polyphenols

Edited by cnorwood, 11 January 2010 - 04:16 PM.

[oehaut]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

Looks like Duke recommandation is not a good way of making a recommandation (ie blanket statement for everyone)

Getting vitamin D right

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

Edited by oehaut, 11 January 2010 - 07:43 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

Looks like Duke recommandation is not a good way of making a recommandation (ie blanket statement for everyone)

Getting vitamin D right

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

-
Hence "pretty accurate"
I guess the link I gave means nothing to you.

[oehaut]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

Looks like Duke recommandation is not a good way of making a recommandation (ie blanket statement for everyone)

Getting vitamin D right

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

-
Hence "pretty accurate"
I guess the link I gave means nothing to you.

My point is that blanket statement are dangerous. Get some baseline blood test, start supplementing with a rather conservative dose (1000-2000 IU), and see how your body react. Then adjust accordingly. Starting with a high dose such a 8000 UI when you don't even know your level and how you will react to it is a pretty bad idea IMO. No need to read your link to understand this.

The Vitamin D council recommend getting started with 5000 IU for 2-3 months and then having some blood test.

Edited by oehaut, 11 January 2010 - 09:30 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

Looks like Duke recommandation is not a good way of making a recommandation (ie blanket statement for everyone)

Getting vitamin D right

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

-
Hence "pretty accurate"
I guess the link I gave means nothing to you.

My point is that blanket statement are dangerous. Get some baseline blood test, start supplementing with a rather conservative dose (1000-2000 IU), and see how your body react. Then adjust accordingly. Starting with a high dose such a 8000 UI when you don't even know your level and how you will react to it is a pretty bad idea IMO. No need to read your link to understand this.

The Vitamin D council recommend getting started with 5000 IU for 2-3 months and then having some blood test.

Again if you bothered to read the link (I know it's difficult to do) much of what you said is in there.

[niner]

Looks like Duke's recommendation for 8000iu vitamin D3 is pretty accurate.

http://www.lef.org/m...-Members_01.htm

Looks like Duke recommandation is not a good way of making a recommandation (ie blanket statement for everyone)

Getting vitamin D right

"My husband's doctor said he should take 4000 units per day. So I just take the same dose."
That would be fine if all adults required the same dose. However, individual needs can vary enormously. A dose that is grossly insufficient for one person may be excessive for another. Once again, vitamin D dose needs can be individualized by assessing 25-hydroxy vitamin levels in the blood.

Hence "pretty accurate"
I guess the link I gave means nothing to you.

My point is that blanket statement are dangerous. Get some baseline blood test, start supplementing with a rather conservative dose (1000-2000 IU), and see how your body react. Then adjust accordingly. Starting with a high dose such a 8000 UI when you don't even know your level and how you will react to it is a pretty bad idea IMO. No need to read your link to understand this.

The Vitamin D council recommend getting started with 5000 IU for 2-3 months and then having some blood test.

Again if you bothered to read the link (I know it's difficult to do) much of what you said is in there.

I think that you are failing to realize that most people do not read links. The text that you wrote above the link essentially trumps it. I think oehaut is right here; a blanket statement is not appropriate for all people.

[e Volution]

no a blanket statement is not appropriate for 14.3% of the population:

85.7% of those utilizing our blood testing service have less than 50 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. While this may seem disconcerting, studies show that 50-78%55-58 of the general population has less than 30 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, placing them at high risk for a host of degenerative diseases.

85% of blood test results are far below 50 ng/mL, it appears that virtually all members should supplement with 5,000 to 8,000 IU

I think everybody knows the only way to truly establish your correct dosage of vitamin D is with testing, but that applies to many supplements & drugs... I'm sure many people on this forum have not had their levels tested, let alone the general population, so I think you guys are sort of missing the forest for the trees... This is 'Duke's 2009 Health Summary', not 'The definitive guide to Vitamin D and YOU'.

Edited by icantgoforthat, 12 January 2010 - 04:41 PM.

[mustardseed41]

Thank you. Glad someone bothered to read it.

[niner]

no a blanket statement is not appropriate for 14.3% of the population:

85.7% of those utilizing our blood testing service have less than 50 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. While this may seem disconcerting, studies show that 50-78%55-58 of the general population has less than 30 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, placing them at high risk for a host of degenerative diseases.

85% of blood test results are far below 50 ng/mL, it appears that virtually all members should supplement with 5,000 to 8,000 IU

I think everybody knows the only way to truly establish your correct dosage of vitamin D is with testing, but that applies to many supplements & drugs... I'm sure many people on this forum have not had their levels tested, let alone the general population, so I think you guys are sort of missing the forest for the trees... This is 'Duke's 2009 Health Summary', not 'The definitive guide to Vitamin D and YOU'.

So you're arguing that it's ok to give bad advice to 14.3% of the population? Like that's too few to worry about? I can't even parse the LEF quote- did you cut/paste it wrong? I don't think it's reasonable for them to say "virtually all" members should supplement with 5,000 to 8,000 IU; Perhaps a large proportion of them should. How do we know that their sample is representative of anything other than people who submitted samples to LEF? We don't. 2009 Health Summary or not, bad advice is bad advice. Duke's a busy guy and I don't expect him to write a thesis when he posts something like this, but I don't think you guys should be putting up arguments against improvements to the original advice. Real people come here to learn about supplements; I realize that caveat emptor applies here, but we shouldn't be arguing for advice that we know is incomplete, at the very least. It would be more reasonable to tell people to start at 5000, test, adjust, and test again. Maybe I'm an outlier, but I got a higher level than I wanted using a lot less than 5K.

ps: I did read the LEF article the other day. I just interpret it differently than you guys.

[oehaut]

I think everybody knows the only way to truly establish your correct dosage of vitamin D is with testing

Why do you bother arguing then?

And if it's true for every supplement, that means that this rule applies for any supplements, ie, make sure that you really need what you supplement with and that you really need the dosage that you are supplementing with.

I'm sure many people on this forum have not had their levels tested, let alone the general population

Hence why it's dangerous if they get on a forum like this and think that starting with 8000IU is fine.

so I think you guys are sort of missing the forest for the trees...

Well, as I was walking in this forest, I saw a tree that looked pretty odd. Just feeling like pointing it out. Doesn't keep me from enjoying my walk.

Thanks Niner for your valuable points.

[DukeNukem]

I think everybody knows the only way to truly establish your correct dosage of vitamin D is with testing

Why do you bother arguing then?

And if it's true for every supplement, that means that this rule applies for any supplements, ie, make sure that you really need what you supplement with and that you really need the dosage that you are supplementing with.

I'm sure many people on this forum have not had their levels tested, let alone the general population

Hence why it's dangerous if they get on a forum like this and think that starting with 8000IU is fine.

so I think you guys are sort of missing the forest for the trees...

Well, as I was walking in this forest, I saw a tree that looked pretty odd. Just feeling like pointing it out. Doesn't keep me from enjoying my walk.

Thanks Niner for your valuable points.

I would not have recommended 8000IU if I didn't think it was perfectly safe. There's just no indication of toxicity at that level. It might be a little too much for a very small percentage of people (assuming a target of 75-ish), but not enough to hurt them. For the vast majority of people, it's likely in the right ballpark, or even too low.

BTW, I'm a strong proponent of testing your levels, and I might be the person here who does the most tests (body scans, blood work, urine and hair tests, reaction and cognitive tests, etc.) on a regular basis. I use these tests to fine-tune my supplements, hormones, work-outs, and diet.

[oehaut]

I would not have recommended 8000IU if I didn't think it was perfectly safe.

No offense here Duke, but who are you so that you can make such recommandation? Are you an MD or a researcher? I'm assuming we all read hell of a lot on these kind of forum. I'm assuming we all have a scientific background or a strong interest in studying science. To the very least, I would expect scientific reference to validate such a recommandation. Not just an opinion based from a few blog (even if these blog are from person with a good credibility), or I'd accept an opinion if you are yourself a specialist in the topic of interest. I'd also expect the reasonning behing the recommandation.

This so that anyone who comes here just don't read that taking 8000UI of vitamin D is safe... with no proof whatso ever that it is a) the good dosage to go and b) the good thing to do.

Personnally, I've gotten good result with 2000UI for 3 months. I don't know what would have happened with 8000UI (probably would have gotten there faster) but, I don't think "more is better" when it comes to this kind of things.

Again, no offense intended. But If anybody who read blogs can replace a (good) doctor... things are getting quite out of control. It's all good if it regards yourself, but not so when it could hurt someone else.

BTW, I'm a strong proponent of testing your levels, and I might be the person here who does the most tests (body scans, blood work, urine and hair tests, reaction and cognitive tests, etc.) on a regular basis. I use these tests to fine-tune my supplements, hormones, work-outs, and diet.

This, I know, i've seen you saying such a few time on a few posts, so I'm pretty sure anyway you would recommand to anyone having a test done first. You are lucky to have to money to do so. Not everybody can tho, and it should not be assumed that everyone will run test before supplementing something. Maybe 8000IU did nothing wrong in your case, but let's not consider anecdote as bullet proof.

Anyway, i'm sorry to constantly jump in and try to (in my view) balance things out a bit. As someone said, it is your health summary post, so let it be.

Meanwhile, I'm still gonna go with the advice of Dr. Davis and make sure that I know what and how much I need before taking something.

With respect,

O

Edited by oehaut, 13 January 2010 - 12:58 AM.

[mustardseed41]

You say that there is no proof whatsoever that 8000iu is safe?? Bull

[Lufega]

People always think that getting a Doctors opinion about say, vitamin D, is the safe route to go. I tell you it's bull. The least informed person on this board probably knows more than Doctors.

[Sillewater]

Yea, doctors don't know anything. Here in BC Canada I tried to get a Vitamin D blood test but the doctor said I didn't need one. He told me that I could supplement up to 20,000 IU without toxicity (I'm taking 5000IU). Some doctors will give me one and most won't. I always have to search around. I came to the conclusion long time ago that doctors aren't the best people to get health advice from.

[niner]

You say that there is no proof whatsoever that 8000iu is safe?? Bull

You have proof that 8000iu is safe for everyone? Could you post a link? I'm still haunted by the Melamed paper that found increased all-cause mortality at 25-OH-D3 levels over 50ng/ml. Yes, 50. I know that a lot of people recommend much more than that. Unless there is some sort of loose control in Melamed, the difference probably comes down to the populations involved. For example, Bill Davis' population is people with coronary artery plaque that they are hoping to control or regress. That's pretty different than a population of ImmInst readers, with its youthful bias.

Mustardseed, I don't understand why you're attached to the incautious side of this argument...

[oehaut]

You say that there is no proof whatsoever that 8000iu is safe?? Bull

Re-read. I've never said that. I just said that someone might not need 8000 UI to achieve an optimal level.