Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Rotobo — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 02:37:33 GMT

I had a Vit D test last 'Thursday (04/23) and today my Doctor called and told me" do not take anymore Vit D supplements as my Vit D was high". I don't take Vit D supplements. How did my D get high???

He's sending the report via mail so I should get it Wednesday. BTW, what is the side effects of OD'ing on D?

Thanks to all. .

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Rotobo — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:24:41 GMT

MPINOH

Yes, I would like to know about the full spectrum bulbs also. I have a few in the house but wasn't aware of any Vit. D benefit/output. The www should have some comments about the bulbs.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Tiggy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 01:45:52 GMT

I live in England - last year we didn't have a summer.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

sahara — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 22:55:26 GMT

The most potent source of a vitamin D3 supplement I found was Rx Vitamins (brand) Liqui-D, which I found on the web. Just one drop supplies 2000 IU of the vitamin - 500% the Daily Value. At that rate, the 1 ounce bottle will last for quite a long time. Since I am a postmenopausal woman of the African-American persuasion who gets very little sun exposure, I take about 4 drops daily. One place to find it is at: www.bayho.com/.../827042.html

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

GeorgeNJ — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 02:52:41 GMT

Folks, I'm not trying to create a revolution, and I'm not an MD or any kind of health professional ... but I came across this today, which I offer FYI: "Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D"

www.eurekalert.org/.../bu-vdi010208.php

It was published today (1/2/08) from Boston U Med Center. I have a hard time believing this, but then again, I'm not a medical expert.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

berry lee — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 17:37:09 GMT

The article neds more advice about how much D3 to take for the average person. Ive started taking more since as you age the efficiency of the skin to make D goes down --as low as 70 decline.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Aman — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:49:40 GMT

Taking Vit D is one thing...getting it biologically available to the cells is another. Vitamin D requires a protein known as binding globulin. I believe the specific protein is referred to as sex hormone binding globulin. So, what one may perceive as an actual vitamin D deficiency may actually be a SHBG problem. From what I understand as of now increasing one's SHBG isn't easy w/o medical intervention. I may be wrong about that if anyone would check this.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Haras — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:08:37 GMT

As a natural therapist living and working in Australia at Bondi Beach I have been amazed at the levels of vitamin D in clients after routine testing over the last 6 months. People have become so sun phobic I am seeing clients with OH-vit D levels commonly between 20 and 40nml/l, I think the highest that I have seen is about 90 in someone who jogs each morning with exposed arms and legs. People are simply too resistant or do not have the time to spend receiving "medicinal" quantities of sun light even in a part of the world that receives way more than it's share of sunlight.

There are bill board advertisments paid for by the health department admonishing sunlight as an evil killer around at the moment - convincing people that this is a load of rubbish takes time and tact. Supplementation is needed in the short term while people are re-programmed that sunlight is not the evil thing that we've been conditioned into thinking since childhood. It also takes time to change someones diet so that sunlight is not damaging, but instead becomes a healing tool. Everyone familiar with this site knows the drill on that one (reduce the refined polyunsat oils, omega 6's, sugar and other pro inflammatory substances and increase anti oxidants, fish oils, saturated fats like coconut oil etc etc).

Of Scottish and Irish ancestry I have VERY pale freckly skin (not best matched to the Australian climate) and people are always amazed at the fact that I NEVER wear sun screen. Thankfully these days a high antioxidant diet (I swear by chlorella) and loads of EPA/DHA rich fish oils means that I no longer burn after a mere 5 minutes of sunlight. I aim to be a living example to my clients that sunlight is not to be feared and lumped in with cigarette smoking and alcohol like the health department would have us believe.

Happy new year to all,

Sarah

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Dr Madcoach — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 06:37:48 GMT

Not all health professionals, especially those researching chronic infections agree with this anecdotal suppositions made about VIt D being good for everyone. For example, there are thousands of patients participating in the Marshall Protocol which states that many if not most of today's illnesses are caused by systemic infections by CWD's or Cell-wall Deficient Bacteria. These bacteria hide from the immune system by using Vit D. I have personally seen a substantial drop in inflammatory markers, BP and edema since beginning treatment with Vit D restrictions. More info is available at www.marshallprotocol.com.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

GeorgeNJ — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 03:39:46 GMT

About 5 months ago, I had my blood tested for Vit D and it was 21.9. The Dr gave me the standard prescription (50,000 IU's 1X/week for 8 weeks, then 1X/month for 3 months). When I went to the pharmacy, I asked the pharmacist to make sure it was Vit D3 -- she didn't know what I was talking about. She checked and told me that D2 was the only form any of the pharmacies ever get in this prescription dose. So I am using D2, and after the 1st 8 weeks, my count was up to about 32. I am still following the regiment, and will resort to my OTC D3 when I'm off the prescription.

Has anyone else encountered this?

Also, should I make D2 at 2000 IU's my standard daily dose (except of course when the summer sun is available)?

How often should one get checked to make sure Vit D-levels aren't too high or toxic?

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Ea Ea — Wed, 02 Jan 2008 02:56:47 GMT

If you think that ingesting vitamin D3 is a substitute for exposing your body to sunlight, think again. Sun on the skin and natural light in the eyes produces not just vitamin D but also many hormones vital to good health. It is important to expose the entire body ~ different parts of the body produce different amounts of various hormones. For example for men exposing the back or chest produces testosterone, but the genitals produce nearly twice as much even though the amount of skin involved is very much less. Brushing your body with a stiff brush helps by bringing blood near the surface of the skin bringing cholesterol from which the hormones are made. Brushing also helps to keep you warm when it is cold.

As for cold, I live in Maine and if it is sunny and I am sheltered from the wind I can be comfortable with temperatures in the twenties and below.

Zane Kime in his book Sunlight gives this summary of some of the benefits of sunlight exposure:

Ultraviolet light:

• improves electrocardiagram

• lowers blood pressure

• lowers resting heart rate

• increases cardiac output

• lowers blood cholesterol [perhaps by converting to vitamin D and hormones]

• increases glycogen stores in liver

• lowers blood sugar

• increases energy, endurance and muscular strength

• increases body's resistance to infections (increase of lymphocytes and phagocytic index)

• increases oxygen carrying capacity of blood

• increases adrenaline in tissues and tolerance to stress

• increases sex hormones

• tans and increases resistance of skin to infections

Visual light striking eye:

• controls melatonin production

• penetrates deep into tissues and lowers cyclic AMP

In addition sunlight decreases the incidence of cancer and spurs production of the "feel good" hormone, serotonin. Sunlight certainly also has other benefits which I haven't mentioned.

Kime gives a design for an outdoor sunbathing area that one can build.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Katpug — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:49:27 GMT

Sorry about the mispelled words, I thought my spell check would take care of them.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Katpug — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 22:39:57 GMT

In regard to the previous post about Bio-D-Mulsion, there are two products from Biotics that are liquid Vit D and I took the one that is called Bio-D-Mulsion Forte which is 2,000 IU per drop. Bio-D-Mulsion is only 400 IU per drop. It is an oil in water emulsion dispersed into microscopic particles to aid absorption and assimilation. I attended a seminar put on by Biotics for health care practioners where they said it was safe to take high doses until your levels were raised. So I took 12,000 IU a day for one month and then asked my medical doctor to please test it. I have no problems with her as she knows I am an NTP or Nutritional Therapy Practioner trained by Biotics Research and she listens to my opinion. The test said my level was 50 and that the optimal range was 30-60. I think some sources say it should be higher. I have been taking CLO for a number of months but probably not at levels to raise my Vit D because of the vit A issue. I will continue taking the vit D at a lower dose than 6 drops a day, probably 3 a day to keep it in range in the winter here in the Seattle area.

Unfortuneately, Biotics products are supposed to be sold only through health care practioners, but I think they are onto a good product. They told me they make it by shining UV light on sheepswool.

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

HilaryB — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 19:57:26 GMT

I almost hate to bring it up but during the winter when there's less sunlight I go to the tanning beds for non-tanning reasons such as this. I'm talking about 5-8 minutes in a 20 minute tanning bed 1-2 times a week.

I have a feeling that Dr. Mercola probably mentions something somewhere about traditional tanning beds and the electrical aspect of these devices but for me, the benefit of this short burst of artificial sun makes me feel so much better during the winter that it outweighs the risks. My goal is not to tan but simply get some additional "sun" but I do keep an eye on my skin to make sure there's nothing strange going on there as well.

On the rare sunny day during winter this year I've been making a point of going out and getting a long walk while the sun is out. I have also tried "natural light" lightbulbs but I really don't think they cut it. The tanning bed may not be a good solution for all but it's something I thought someone should bring up (also, if you decide to try it, go slow and start with a few minutes - you do not want to burn!)

re: Experts Starting to Agree -- More Vitamin D is Better

Geoffrey Levens — Tue, 01 Jan 2008 16:44:51 GMT

U of Wisconson study: in Hawaii (tropics!) tested people w/ average 11.1 hours per week (nearly 2 hours/day) of full body sun exposure with no sunscreen. 51% were deficient in Vit D!!!!

Many factors combine to determine how effective sun exposure is but based on this I doubt for most it is enough. My doc tests all patients for D levels and has found that even 4000 iu per day is not enough to increase blood levels in most. 10-15000 iu needed. Test first and after 6-8 weeks. Be sure to use D3 and NOT D4. The dry form often does not seem to work for people either so get a liquid either in gel caps or drops.