Go Back   Natural Medicine Talk > Health > Vitamins & Supplements

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2010, 01:01 AM
someguy someguy is offline
Guide
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 325
someguy is on a distinguished road
Default Best way to get vitamin D.. is D3 really better?

Hey guys, I know this topic has been covered a lot.. But I just got some labs back from my doctor and my D level is low.

Apparently its 27 and the normal guideline is 30-100 so im just below the normal level.. but really 30 is way below what it should be.. according to my "western" doc it should be at least 50.

I was taking vitamin d3, 5,000 IU's a day for a while.. but after I heard this interview I stopped taking it.. http://www.healthforce.com/dr-sherid...arch-interview (skip to about the 12 minute mark) its from the guy who owns Health Force a supplement company that I trust and believe there products work really well so I believe this guy knows what hes talking about.

What do you guys think? He seems to favor D2 over D3.. and obviously, getting real sunshine instead of a pill.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-26-2010, 03:53 AM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,877
Blog Entries: 4
Ted_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura aboutTed_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura about
Default

He simply doesn't understand Vitamin D at all. He is talking BS.

There is no mystery about the production of vitamin D3 in the skin or the way vitamin D toxicity from sunlight is prevented by the self regulating process of into supra sterols.
uvguide explains the process
Extra sun on vitamin D3 that remains unabsorbed on or near the surface of the skin DOES NOT get converted to D2 instead it gets converted into three new substances: two suprasterols and 5,6 trans-vitamin D.

Similarly he is wrong about the toxicity of both D3 and D2 there are more examples of D2 toxicity than D3 so the safest form is D3.


Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans

The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement

The problem with calcium is related to other factors.
First and most important is the use of calcium supplements while raising Vitamin D status. Most people are vitamin D deficient at present.
Correcting vitamin D insufficiency increases the amount of calcium they can absorb from food/water/supplements.
Therefore as vitamin d status moves from deficiency to sufficiency the need for extra supplemental calcium reduces because a higher percentage of the calcium from diet and water is being absorbed.
Calcium tenses muscle fibres and excites brain neurones.
Magnesium relaxes muscle fibres and calms brain neurones.
Therefore when people have too much calcium and insufficient magnesium they tend to get muscle cramps and feel tense and edgy.
This is NOT the fault of vitamin D.
It's because that person is MAGNESIUM DEFICIENT
Because as many people are magnesium deficient as vitamin D deficient both need to be corrected. Vit d controls over 2000 different enzyme actions Magnesium around 350 actions so get these two wrong and the number of different permutations of deficiency scenarios is huge.

Because magnesium acts as a natural calcium channel blocker it counterbalances the role of calcium. Ideally you need around 5 to 10 milligrams per day per kilo of ideal body weight or 2.5 to 4.5 milligrams per day per pound of ideal body weight.

I haven't finished listening to the talk (the vitamin D section is at 1HR 12MINS by the way) but will do so later when in need of a good laugh. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk as much unscientific nonsense about vitamin D as Dr. Jameth Sheridan.
His understandings of vitamin D2 and D3 has no basis in modern science.
Because D2 is the plant form many humans are completely unable recognize D2 or convert D2 into D3, they can take any amount of D2 (200000IU/daily) to no effect whatsoever either harmful or good.
All of us who can convert D2 into D3 do so less effectively than using D3 initially.
So for most people 6000iu D2 = 2000iu D3.
At the levels most people require to keep a natural 25(OH)D around 60ng/ml D2 is less effective than D3.

I should perhaps have said a word about sunshine. You should get tested to check if using sun is working for you where you live.
First vitamin D is made from the action of UVB on cholesterol in skin.
NO UVB = NO VITAMIN D
The amount of local ozone pollution from traffic, air travel, factories is such that at some times of the year and in some towns/cities insufficient UVB reaches the ground.
NO CHOLESTEROL = NO VITAMIN D
People taking statins, people on low cholesterol diets, older people with thinner skin ALL will have a lower potential for making D3 from sunlight.
Skin colour will also affect the amount made, that is why the skin least exposed, least tanned generates more vitamin d than hands/face that are regularly exposed.
UVA as detailed in the UV guide processes the newly made D3 into products the body doesn't use so if you use sunscreen AFTER making your vitamin D AND you stay in the sun it's possible that extra UVA only exposure could degrade the newly made D3.
Vitamin D is fat soluble.
Sweat contains some fat.
Indulging in vigorous exercise while sunbathing such that you sweat inevitably brings D3 to the skin surface. If you shower, swim towel down you remove the D3. Marathon runners, Cyclists and athletes all generally have low vitamin D status even though they spend lots of time in the sun practicing their sport.

There are many people who get regular sun exposure but who still have low vitamin D status. It is far safer to take a basic amount of D3 such as 5000iu AND then rely on your body's ability to self regulate D3 production to fill the stored reserve stores with D3. People with higher vit d levels generate less than those with low status given same UVB exposure.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2010, 10:05 AM
Cookie's Avatar
Cookie Cookie is offline
Lovin' life~
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: JerSea
Posts: 1,970
Blog Entries: 10
Cookie has a spectacular aura aboutCookie has a spectacular aura about
Default

Don't pay attention to the girl behind the rose. Just marking this for future reference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted_Hutchinson View Post
He simply doesn't understand Vitamin D at all. He is talking BS.

There is no mystery about the production of vitamin D3 in the skin or the way vitamin D toxicity from sunlight is prevented by the self regulating process of into supra sterols.
uvguide explains the process
Extra sun on vitamin D3 that remains unabsorbed on or near the surface of the skin DOES NOT get converted to D2 instead it gets converted into three new substances: two suprasterols and 5,6 trans-vitamin D.

Similarly he is wrong about the toxicity of both D3 and D2 there are more examples of D2 toxicity than D3 so the safest form is D3.


Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans

The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement

The problem with calcium is related to other factors.
First and most important is the use of calcium supplements while raising Vitamin D status. Most people are vitamin D deficient at present.
Correcting vitamin D insufficiency increases the amount of calcium they can absorb from food/water/supplements.
Therefore as vitamin d status moves from deficiency to sufficiency the need for extra supplemental calcium reduces because a higher percentage of the calcium from diet and water is being absorbed.
Calcium tenses muscle fibres and excites brain neurones.
Magnesium relaxes muscle fibres and calms brain neurones.
Therefore when people have too much calcium and insufficient magnesium they tend to get muscle cramps and feel tense and edgy.
This is NOT the fault of vitamin D.
It's because that person is MAGNESIUM DEFICIENT
Because as many people are magnesium deficient as vitamin D deficient both need to be corrected. Vit d controls over 2000 different enzyme actions Magnesium around 350 actions so get these two wrong and the number of different permutations of deficiency scenarios is huge.

Because magnesium acts as a natural calcium channel blocker it counterbalances the role of calcium. Ideally you need around 5 to 10 milligrams per day per kilo of ideal body weight or 2.5 to 4.5 milligrams per day per pound of ideal body weight.

I haven't finished listening to the talk (the vitamin D section is at 1HR 12MINS by the way) but will do so later when in need of a good laugh. I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk as much unscientific nonsense about vitamin D as Dr. Jameth Sheridan.
His understandings of vitamin D2 and D3 has no basis in modern science.
Because D2 is the plant form many humans are completely unable recognize D2 or convert D2 into D3, they can take any amount of D2 (200000IU/daily) to no effect whatsoever either harmful or good.
All of us who can convert D2 into D3 do so less effectively than using D3 initially.
So for most people 6000iu D2 = 2000iu D3.
At the levels most people require to keep a natural 25(OH)D around 60ng/ml D2 is less effective than D3.

I should perhaps have said a word about sunshine. You should get tested to check if using sun is working for you where you live.
First vitamin D is made from the action of UVB on cholesterol in skin.
NO UVB = NO VITAMIN D
The amount of local ozone pollution from traffic, air travel, factories is such that at some times of the year and in some towns/cities insufficient UVB reaches the ground.
NO CHOLESTEROL = NO VITAMIN D
People taking statins, people on low cholesterol diets, older people with thinner skin ALL will have a lower potential for making D3 from sunlight.
Skin colour will also affect the amount made, that is why the skin least exposed, least tanned generates more vitamin d than hands/face that are regularly exposed.
UVA as detailed in the UV guide processes the newly made D3 into products the body doesn't use so if you use sunscreen AFTER making your vitamin D AND you stay in the sun it's possible that extra UVA only exposure could degrade the newly made D3.
Vitamin D is fat soluble.
Sweat contains some fat.
Indulging in vigorous exercise while sunbathing such that you sweat inevitably brings D3 to the skin surface. If you shower, swim towel down you remove the D3. Marathon runners, Cyclists and athletes all generally have low vitamin D status even though they spend lots of time in the sun practicing their sport.

There are many people who get regular sun exposure but who still have low vitamin D status. It is far safer to take a basic amount of D3 such as 5000iu AND then rely on your body's ability to self regulate D3 production to fill the stored reserve stores with D3. People with higher vit d levels generate less than those with low status given same UVB exposure.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2010, 12:54 PM
saved1986's Avatar
saved1986 saved1986 is offline
In seaerch of spicy food
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,015
saved1986 has a spectacular aura aboutsaved1986 has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moxsum View Post
Hey guys, I know this topic has been covered a lot.. But I just got some labs back from my doctor and my D level is low.

Apparently its 27 and the normal guideline is 30-100 so im just below the normal level.. but really 30 is way below what it should be.. according to my "western" doc it should be at least 50.

I was taking vitamin d3, 5,000 IU's a day for a while.. but after I heard this interview I stopped taking it.. http://www.healthforce.com/dr-sherid...arch-interview (skip to about the 12 minute mark) its from the guy who owns Health Force a supplement company that I trust and believe there products work really well so I believe this guy knows what hes talking about.

What do you guys think? He seems to favor D2 over D3.. and obviously, getting real sunshine instead of a pill.
D3 definitely, but make sure you take it with a meal that has some fat in the meal!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-28-2010, 01:07 AM
someguy someguy is offline
Guide
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 325
someguy is on a distinguished road
Default

Ok.. well i guess ill go back to takin some vitamin d3 everyday.. I was using the country life 5,000 IU a day, I still have some..

However, im getting more into taking liquid supplements... My digestive system is a bit messed up at the moment so I try to avoid pills anytime I can.

Does anyone know of a good/reliable liquid form of Vitamin D?

Also, what are all the reasons you could be vitamin D deficient? IS it really only not getting enough sun? Or if your digestive system is messed up could it interfere with absorption of vitamin D from fish etc?

I live in southern california which is a sunny place and I eat salmon, and was talking fish oil pills for a while until recently.. yet my numbers are still too low.. 27 in a range of 30-100. I do spend a fair amount of time inside though these days on the computer.. im sure that has an effect.

I guess I will take some vitamin D and try and go to the beach once a week or something.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-28-2010, 03:44 AM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,877
Blog Entries: 4
Ted_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura aboutTed_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moxsum View Post
I was using the country life 5,000 IU a day, I still have some.
You don't have to swallow the capsule whole. You can chew it and then swallow the capsule contents and spit out the capsule shell. If you hold the MCT oil carring the vitamin D3, in your mouth before swallowing it you will get absorption through under your tongue and from the tissues in your mouth. If you wanted you could pierce the capsule and massage the contents into your skin somewhere the sun doesn't shine on. (UVA degrades D3 converts it to suprasterols)

Quote:
Does anyone know of a good/reliable liquid form of Vitamin D?
Most only contain about 400iu so taking sufficient to be effective would work out expensive. These wouldn't be too expensive because they are 2000iu so 2-3 drops alternate days would average 5000iu daily. You would need to take these with a FAT containing meal. Code WAB666 saves $5 at IHERB.

Quote:
Also, what are all the reasons you could be vitamin D deficient? IS it really only not getting enough sun
Not necessarily sufficient sun, People with low cholesterol, people who live under polluted air, people who are very active while outside all have lower D3 status. Our skin naturally makes 10,000~20,000iu daily from full body sun exposure and most people only expose the skin most hardened to UV, most tanned and least effective.
If you want to makes the most vitamin D from sun you need to expose least tanned skin and then cover it up to protect it from further degradation from uva.

Quote:
Or if your digestive system is messed up could it interfere with absorption of vitamin D from fish etc?
Messed up digestive systems certainly don't help. But only 10% of our daily vitamin D needs could possible come from diet (eating one portion oily fish daily) and so that isn't the major factor. Most people with messed up digestive systems have high pro inflammatory status and are BURNING up vitamin D faster than others. Celiacs and those with gluten intolerance may need 2000iu/daily D3 for each 25lbs they weigh to replete 25(OH)D status.

Quote:
I live in southern california which is a sunny place
but if you spend time exposed to UVA only light behind a glass window/windscreen you can be degrading the vitamin D near skin surface so at the end of the day you've not gained.
Quote:
and I eat salmon
That's a reasonable source.
Quote:
and was talking fish oil pills for a while until recently.
No vitamin D in fish oil capsules. There is some in cod liver oil but not enough to make much difference. Too much vitamin A in most CLO.

Quote:
yet my numbers are still too low.. 27 in a range of 30-100. I do spend a fair amount of time inside though these days on the computer.. im sure that has an effect.
Any time indoors isn't going to increase your D3 status.

Quote:
I guess I will take some vitamin D and try and go to the beach once a week or something.
Bear in mind if you sunbathe, then play beachgames and work up a sweat then swim and dry with a towel where will the D3 go?
A short near full body session laying in the garden and then covering up that D3 to protect it from more UVA is more effective.
Remember you can't overdose on D3 from sun, so short daily or every other day sessions will top up reserves better than longer sessions less often.
The 5000iu/d is for basic daily needs the sun is to build strategic reserves.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:26 AM
HerbGirl HerbGirl is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1
HerbGirl is on a distinguished road
Default Reconsidering D as a Supplement

Dear Sojourners,

Vitamin D nearly killed me supplements of 1000iu-4000ius day.

I listened to Sheridan, I've read Dr. Hutchinson's reply and Moxums original query. I am a professional researcher and I hold a Ph.D in philosophy NOT medicine. I am an expert however in critical thought.

This not directed at Dr. Hutchinson's reply which I appreciated; however, I am terribly bothered by the medical professions attitude in general that current knowledge is complete. We are constantly thinking we know it all; we speak with authority and we discount evidence contrary to the so called "latest discovery." Meanwhile, people die, their intuitive and first-hand reports are dismissed and healing never occurs. Rather, a scientific mind does not marvel at the evidence that supports its latest theory, it pays attention to the evidence that speaks against it. This is how new discoveries are made.

My doctor prescribed vitamin D to me because my level (black, female, 44) was 15. I was a fit, active person. After 3 months or so, my appetite began to decrease, I had insomina, nervousness and confusion. Eventually, I had ashma like symptoms and no one would believe me that it had something to do with TOO MUCH D. When I studied D and its mechanism in the body, after missing work for 2 months, with pneumonia like symptoms, I began to take magnesium supplements and avoid all calcium. I was able to breathe again slowly. It took a month to recover, and 2 months later, I still have idiosyncratic ailments related to that episode. All symptoms related to the former v-d toxicity. Because they SWORE vitamin D was perfectly safe---they did not consider its effect on my body and RATHER, wanted to give me Levaquin for PNEUMONIA. My god....levaquin causes permanent neurological damage in some people.

Because my internist, LIke SO MANY INTERNISTS, only follows the latest medical fad, he did not know to check my magnesium levels etc. etc.

I saw all this to say whether we want to see it was my low magneisum or too much D, either way...I was not on the brink of death until I had too much D using up magnesium. My D level raised only slightlyl to the normal level. I have read that people of ancestry that originates near the equator process D differently. It stands to reason that some of us will metabolize it differently.

My father took it for 2 days and stopped because it made him ill. A few weeks ago, my accountant, who did not know I had been sick, informed me that she took D for two weeks and stopped because she became ill.

I'm tired of doctors telling patients their intuitive first-hand experience is wrong. I had a low cholestorol diet, with excellent blood work when I began taking the D. I was so ill, they suspected a pulmonary embolism. All blood work and heart tests came back normal.

I saved myself. GOD saved me. When no doctor would consider basic cause and effect.

So my message is...let your spirit and your body be your guide. You are you primary care physician. You med doctor sees you for 15-20 minutes a year maybe. Only the naturaphatic physicians who meet with us for 2-3hours to get the whole history actually take time to get enough information about lifestyle and diet to sleuth what is at the root of a disease. Then, in my experience, they are very successful curing many ailments with few side effects from their therapies.

Proceed with supplmentation cautiously. Become educated about the symptoms of D toxciity...and FORGET the idea that it's impoosible to be toxic if the blood serium is normal or low.

These blood tests are not measuring D deposits in our bodies and the residual effect overall of supplementation in individual organisms.

God Bless.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-26-2011, 07:53 AM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,877
Blog Entries: 4
Ted_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura aboutTed_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HerbGirl View Post
Vitamin D nearly killed me supplements of 1000iu-4000ius day.
Follow this link Even prolonged physiologic-replacement intake of 10,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 would pose no known risk of adverse effects in virtually all adults

Quote:
I've read Dr. Hutchinson's reply
I am NOT a doctor of medicine or of anything else. I am simply a person who has had to study the science to solve my own chronic health problems and who is sharing that knowledge with others.


Quote:
I am an expert however in critical thought.
That is perhaps your opinion others may have different thoughts on your ability to reason logically.

Quote:
I am terribly bothered by the medical professions attitude in general that current knowledge is complete.
Well I hope you exclude me from that criticism. I am learning every day from the latest research and the more I learn the more I think there is to learn.

Quote:
My doctor prescribed vitamin D to me because my level (black, female, 44) was 15. I was a fit, active person. After 3 months or so, my appetite began to decrease, I had insomina, nervousness and confusion. Eventually, I had ashma like symptoms and no one would believe me that it had something to do with TOO MUCH D.
BUT because you were using an UNNATURAL FORM of vitamin D.
The prescribed form is ERGOCALCIFEROL
The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement

We know perfectly well that the PRESCRIBED form of vitamin D2 will cause the metabolism of the vitamin to accelerate and in some people that causes problems. If you paid attention to what is being said in this forum you would know it's D3 cholecalcferol that is the EFFECTIVE and SAFE form to take.


Quote:
I began to take magnesium supplements and avoid all calcium.
Understanding vitamin D COFACTORS is an important aspect of vitamin D supplementation. Magnesium deficiency is a problem in both the USA and UK as a result of modern plant breeding and growing techniques.

Cholecalciferol in vitamin D3 supplements is biologically identical to the form human skin generates given a few minutes exposure to UVB from sunlight or uvb rich tanning lamps.
If your body has become so maladapted to it's natural environment that it cannot tolerate either exposure to UVB and the consequent rise in 25(OH)D status or an equivalent rise in 25(OH)D from a biologically identical form of the vitamin then that is a sad reflection on your current lifestyle and diet and one that needs attending to promptly.

May I suggest you start by studying The Perfect Health Diet
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-19-2012, 10:19 AM
limitme limitme is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 710
limitme will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by moxsum View Post
but after I heard this interview I stopped taking it.. http://www.healthforce.com/dr-sherid...arch-interview

"I had about 8 heads of kale in my fridge...i didn't want to waste it...I figured it'd be better to juice it and get it in my body than throw it out.....

I juiced it all....it was so much kale....I was in the bathroom all day long....that will happen to anyone who drinks that much kale juice".

LOL.....that was the best quote of the interview...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-26-2012, 08:54 AM
mommastein mommastein is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2
mommastein is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted_Hutchinson View Post
Follow this link Even prolonged physiologic-replacement intake of 10,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 would pose no known risk of adverse effects in virtually all adults

I am NOT a doctor of medicine or of anything else. I am simply a person who has had to study the science to solve my own chronic health problems and who is sharing that knowledge with others.

That is perhaps your opinion others may have different thoughts on your ability to reason logically.

Well I hope you exclude me from that criticism. I am learning every day from the latest research and the more I learn the more I think there is to learn.

BUT because you were using an UNNATURAL FORM of vitamin D.
The prescribed form is ERGOCALCIFEROL
The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement

We know perfectly well that the PRESCRIBED form of vitamin D2 will cause the metabolism of the vitamin to accelerate and in some people that causes problems. If you paid attention to what is being said in this forum you would know it's D3 cholecalcferol that is the EFFECTIVE and SAFE form to take.

Understanding vitamin D COFACTORS is an important aspect of vitamin D supplementation. Magnesium deficiency is a problem in both the USA and UK as a result of modern plant breeding and growing techniques.

Cholecalciferol in vitamin D3 supplements is biologically identical to the form human skin generates given a few minutes exposure to UVB from sunlight or uvb rich tanning lamps.
If your body has become so maladapted to it's natural environment that it cannot tolerate either exposure to UVB and the consequent rise in 25(OH)D status or an equivalent rise in 25(OH)D from a biologically identical form of the vitamin then that is a sad reflection on your current lifestyle and diet and one that needs attending to promptly.


Ted Hutchinson, whatever your message is it is seriously undermined by your taking HerbGirl's post so very personally. I certainly do not think that her post was a personal attack on YOU. It was her experience not yours. (I've highlighted and underlined parts of your post which verge on ad hominem)

I will cut and paste information below that directly refutes your comment in red above:

"that critical toxicity may occur at doses of 20,000 IU daily and that the Upper Limit (UL) of safety be set at 10,000 IU, rather than the current 2,000 IU."

This quote is from the Consumer Health Organization of Canada. If you have a problem with my source I would hope that you would refute it in a thoughtful rather than a reactive way.

I am a person who has responded in very rare ways to many Rx and so I am always on the lookout for what the problems are with any course of medication or supplementation. HerbGirl's reaction to THE ONLY VITAMIN D THAT IS A PHARMACEUTICAL GRADE available to patients. It is what has been used for years to correct a Vitamin D deficiency. I have heard that people have been, mistakenly, told to take the dose of 50,000 iu PER DAY not PER WEEK. That would lead to toxicity. HerbGirl's experience is valid and important for people to hear. Medical doctors, for the most part, do not understand the importance of vitamin and mineral deficiencies and find great comfort in the prescription of antibiotics (which can have devastating side effects). It is vitally important that every patient is engaged and aware of their own health---they are their own best advocate. The way that you responded was petty in the extreme and certainly not very "scientific". Perhaps you should start researching some "happy pills"?

If someone is looking for information about Vitamin D deficiency this is what I have learned so far:

Vitamin D3 is much better than Vitamin D2. The only D that is dispensed at pharmaceutical levels is D2, it's been used to treat deficiencies for years. Go ahead and take the D2 ONCE A WEEK for 4, 6 or 8 weeks and then supplement about 2000iu Vitamin D3 daily (you can safely go up to 10,000). It is very important that you also supplement with Calcium (1200-1500mgs up to 2400 depending on weight) and Magnesium (about half the calcium dose) and perhaps, also, zinc. The calcium dose will need to be broken up and taken 2-3 x a day for better absorption. When you take your Vit D, do so with a meal that contains some fat. Be aware of the symptoms of toxicity and if you begin to show those symptoms stop taking the D (you may become toxic at 20,000 iu a day). Even if you have no "known" symptoms but other strange things begin to happen stop taking the D (or whatever it is that you have changed). I have survived three serious anaphylactic reactions, serious liver damage and total body skin peel all due to bad reactions medication. I am the canary in the mine shaft when it comes to medication and some supplements.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-26-2012, 09:42 AM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,877
Blog Entries: 4
Ted_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura aboutTed_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommastein View Post
[/B][/U]
Ted Hutchinson, whatever your message is it is seriously undermined by your taking HerbGirl's post so very personally.
Well that is your opinion and while I hear what you say I do not think your response is helpful in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommastein View Post
[/B][/U]
(I've highlighted and underlined parts of your post which verge on ad hominem)
You have regarded as ad hominem a straight quote from a scientific paper. If you are going to regard as abusive quotes from scientific papers then I'm afraid I have no way of debating with you rationally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommastein View Post
[/B][/U]
I will cut and paste information below that directly refutes your comment in red above:
[/COLOR]"that critical toxicity may occur at doses of 20,000 IU daily and that the Upper Limit (UL) of safety be set at 10,000 IU, rather than the current 2,000 IU."

This quote is from the Consumer Health Organization of Canada. If you have a problem with my source I would hope that you would refute it in a thoughtful rather than a reactive way.
[/QUOTE] It would be helpful if you could provide a link to your quote so it's clear when that opinion was provided. However as you are well aware full body human skin UVB exposure can produce 20,000iu D3 over a relatively short time and careful exposures to UVB through the day could in practice produce well above that amount it is a mystery how humanity survived the evolutionary process if such amounts of Vitamin D3 were indeed toxic.
We have to apply a modicum of common sense.
We must refuse to take seriously anyone or any organization that makes statements that defy common sense.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-26-2012, 10:44 PM
mommastein mommastein is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2
mommastein is on a distinguished road
Default Is this your personal Website or are you just a nut?

Because if this is your personal "science" blog people should be aware. If you are just some random nut with a lot of time on his hands you should really find something better to do with yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2012, 11:46 PM
Ted_Hutchinson's Avatar
Ted_Hutchinson Ted_Hutchinson is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,877
Blog Entries: 4
Ted_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura aboutTed_Hutchinson has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mommastein View Post
Because if this is your personal "science" blog people should be aware. If you are just some random nut with a lot of time on his hands you should really find something better to do with yourself.
I invest a lot of time reading the research, seeing what happens in practice and I despair at the reluctance of certain individuals and a lot of researchers to apply common sense to vitamin d.

We know for certain that human skin, given full body sun exposure under unpolluted skies can, if the skin doesn't burn and contains reasonably high amounts of cholesterol,quickly creates 10,000~20,000iu cholecalciferol, Vitamin D3.

We also know from the practices of certain doctors who are using EFFECTIVE amounts of D3 with their patients that it can take up to 3 years using those EFFECTIVE amounts (equivalent to those human skin naturally creates given the chance) to attain and maintain the levels that allow vitamin d storage in tissue.

It is simply common sense that the NATURAL 25(OH)D at which human milk is a complete food for human babies should be regarded as a biological marker for vitamin d adequacy.

We know this is also the level that humans living mainly outdoor lives in tropical climates generally achieve equilibrium.

We should also be able to work out from the fact that paler skinned early humans had an evolutionary advantage when living away from the equator and this has to do with the EXTRA vitamin d created by PALER skins. Living near the Equator adequate sun is available daily for those lving naked outdoor lives. Away from the equator paler skin enable greater Vit d creation and so the ability to STORE vitamin d to survive extended periods when Vitamin d creation is impossible becomes an evolutionary advantage.

The amounts of vitamin d suggested by most health authorities is less than that which the benefits of vitamin d repletion can be experienced.

It is absolutely reasonable to suggest that health professionals who are not applying NATURAL biomarkers of Vitamin d adequacy and who regard as mega doses amounts of vitamin d3 that are a mere fractions of the amounts human skin naturally produces as the nutters.

For years now Dr Davis of the Heartscanblog now Track Your Plaque has been publicly using 10,000iu daily as his standard vitamin d3 repletion amount and he finds it takes 3 years for many of his patients to achieve levels around the 60ng/ml natural level that allows adequate D3 storage.

In the context of adequate magnesium, vitamin K/A intakes and care over calcium intake (no more than calcium RDA) Dr Davis has experienced only benefits in his patients. We should be learning from his experience and not repeating the myths of the past.

We can all obtain 25(OH)D tests by post from places like CityAssays Birmingham UK NHS path lab for 25 UK 30 international so there is no reason for people worrying about getting to toxic vitamin D levels with NATURAL intakes of vitamin d3 equivalent to full body sun exposure.

Regular testing will soon show who knows what they are talking about which is why I have absolutely no doubt about the accuracy of everything I write on the vitamin d story.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-27-2012, 08:19 PM
pinballdoctor's Avatar
pinballdoctor pinballdoctor is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 1,854
pinballdoctor is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HerbGirl View Post

Vitamin D nearly killed me supplements of 1000iu-4000ius day.

Quote:
My doctor prescribed vitamin D to me because my level (black, female, 44) was 15.
This is not possible.

15 is not just low, but is critical!

1000 I.U. to 4000I.U. of D3 per day would not be enough to raise your vitamin D level even into the safe zone, nevermind make you toxic.

I don't know what's going on with your health, but I can tell you that D isn't the cause of your health issues.

Something is wrong with your story..
__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-01-2012, 05:44 PM
jbo's Avatar
jbo jbo is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 693
jbo is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm still a believer that the sun is the best way to get vitamin D. If you live in an area it's not going to happen, then you should take vitamins to supplement and possibly foods like mushrooms
Reply With Quote