PDA

View Full Version : Vitamin D Discussion



Jelisej
02-15-2013, 01:38 PM
Honestly, vitamin d daily dosage was a one of topics on this forum that we could not reach consensus as everyone had different opinion. Even the scientist cant agree on this one.
My take is that based on estimated daily reqirement of vit d is somewhere between 400-800 IU, so I beleive that 1000 IU should be more than enough, though in some circumstances (deficiency) it could be upped to 2000 or in rare cases 3000 IU, and than reduced.
But, thats my opinion. Also some sources say that max uptake for vit d is 4000 IU but that is debatable.
And last- too much vit d can cause sleep issues and even mild insomnia.
In the end, we all all different.

Freepressright
02-15-2013, 01:50 PM
I've dosed it at 20,000 IU as an immune system booster during times of getting sick or having direct exposure. I've never had any ill side effects. Usually if I'm exposed to flu or coming down with something, the occasional mega dose has helped every time.

There is no reliable data out there to say what the 'right' dose is. The only way to know for sure, like any other hormone (vitamin D3 being a secosteroid hormone) is to have your levels checked.

I have, for at least two years now, taken 5,000 IUs per day in the winter and 2,000 in the summer with no ill effects. In fact, I think I've had some benefit where my thyroid is concerned. Either way, if I'm looking to remedy low test, personally I wouldn't take any less than 2,000 IUs a day. The RDI is ridiculously low.

nate3993
02-15-2013, 01:54 PM
I must say. 5,000 IU vs not taking it, at least for me, equals no difference in how I feel. Stopped taking it. Optimen Multi at full dose? Also no difference. Optimum's a solid company, and my vit d was very much legit. I really do feel a lot these daily supps prolly don't do that much.

Cobalt
02-15-2013, 03:09 PM
So much knowledge in this topic, I think I need to go lay down.

Coolazice
02-16-2013, 05:36 AM
Honestly, vitamin d daily dosage was a one of topics on this forum that we could not reach consensus as everyone had different opinion. Even the scientist cant agree on this one.
My take is that based on estimated daily reqirement of vit d is somewhere between 400-800 IU, so I beleive that 1000 IU should be more than enough, though in some circumstances (deficiency) it could be upped to 2000 or in rare cases 3000 IU, and than reduced.
But, thats my opinion. Also some sources say that max uptake for vit d is 4000 IU but that is debatable.
And last- too much vit d can cause sleep issues and even mild insomnia.
In the end, we all all different.

My gf was just given a prescription for a 50,000IU dose of vitamin D to be taken once a week for 8 weeks. I had to read the prescription a few times to accept that a dosage that high was being recommended by a doctor.

Jelisej
02-16-2013, 06:38 AM
My gf was just given a prescription for a 50,000IU dose of vitamin D to be taken once a week for 8 weeks. I had to read the prescription a few times to accept that a dosage that high was being recommended by a doctor.

She must have a serious vit d deficiency and maybe other conditon, so she was put on such a extreme dose- for 8 weeks and than it will be reduced. Sometimes they inject people with like 60 000 IU or more but those are specific cases, in my post I always refer to "normal" people.
High vit d brings a lot of sides- and all trials with older women supplementing was canceled because of high incidences of kidney stones etc.... Too much vit d also causes sleep disturbances, which is no-no in my book.
But again, my opinion is my opinion- and sometimes its worthless.

Coolazice
02-16-2013, 02:18 PM
She must have a serious vit d deficiency and maybe other conditon, so she was put on such a extreme dose- for 8 weeks and than it will be reduced. Sometimes they inject people with like 60 000 IU or more but those are specific cases, in my post I always refer to "normal" people.
High vit d brings a lot of sides- and all trials with older women supplementing was canceled because of high incidences of kidney stones etc.... Too much vit d also causes sleep disturbances, which is no-no in my book.
But again, my opinion is my opinion- and sometimes its worthless.

We are not aware of any other conditions she may have, but some tests were run. Perhaps the urinalysis will reveal something that a blood test didn't... I guess we'll see.

I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to disprove you. My intentions were to demonstrate a real world case of a doctor prescribing much higher doses than many of us had heard of or even thought about using. No sides so far.

Jelisej
02-16-2013, 05:28 PM
We are not aware of any other conditions she may have, but some tests were run. Perhaps the urinalysis will reveal something that a blood test didn't... I guess we'll see.

I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to disprove you. My intentions were to demonstrate a real world case of a doctor prescribing much higher doses than many of us had heard of or even thought about using. No sides so far.

No need to apologies bro', first, I did not feel like you are trying to disaprove me and, second- you and everyone else is welcomed to question or post any objection to any of my post- as I try to point earlier I'm just a random guy like everyone else and I do sometimes get things wrong.

As for your gf dosage- I did hear of cases where they prescribed extreme doses of vit d- but they are infrequent like 3 injections a year of 60 000 IU, or couple of weeks with similar dosages- but I never met anyone of them, neither I understand reasoning behind rhat kind of therapies. Friend of mine has some kind of disorder with vit d- once he had collapsed at workplace and he is taking 4000 IU daily, now that is also different case from most of people here- and for them 4000 IU is not needed. Thing is lot of vitamins oppose each other so when you add one thing too much you may get deficiencies somewhere else.

pman42
02-17-2013, 12:41 AM
My gf was just given a prescription for a 50,000IU dose of vitamin D to be taken once a week for 8 weeks. I had to read the prescription a few times to accept that a dosage that high was being recommended by a doctor.
make sure it's vitamin D3 and not drisdol (D2). D3 will do a better job at bring up blood levels.

the vitamin D dosage issue raised in this thread can be debated ad nauseum, but I always look at it this way: doses of multiple 1000s of IUs are the norm for human physiologoy. Studies have shown cancer reduction that can be dramatic in some cases, and 'normalizing' blood vitamin D to the level of summer sun exposure will require 4000-10,000 IU for most adults. we already know that these kinds of dosages are not toxic, so I prefer to err slightly on the side of "too much" (which time and research will show are actually correct doses) than too little, especially when the risks are so slight and the benefits so great. especially when taken with magnesium, vitamin K, etc, the theoretical risk of calcification is so slight. most guys on this forum, experimenting with tons of new hormonal products, would do well to optimize their blood levels.

this winter i've already done a few days of 50,000 IU at the onset of a bug (nuked it before it fully manifested) as well as my normal daily dose of 8 or 9000 IU. The blood level of 25(OH)D3 I got a couple weeks back was right in the sweet spot. in fact, it wasn't even considered too high according to the lab's reference range (last year I did 12,000 IU per day and came out slightly over the reference range). so adequate vitamin D blood levels will require determined supplementation.

Freepressright
02-17-2013, 08:35 PM
No need to apologies bro', first, I did not feel like you are trying to disaprove me and, second- you and everyone else is welcomed to question or post any objection to any of my post- as I try to point earlier I'm just a random guy like everyone else and I do sometimes get things wrong.

As for your gf dosage- I did hear of cases where they prescribed extreme doses of vit d- but they are infrequent like 3 injections a year of 60 000 IU, or couple of weeks with similar dosages- but I never met anyone of them, neither I understand reasoning behind rhat kind of therapies. Friend of mine has some kind of disorder with vit d- once he had collapsed at workplace and he is taking 4000 IU daily, now that is also different case from most of people here- and for them 4000 IU is not needed. Thing is lot of vitamins oppose each other so when you add one thing too much you may get deficiencies somewhere else.

D3 technically isn't a vitamin. It's a secosteroid hormone commonly referred to as a vitamin :)

burlyman30
02-17-2013, 11:21 PM
D3 technically isn't a vitamin. It's a secosteroid hormone commonly referred to as a vitamin :)

Huh. Burly learns something new every day.

Freepressright
02-18-2013, 09:43 AM
Huh. Burly learns something new every day.

True story:

"It is structurally similar to steroids such as testosterone, cholesterol, and cortisol (though vitamin D3 itself is a secosteroid)."

Cholecalciferol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_d3)

Jelisej
02-18-2013, 10:07 AM
Well it does not fit term vitamin as it can be synthesized from sun, but it acts as both. It is active part of hormonal pathways and low vitamin d does negatively influence hormonal balance, supplementing with it when levels are low helps great deal, hovewer when levels are not low supplementing with it does not really do much. Both low and too high levels are connected to higher mortality rate (and faster aging by some claims).
Sometimes in some hormonal dysfunctions body starts "stealing" vitamin d- to fill some pathways- I think that si part of what some guys dubbed as "pregnenolone steal".
As for bodybuilders and people who exercise heavily, and eat a lot of protein- all of us- kidneys are working overtime, and probably all of us have raised creatinine levels. Now; combining too much vitamin d and struggling kidneys- it does not sound good to me.
Toxicity is not an issue unless taken in really big numbers altough there is not too much data on this, but mind you even if there is problem with toxicity it will take a while to manifest itself- for example alcohol toxicity- even "street alcoholic" survive many, many years before it catches them up.
It takes quite a short exposures on sun to top up vit d levels to max (with sun exposure ther is no possible sides as body has mechanisms to protect itself unlike from oral supplements).
So if someones vit d levels are on lower end usualy he either has some underlying health issues (vit d steal?) or poor absorbtion or he lives in North Pole or poor lifestyle.
At some point people were over obsessed vit vitamin c, and every runner was eating vit c tablets like gummy bears, than it was something else... Now is vitamin d...
Anyway, over 5 centuries ago famous alchemist Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (better known as Paracelsus) said:
"All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous." or more simply: The dose makes the poison

pman42
02-20-2013, 02:10 PM
Hmm, interesting points. But I think many are too quick to say "untested, unproven, possibly dangerous" about vitamin D. There are really, really rare instances where the kidneys cannot convert D into the active form, but the person would definitely know about this. actually i had a client see me who had this condition, and she was unable to benefit even from sunlight or indoor tanning as the kidneys would not convert it. but she was very ill, and this would very likely be an absolute minority of people. the kidneys do not have trouble converting a substance that has been in our physiology for thousands of years, and to suggest they do without proof is kinda silly. we are talking microgram amounts of D3.

Plenty of studies have shown a reduction in all-cause mortality when vitamin D is "high" (in reality normal).

also, when you mention the 'vitamin D steal' i'm not sure what you mean. is it that enough D3 is not left for all its required functions, or is it that the substrate it is made from is depleted (as is the case in the cortisol progesterone steal)?

Freepressright
02-21-2013, 08:26 AM
Claims of Vitamin D3 toxicity are greatly overblown, in my opinion.

Jelisej
02-21-2013, 09:42 AM
Benefit-risk assessment of vitamin D suppleme... [Osteoporos Int. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19957164)

Vitamin D tells us about the follow thru of the steroid pathways. if its low at the end it tells you there is a proximal problem in the system too.
-Pregnenlone steal from thyroid disease is number one
-Any type of stress, emotional, physiological, metabolic, psychological, mental, etc...
-inflammation from any source.

As for vitamin d steal:
If I rember correctly; I may be wrong tough that body sometimes use VitD+ T3 to boost preg/adrenals among others, I've researched this long time ago
Kidneys- I was talking about possibility of hardening of kidneys, and kidney stones- some irregularities have been noticed in both blood in urine like increased calcium (hypercalciuria and hypercalcemia).
You may well be right and these thinga mean nothing, its just that I'm bit always on sceptical side you're opposite. its good for other readers to hear both sides and then decide.

pman42
02-21-2013, 10:05 PM
Vitamin D tells us about the follow thru of the steroid pathways. if its low at the end it tells you there is a proximal problem in the system too.
I don't think this is the case because, unlike steroid hormones which only require cholesterol for synthesis, vitamin D also requires UV light. there can be plenty of conversions and follow throughs happening, but if there is not sufficient UV light or food intake, there is not going to be sufficient vitamin D. period. This does not indicate any metabolic or hormonal problems.

my question is: why not assume that the blood levels created by summer sun are fairly indicative of an "optimal" amount and keep levels up there year-round? for example, in the link you cite, they say 75-110 nmol/l. but John Cannell of the vitamin d council has 125 nmol/L listed as the lower end of the range. this is the lowest level one would expect with regular sun exposure. again, my question: if such levels are potentially dangerous, as the study suggests, why does our body make them in response to sun?

In research, change is slow-moving and there is a tendency to apply a type of precautionary principle to vitamin D, as evidenced by this article, that is appropriate to drugs but not to orthomolecules. if vitamin D levels in the physiological range are harmful, show me the evidence. Other than vague statements like "might be dangerous" in the paper you linked to, there is none, because it does not exist.

further evidence that the RDI is too low occurs when the authors of the paper say that to achieve 75-110 nmol/L most adults will need 1800-4000 units. If you accept the idea that summer sun and the skin produce a physiologically normal level of vitamin D, then we can safely assume that most adults will need more than 4000 units.

O.N.
02-21-2013, 10:40 PM
Attached are both my blood tests, 2 weeks on vitamin D and then 11 weeks on.

2 weeks on supplement @ 5000IU per day
http://www.bodybuildingforums.com.au/attachments/online-nutrition/1921d1349146622-vitamin-d-we-are-all-deficient-vitamin-d-2-weeks.jpg


11 weeks on supplement @ 5000IU per day
http://www.bodybuildingforums.com.au/attachments/online-nutrition/1922d1349146626-vitamin-d-we-are-all-deficient-vitamin-d-11-weeks.jpg

burlyman30
02-21-2013, 10:54 PM
Good feedback, O.N. Thanks for sharing.

Living in a rainy, low-sun environment, I probably should get bloods done for deficiency.

pman42
02-21-2013, 11:20 PM
^^ no need to get bloods as without supplements by this time of year you almost certainly are deficient (i mean no harm in doing so but why waste the time and money if it costs you anything).

supplement with 5000 IU for a month then get tested. sometimes I like to use a few initial doses of 20-50,000 to get the levels up faster

O.N.
02-22-2013, 04:28 AM
Yes i was feeling great after 2 weeks on the 5000IU vitamin D i went and did a blood test to confirm how well i was doing, i was surprised that even after being on it for 2 weeks i still had a mild deficiency I hate to imagine what the level was before i started taking vitamin D. Then after 11 weeks the levels are within normal.

Being a fat soluble vitamin a peak should be reached about 6 weeks into using it.

Freepressright
02-22-2013, 09:10 AM
This is why doctors need to become more familiar with D3 and start testing patients who come in with thyroid issues or low T. Deficiencies of D3 can have serious hormonal implications, seeing as D3 is a secosteroid.

Jelisej
02-22-2013, 10:36 AM
O.N. firstly- its obvious that you have some underlying issues or poor absorption or something else as your vitamin d intake is sky high and moving so slowly up. You need to check your thyroid and adrenals first, especially people with thyroid/autoimmune diseases have that kind of issues with vit d. Also ref ranges are bit demanding in your lab.
One friend of mine does not get enough sun, and has got some isuess and 4000 IU work well for him. Some others supplemeting less and are OK. Tough they have more modest goals than you guys.
As for different studies; I'll copy-paste some results and some summaries from Wiki:

"A review of vitamin D in Africa[50] gives the median levels for equatorial countries: Kenya 65.5 nmol/L and Democratic Republic of the Congo 65nmol/L"

"Vitamin D levels are approximately 30% higher in northern Europe than in central and southern Europe; higher vitamin D concentrations in northern countries may have a genetic basis.[51][52] In a meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies on serum 25(OH)D concentrations globally the levels averaged 54 nmol/l and were higher in women than men, and higher in Caucasians than in non-Caucasians."

"A study of highly sun-exposed (tanned) healthy young skateboarders and surfers in Hawaii found levels below the proposed higher minimum of 30 ng/ml in 51% of the subjects. The highest 25(OH)D concentration was around 60 ng/ml (150nmol/L)"

A 2005 metastudy found correlations between serum levels of vitamin D and cancer, drawing from a meta-analysis of 63 observational studies of vitamin D status. The authors suggested that intake of an additional 1,000 international units (IU) (or 25 micrograms) of vitamin D daily reduced an individual's colon cancer risk by 50%, and breast and ovarian cancer risks by 30%-
The Role of Vitamin D in Cancer Prevention (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470481/) Elsevier (http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797%2806%2900498-3/abstract)

2006 study found that taking the U.S. RDA of vitamin D (400 IU per day) cut the risk of pancreatic cancer by 43% in a sample of more than 120,000 people from two long-term health surveys. Vitamin D Intake and the Risk for Pancreatic Cancer in Two Cohort Studies (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/15/9/1688)
This is study posted by H2S earlier on some other thread in which dose of bit over 3000 IU was sufficient to raise tt levels:
Effect of vitamin D supplementation on testos... [Horm Metab Res. 2011] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21154195)

As you can notice all dosages were rather low compared to your daily intake.

Jelisej
02-22-2013, 10:45 AM
Also there is this excellent post by our genious Infamy on other thread:

On the topic of vitamin d, although I don't doubt it's necessity in steroidogenesis, I would be very cautious on using high dose vit d on a steroid cycle.

The reason I say this is that I was interested in the effects of steroids and potential kidney damage. Although there is little to suggest that an otherwise healthy person drinking plenty of water should get kidney damage on steroids directly, there are indirect pathways by which the steroids can contribute to kidney damage.

One is via excess vit d. Vitamin d increases calcium absorption. Unfotunately most steroids (tren, test, deca) increase mineral and water retention (remember that water retention is not solely related to extra cellular water retention but in the case of steroids like tren, intra cellular water retention making the muscles look bigger and fuller).

So the combination of steroids plus excess vit d leads to increased calcium in the body. Even if dietary intake is within the normal rda (usually touted to be 1 gram per day). Calcium is excreted via the kidneys and too much calcium leads to blockages and kidney stones. Even without the formation of kidney stones a high calcium level can cause kidney damage. Although sometimes this damage is reversible, sometimes it isnt. The effect is exacerbated for those taking multivitamins as they tend to have doses of minerals way in excess of what you need. Off cycle this is a problem, on cycle this is dangerous.

This could be one of the mechanisms by which tren can cause kidney toxicity (along with high bp, inadequate water intake etc).

A words of warning to those that believe cranberry extract can help. It doesn't and perversely makes things worse. Cranberry extract is high in oxalate which in turn can increase the risk of kidney stones.

There is another route for kidney damage related to a genetic condition whereby a missing gene coding for a particular enzyme responsible for glucordination amongst other things leaves high levels of toxic by products onthe kidneys to be filtered and causes kidney damage. I've included this comment for completeness but it was this vitaminosis of vit d which I wanted to warn people of.

As a rule, on cycle, I would use little to no vit d and use multi vitamins very sparingly - certainly not every day.

Bear in mind off cycle high vit d intake will also cause kidney problems although there will be more tolerance to it without steroids in the system.

Grape Ape
02-22-2013, 10:45 AM
J, have you never cycled?

Macdon1588
02-22-2013, 01:48 PM
My gf was just given a prescription for a 50,000IU dose of vitamin D to be taken once a week for 8 weeks. I had to read the prescription a few times to accept that a dosage that high was being recommended by a doctor.

That's an interesting dosage. I seem remember reading something over at http://www.charlespoliquin.com that stated that taking one large of vitamin D once a week seemed to work better for raising levels than a daily dosage. I am considering taking it like that. I'm a shift worker so I consider D an essential supplement and ever since getting my shit blood work back, I've been religious about taking it.

Freepressright
02-22-2013, 02:43 PM
I know a woman who went recently to an endo who put her on a dose of 50,000 IUs once a week. There is validity to it.

Coolazice
02-22-2013, 02:49 PM
That's an interesting dosage. I seem remember reading something over at Charles Poliquin strength and fitness training certification and nutrition supplements for a healthy life (http://www.charlespoliquin.com) that stated that taking one large of vitamin D once a week seemed to work better for raising levels than a daily dosage. I am considering taking it like that. I'm a shift worker so I consider D an essential supplement and ever since getting my shit blood work back, I've been religious about taking it.

I'll have to look into that since the doctor didn't take the time to explain or even talk to my gf about that dosage.


I know a woman who went recently to an endo who put her on a dose of 50,000 IUs once a week. There is validity to it.

Did it have anything to do with her Thyroid?

O.N.
02-22-2013, 07:11 PM
O.N. firstly- its obvious that you have some underlying issues or poor absorption or something else as your vitamin d intake is sky high and moving so slowly up. You need to check your thyroid and adrenals first, especially people with thyroid/autoimmune diseases have that kind of issues with vit d. Also ref ranges are bit demanding in your lab.


I work in doors almost 24/7 do not get much sun at all thats why the levels were so low. They did climb very quickly imo, 11 weeks from a mild deficiency to now well within range is a great result i wouldn't say there is any absorption issues, as for thyroid and adrenals and testosterone everything functions normally, within range and testosterone is very high.

pman42
02-22-2013, 10:22 PM
O.N. firstly- its obvious that you have some underlying issues or poor absorption or something else as your vitamin d intake is sky high and moving so slowly up. You need to check your thyroid and adrenals first, especially people with thyroid/autoimmune diseases have that kind of issues with vit d. Also ref ranges are bit demanding in your lab.
Again I am questioning the idea that 5000 Iu is "sky high". Also, what is your assertion that the adrenals and thyroid need checking? vitamin D is processed in the kidneys, so a lack of 25(OH)D3 in the blood would mean either lack of dietary D3 or malfunctioning kidney.

In light of some of the info you posted, I may be altering my optimal blood levels a bit. It appears, for example, that the Masai have blood levels of average 119 nmol/L, so this might be round about 'ideal'. although the study you cited said that adults will need 1800-4000 IU to get to 75-110 nmol/L. so I still see most adults as benefiting from doses in the multi 1000 range. and more bodyweight = more need for vitamin D.

there are studies showing D-deficient people living near equatorial regions. there are many factors to consider. glass, office or car, will block synthesis, as will clothing and sunscreen. so in the end it makes sense to me to take physiologically normal amounts of vitamin D

Jelisej
02-23-2013, 04:25 AM
O.N.- (living in Australia) I did not realise that you were getting no sun at all, so in that case and I asume that you are quite big so on your size as pman42 pointed is not really sky high; and I would asume that you may even reduce dosage eventually.

pman- I will change my earlier statement and I would say that 500 IU is high, but not sky high. I agree with your post- as for reasons for not having enough vit d trough sun- I would add that even some bathing chemicals, chlorinated water reduce absorption to zero sometimes, apparently bathing in outdoors swimming pool can prevent absorption for day or two
We need our natural oil on skin for vit d absorption, adding olive oil is good and it benefits bones more.

As for dosage I was never against multiple 1000, I said from 1000 IU to 3000 IU a day should be enough for "normal" people. Now, there are cases when people dont get sun where they can take bit more, but if they have to take a more than 5000IU- there is some underlying issue, and pumping vit d wont solve the problem. That's all.
So as conclusion I would say that considering all, I can increase my own recommended dose, somewhere between 1000- 5000 IU, all evidence suggest that adding more than that yields no more benefits, and increase some potential risks.

Jelisej
02-23-2013, 09:38 AM
OK, at last what we are all looking for (regarding vitamin d)- John Connel, MD vit d specialist and vitamin D council member. All things we discussed are here explained:
Few bits:
Studies indicate that for proper health, serum vitamin D levels should be a minimum of 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L), with optimal levels falling between 50-80 ng/mL (125-200 nmol/L). These values apply to both children and adults.

For proper functioning, a healthy human body utilizes around 3,000-5,000 IU of vitamin D per day - indicating the current recommended intakes are not high enough to raise and/or maintain the vitamin D levels necessary for proper health.

Based on the body's indicated daily vitamin D usage, Vitamin D Council recommends the following amounts of supplemental vitamin D3 per day in the absence of proper sun exposure. Due to the variable response discussed above, these are only estimated amounts.

Healthy children under the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU.
Healthy children over the age of 1 years – 1,000 IU per every 25 lbs of body weight.
Healthy adults and adolescents – at least 5,000 IU.
Pregnant and lactating mothers - at least 6,000 IU.

Additionally, children and adults with chronic health conditions such as autism, MS, cancer, heart disease, or obesity may need as much as double these amounts.


You can start from here, and then go to any subtopic:
Vitamin D Council About vitamin D (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/about-vitamin-d/)





Could any of moderators please cut out vitamin d related posts and put them in new thread, as these posts are bit off topic, and I managed to completely ruined this thread.

burlyman30
02-24-2013, 09:44 AM
Could any of moderators please cut out vitamin d related posts and put them in new thread, as these posts are bit off topic, and I managed to completely ruined this thread.

Done. Great discussion, guys. Keep it going.

Jelisej
02-24-2013, 11:21 AM
Thamks Burly!

Few bits on vitamin D taken from jack Kruse's blog on leptin:

So anytime cellular stress is high (high HS CRP), it also forces all the hormone backbone substrate called pregnenolone to be shunted to cortisol production. This is called pregnenolone steal syndrome. What exactly does this mean, Doc? DHEA, Androstenedione, Vitamin D, testosterone, estrogen, and aldosterone production all fall dramatically. These are all of the hormones that are made from a common precursor. Remember that chronic Leptin resistance leads to huge hypercortisolism all the time!

This also means that Leptin resistance clinically will lead to low vitamin D levels. This completely explains the epidemic that John Cannell, MD is reporting about in the Vitamin D council newsletters. This in turn down regulates T regulator cells of the immune system, and it will decrease bone metabolism as well since vitamin D is a cofactor in bone metabolism. Since DHEA and Androstenedione are lowered too, the sex steroids are also lowered because they are made from DHEA and Andro. In younger humans this leads to early andropause, low libido, and early onset perimenopause any time stress is present. When this occurs in older humans, like postmenopausal women, it destroys libido and electrolyte balance (low aldosterone effects) and causes osteopenia and osteoporosis.

Fat Bill Dwyer
02-24-2013, 01:59 PM
So I googled Vit D toxicity case studies, and after wasting about a half an hour I came to a few conclusions. D toxicity from supplementation seems to happen in the very old in doses waaayyyy > 50,000 IU / week and over a long period of time in the older folks. If you're healthy and not "elderly" with good kidney's it is pretty hard for it to happen.

Most of the single dose D toxicity cases are in elderly people getting bad sups with levels well into the hundreds of thousands, or little kids eating or drinking poorly fortified foods.

J you brought up Kidney stress with roids, and I think that's a good point. D supping at 5k a day would certainly increase kidney stress so that would be a concern, which it always should be anyway anyway. As for D toxicity it seems like most cycles would be over before people entered the "danger zone" of D toxicity, so that probably wouldn't happen, but who's to say really? Nobody really knows. If anyone wants to try and find out I would encourage them to post here. Just take M1T for 12 weeks and sup with 20,000 IU / day of D. Post your EKG too.

So it doesn't seem like folks are hurting themselves by supping with < 5,000 IUs / day. I personally don't think micro-managing D is going to get anybody huge, but hell if that's what you want to do it's your money.

Right Hook
02-24-2013, 07:07 PM
At the end of winter. And 1000 IU's per day of supplemental vitamin D2 or D3 raised and maintained Vitamin D levels.


J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 2013

Serum Concentrations of 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D2 and 1,25-Dihydroxyvitamin D3 in Response to Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 Supplementation

Biancuzzo, RM; Clarke, N; Reitz, RE; Travison, TG; Holick, MF

Objective:The purpose of this study was to determine 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(3) [1,25(OH)(2)D(3)] and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D(2) [1,25(OH)(2)D(2)] levels in healthy adults consuming 1000 IU vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) per day for 11 weeks.Subjects and Design:Blood from 34 healthy male and female adults, aged 18 to 79 years, from a placebo-controlled, double-blind study who received a placebo, 1000 IU vitamin D(3), or 1000 IU vitamin D(2) daily for 11 weeks at end of winter was analyzed. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D(2), 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3), 1,25(OH)(2)D(2), and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectroscopy.Results:Of the adults, 82% were vitamin D insufficient (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D <30 ng/mL]) at the start of the study. Administration of vitamin D(2) and vitamin D(3) induced similar increases in total 25(OH)D as well as in 25-hydroxyvitamin D(2) and 25-hydroxyvitamin D(3), respectively. Compared with placebo and adjusting for baseline levels, 1000 IU daily of vitamin D(2) was associated with a mean increase of 7.4 pg/mL (95% confidence interval, 4.4-10.3) in 1,25(OH)(2)D(2), which was accompanied by a mean decrease of 9.9 pg/mL (-15.8 to -4.0) in 1,25(OH)(2)D(3). No such differences accompanied administration of 1000 IU daily of vitamin D(3).Conclusion:Vitamin D(2) and vitamin D(3) were effective in raising and maintaining total serum concentrations of 25(OH)D. Ingestion of vitamin D(2) also resulted in an increase in serum concentrations of 1,25(OH)(2)D(2). This increase was accompanied by a comparable decrease in serum concentrations of 1,25(OH)(2)D(3); therefore, the total 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D [1,25(OH)(2)D] concentrations did not significantly change after 11 weeks compared with baseline levels. Ingestion of vitamin D(3) did not alter serum concentrations of 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) or total 1,25(OH)(2)D. Therefore, ingestion of 1000 IU vitamin D(2) or vitamin D(3) for 11 weeks was effective in raising total serum concentrations of 25(OH)D as well as sustaining serum concentrations of total 1,25(OH)(2)D.

Address: Department of Medicine (R.T.G.T., M.F.H.), Section of Endocrinology, Nutrition, and Diabetes, Vitamin D, Skin and Bone Research Laboratory, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02118; and Quest Diagnostics Nichols Institute (N.C., R.E.R.), San Juan Capistrano, California 92675.

But it's not going to make you stronger. A new one on Vitamin D showing supplementation does not improve bench press or leg press:



Br J Sports Med. 2013 Feb 14. [Epub ahead of print]
The effects of vitamin D3 supplementation on serum total 25[OH]D concentration and physical performance: a randomised dose-response study.
Close GL, Leckey J, Patterson M, Bradley W, Owens DJ, Fraser WD, Morton JP.
Source
Research Institute for Sport and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Vitamin D deficiency is common in the general public and athletic populations and may impair skeletal muscle function. We therefore assessed the effects of vitamin D(3) supplementation on serum 25[OH]D concentrations and physical performance.
METHODS:
30 club-level athletes were block randomised (using baseline 25[OH]D concentrations) into one of three groups receiving either a placebo (PLB), 20 000 or 40 000 IU/week oral vitamin D(3) for 12 weeks. Serum 25[OH]D and muscle function (1-RM bench press and leg press and vertical jump height) were measured presupplementation, 6 and 12 weeks postsupplementation. Vitamin D deficiency was defined in accordance with the US Institute of Medicine guideline (<50 nmol/l).
RESULTS:
57% of the subject population were vitamin D deficient at baseline (mean?SD value 51?24 nmol/l). Following 6 and 12 weeks supplementation with 20 000 IU (79?14 and 85?10 nmol/l, respectively) or 40 000 IU vitamin D(3) (98?14 and 91?24 nmol/l, respectively), serum vitamin D concentrations increased in all participants, with every individual achieving concentrations greater than 50 nmol/l. In contrast, vitamin D concentration in the PLB group decreased at 6 and 12 weeks (37?18 and 41?22 nmol/l, respectively). Increasing serum 25[OH]D had no significant effect on any physical performance parameter (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:
Both 20 000 and 40 000 IU vitamin D(3) supplementation over a 6-week period elevates serum 25[OH]D concentrations above 50 nmol/l, but neither dose given for 12 weeks improved our chosen measures of physical performance.

Taken with fat, nah:


Taking Vitamin D with fats doesn't really matter long term. New study:

J. Bone Miner. Res., 2013

Meal conditions affect the absorption of supplemental vitamin D(3) but not the plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D response to supplementation

Dawson-Hughes, B; Harris, SS; Palermo, NJ; Ceglia, L; Rasmussen, H
It is sometimes assumed that dietary fat is required for vitamin D absorption, although the impact of different amounts of dietary fat on vitamin D absorption is not established. This study was conducted to determine whether the presence of a meal and the fat content of the meal influences vitamin D absorption or the 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) response to supplemental vitamin D(3) . Based on earlier studies in rats we postulated that absorption would be greatest in the low-fat meal group. Sixty two healthy older men and women were randomly assigned to one of three meal groups: no meal, high-fat meal or low-fat meal; each was given a monthly 50,000 IU vitamin D(3) supplement with the test breakfast meal (or after a fast for the no-meal group) and followed for 90 days. Plasma vitamin D(3) was measured by LC/MS before and 12 hrs after the first dose; plasma 25OHD was measured by radioimmunoassay at baseline and after 30 and 90 days. The mean 12-hr increments in vitamin D(3) , after adjusting for age and sex, were 200.9 nmol/L in the no-meal group, 207.4 nmol/L in the high-fat meal group, and 241.1 nmol/L in the low-fat meal group (P = 0.038), with the increase in the low-fat group being significantly greater than the increases in the other two groups. However, increments in 25OHD levels at 30 and 90 days didn't differ significantly in the three groups. We conclude that absorption was increased when a 50,000 IU dose of vitamin D was taken with a low-fat meal, compared with a high-fat meal and no meal, but that the greater absorption didn't result in higher plasma 25OHD levels in the low-fat meal group. ? 2013 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Copyright ? 2013 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Address: Jean Mayer United States Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, 711 Washington St., Boston, MA 02111. Bess.dawson-hughes@tufts.edu.

longBallLima
02-25-2013, 11:16 AM
This here thread is a gem.

Fat Bill Dwyer
02-26-2013, 09:31 AM
Found this at ergo-log

Suffer from continuous colds? Try vitamin D3 (http://ergo-log.com/continuous-colds-try-vitamin-d3.html)

The purpose of the study the post sites was to see if D3 suping changes respiratory infection rates.

What is more pertinent to our discussion here is that in that study of people taking D3 @ 4,000 IU for 12 months, nobody developed D toxicity. Also, Serum D3 doubled by month 3.

The study participants all had conditions that would predispose them to respiratory infections, but nothing mentioned in the abstract seems like it would change their D absorption/metabolism/excretion that much.

Avl
03-04-2013, 11:14 AM
ive mostly done 5k a day- in winter ill go 10k per day if i feel a bug coming on..in summer, maybe 2k a day. i work indoors.

mark bell posted something about him using like 50k all the time ( i could be off a bit, but it was way high )

Right Hook
03-05-2013, 10:14 AM
ive mostly done 5k a day- in winter ill go 10k per day if i feel a bug coming on..in summer, maybe 2k a day. i work indoors.

mark bell posted something about him using like 50k all the time ( i could be off a bit, but it was way high )

That's a waste of money.

Avl
03-21-2013, 03:34 PM
50k a day? no doubt its a waste..as for my 15k or so, at about 10-15 bucks a bottle im ok with that.

Alex
04-18-2013, 12:18 AM
Vitamin D is an important element for our body. I like this discussion and i found lot of useful stuff about it. I am completely agreed with the above post that its a complete wastage of money.

Right Hook
04-18-2013, 10:58 AM
50k a day? no doubt its a waste..as for my 15k or so, at about 10-15 bucks a bottle im ok with that.

Refer to post #36

Jelisej
06-05-2013, 05:47 PM
I did not know that aromatase inhibitors can significantly reduce vitamin D levels:
Effect of baseline serum vitamin D l... [Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22198469)
From study: Absolute serum levels of vitamin D increased significantly at one year in the anastrozole group (2.88 ng/ml, [1.71, 4.06; P < 0.0001]) but not in the placebo group (0.75 ng/ml [-0.35, 1.85; P = 0.18]).

From exemestane/aromasin label:
--WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS------------------------

Reductions in bone mineral density (BMD) over time are seen with
exemestane use
(5.3).

Routine assessment of 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels prior to the start of
aromatase inhibitor treatment should be performed (5

Another study (on women) who were treated with letrozole and supplemented with vitamin D
Effect of vitamin D supplementation ... [Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19655244)
From study:
After 16 weeks of letrozole, more women with 25OHD levels >66 ng/ml (median level) reported no disability from joint pain than did women with levels <66 ng/ml (52 vs. 19%; P = 0.026). Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are prevalent in post-menopausal women initiating adjuvant AI. Vitamin D3 supplementation with 50,000 IU per week is safe, significantly increases 25OHD levels, and may reduce disability from AI-induced arthralgias.