MSN story today on Low Vit. D levels [Archive]

Ted Hutchinson

06-24-2008, 11:18 AM

Linda, I saw the article but have been working on eating foods higher in Vitamin D along with getting outside a bit more. I am sick of pills and the idea of taking another one doesn't sound good to me especially since I like salmon and milk.You can forget the dietary sources of vitamin d3.
They are absolutely trivial compared to how much your body needs and how much your NAKED body will generate when outdoors.
Do be aware that Ohio men working outdoors every day of the year were Vitamin d insufficient in winter because they wear clothes while at work. If most of your body is clothed and you are standing up what percentage of your skin is exposed to direct sunlight?
If those Ohio workmen averaged only 2800iu/daily over the whole year unless you take off more clothes and lay down it is unlikely you will over the whole year have sufficient vitamin D3.
In order to store vitamin d3 you have to raise your 25(OH)D level to 50ng 125nmol/l (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) As each 100iu of D3 raises 1ng only someone with dyscalculia will have difficulty in working out you need to be able to account account for an intake of 5000iu/daily in order to raise your status sufficiently to start the storage process.

In the same way your bank savings will not start to grow until after your current daily income exceeds your current daily expenditure so your body has to have sufficient Vitamin D3 daily to meet your body's daily needs first. It can only start to save for the winter after it's daily needs have been satisfied.

So food sources of vitamin d3 add up at most to 500iu/d and your body needs 5000iu/daily.

To acquire the other 4500iu/daily either you need an effective strength supplement (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/detail.aspx?product_id=18&cat_id=2&subcat_id=0) or you MUST get an effective amount of FULL BODY sun exposure. (http://www.thevitamindcure.com/calculator)

That only covers todays requirement. For the winter when sun may not be available you need to save. Where are your savings for the winter coming from?

Ted Hutchinson

06-24-2008, 11:40 AM

Linda,

Thanks for the article. :) I have had my Vitamin D tested/checked; it is fine. When you say your Vitamin D 25(OH)D level is fine what do you mean by that?

I suspect you mean it is normal. Normal people wear clothes and in the UK at this time of year normally have a level between 50 - 60nmol/l 20-24ng
In order to meet your bodies daily vitamin d requirement 3000-5000iu (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204) you really need a NATURAL vitamin d level. Remember our bodies evolved NAKED. Hunter gatherers usually do not wear much clothing. We lived naked for roughly 2 million years and the level of vitamin d our bodies NATURALLY ACQUIRE given ample exposure to sunlight is from 50-75ng 125nmol/l -175nmol/l. Maybe even up to 200nmol/l - 80ng

I don't know why though because I don't drink alot of milk but I do eat a LOT of tuna fish sandwiches and Salmon. :D And I do take Citracal with D and Magnesium. Citrical contains 400iu of Vitamin D about one tenth of your bodies daily needs. Milk is NOT a good source of vitamin d. When tested most fortified milk does NOT contain the stated amount and anyway even if it did you are not going to be drinking 40 glasses a day. A whole portion of wild salmon may contain 400iu but that still adds up to only
Citrical 400
Salmon 400
milk 2 glasses 200 if you are lucky
Total 1000iu/daily
Where are the other 3000iu coming from
And where are you getting sufficient to store for the winter from?

But I hope to be getting more of the Sunshine Vitamin once our pool goes in in a couple of weeks or so. :)Well that's more like it.:)
But don't get burnt and do try to spend some time laying down (more surface area exposed to the sunshine than when standing) and make sure you have as much skin exposed as possible. There isn't any area of your skin surface that doesn't generate Vitamin d when exposed to sunshine so let it have at least some opportunity to work as it evolved to function.

lobelsteve

06-24-2008, 11:47 AM

You can forget the dietary sources of vitamin d3.
They are absolutely trivial compared to how much your body needs and how much your NAKED body will generate when outdoors.
Do be aware that Ohio men working outdoors every day of the year were Vitamin d insufficient in winter because they wear clothes while at work. If most of your body is clothed and you are standing up what percentage of your skin is exposed to direct sunlight?
If those Ohio workmen averaged only 2800iu/daily over the whole year unless you take off more clothes and lay down it is unlikely you will over the whole year have sufficient vitamin D3.
In order to store vitamin d3 you have to raise your 25(OH)D level to 50ng 125nmol/l (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) As each 100iu of D3 raises 1ng only someone with dyscalculia will have difficulty in working out you need to be able to account account for an intake of 5000iu/daily in order to raise your status sufficiently to start the storage process.

In the same way your bank savings will not start to grow until after your current daily income exceeds your current daily expenditure so your body has to have sufficient Vitamin D3 daily to meet your body's daily needs first. It can only start to save for the winter after it's daily needs have been satisfied.

So food sources of vitamin d3 add up at most to 500iu/d and your body needs 5000iu/daily.

To acquire the other 4500iu/daily either you need an effective strength supplement (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/detail.aspx?product_id=18&cat_id=2&subcat_id=0) or you MUST get an effective amount of FULL BODY sun exposure. (http://www.thevitamindcure.com/calculator)

That only covers todays requirement. For the winter when sun may not be available you need to save. Where are your savings for the winter coming from?

I still recommend Drisdol (that's whatmy Harvard trained Endocrinologist uses) as an Rx, but agree with Ted that OTC supplements may work as well or better. I'm on the fence regarding the increase in naked people- many I'dlike to see naked, but many more I'd rather be Vit D deficient than subject my brain to the trauma.

Gimpy

06-24-2008, 02:04 PM

I'm on the fence regarding the increase in naked people- many I'dlike to see naked, but many more I'd rather be Vit D deficient than subject my brain to the trauma.

I was thinking the same thing :o And if YOU decide to go naked, you may want to stay away from that fence :o

L

Nana4&cntn

06-24-2008, 05:46 PM

Steve and Linda, I am with you on the seeing of naked people! I sure don't want to be naked in front of others. Plus the majority of folks I see may cause me tramatic injury.LOL:eek:

Kathi49

06-24-2008, 06:55 PM

Ted,

All I can tell you is that the doc did a Vitamin D panel and said I was fine. I forget the number(s) and would have to look it up. And I really don't want to take mega doses unless it was necessary as in deficient. And thus far I haven't been told I am deficient; normal was more like it.

And don't worry anyone I am NOT getting naked and going skinny dipping in my pool! :eek::)

Ted Hutchinson

06-25-2008, 05:58 AM

All I can tell you is that the doc did a Vitamin D panel and said I was fine. Your doctor will say your levels are fine if they are NORMAL. Normal people in the UK have less than 50% of the vitamin d their bodies work best on. It is likely the situation in the USA is the same.

I forget the number(s) and would have to look it up. I suggest you do so straight away and then be aware Serum 25(OH)D can be expected to rise by about 1 ng/mL (2.5 nmol/L) for every 100 IU of additional vitamin D each day. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18525006) so if your 25(OH)D level is around 20ng (normal for the UK) you need to increase your NG status to 50ng and will require an additional 3000iu/daily.

And I really don't want to take mega doses unless it was necessary as in deficient. And thus far I haven't been told I am deficient; normal was more like it. but you don't seem to have grasped the idea that NORMAL nowdays is not NATURAL.

When everyone is normally obese (as is likely to be the case in the next few years if current trends continue) will it be healthy to be obese and will you also want to be as normally obese as your neighbours?

If you don't think normal obesity is healthy why do you think normal vitamin d insufficiency is also acceptable?

And don't worry anyone I am NOT getting naked Then you are not going to aquire the NATURAL healthy vitamin d3 status your body should naturally attain and maintain so you will continue to experience unnecessary pain because your body lacks the natural anti inflammatory agent it evolved to acquire from sunlight.

What is so gross about your naked body that others need to be protected from?

Ted Hutchinson

06-25-2008, 06:12 AM

I still recommend Drisdol (that's whatmy Harvard trained Endocrinologist uses) There are sufficient examples of ergocalciferol failing to be used effectively or efficiently as CHOLECALCIFEROL D3 as to make the chance of a successful claim for negligence and incompentance viable for anyone considering taking such legal action. The fact that D2 is the only form available on prescription is NOT a good reason for using it. See Vitamin D2 RIP OFF (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vitamin-d2-rip-offs.html) and The Case against Ergocaciferol as a vitamin supplement (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694)

I'm on the fence regarding the increase in naked people- many I'dlike to see naked, but many more I'd rather be Vit D deficient than subject my brain to the trauma.You don't have to inflict the site of your naked body on others it can be done effectively without public display.

lobelsteve

06-25-2008, 07:05 AM

There are sufficient examples of ergocalciferol failing to be used effectively or efficiently as CHOLECALCIFEROL D3 as to make the chance of a successful claim for negligence and incompentance viable for anyone considering taking such legal action. The fact that D2 is the only form available on prescription is NOT a good reason for using it. See Vitamin D2 RIP OFF (http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/vitamin-d2-rip-offs.html) and The Case against Ergocaciferol as a vitamin supplement (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/84/4/694)

You don't have to inflict the site of your naked body on others it can be done effectively without public display.

The standard of care for physicians is determined by physicians and not vitamin salesmen. If you think Drisdol is not the correct Vitamin D replacement, you'll have to have convincing data published in higher level journals.

1: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):677-81. Epub 2007 Dec 18. Links
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, Klein EK, Young A, Bibuld D, Reitz R, Salameh W, Ameri A, Tannenbaum AD.
Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany Street, M-1013, Boston, Massachusetts 02118, USA. mfholick@bu.edu

CONTEXT: Two reports suggested that vitamin D2 is less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining vitamin D status. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether vitamin D2 was less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or increased the catabolism of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3. SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of healthy adults ages 18-84 yr who received placebo, 1000 IU vitamin D3, 1000 IU vitamin D2, or 500 IU vitamin D2 plus 500 IU vitamin D3 daily for 11 wk at the end of the winter. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the healthy adults were vitamin D deficient at the start of the study. The circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (mean+/-sd) increased to the same extent in the groups that received 1000 IU daily as vitamin D2 (baseline 16.9+/-10.5 ng/ml; 11 wk 26.8+/-9.6 ng/ml), vitamin D3 (baseline 19.6+/-11.1 ng/ml; 11 wk 28.9+/-11.0 ng/ml), or a combination of 500 IU vitamin D2 and 500 IU vitamin D3 (baseline 20.2+/-10.4 ng/ml; 11 wk 28.4+/-7.7 ng/ml). The 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels did not change in the group that received 1000 IU vitamin D2 daily. The 1000 IU dose of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 did not raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in vitamin D-deficient subjects above 30 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: A 1000 IU dose of vitamin D2 daily was as effective as 1000 IU vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and did not negatively influence serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels. Therefore, vitamin D2 is equally as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining 25-hydroxyvitamin D status.

mrsdoubtfyre

06-25-2008, 08:18 AM

that Drisdol (ergocalciferol) is RX is that it was made so over 40 years ago,
because at that time little was known about Vit D. So the 50,000 units were
deemed "dangerous" and it was put on RX. The original product was called Deltalin and was made by Lilly. Lilly sold that patent when it discontinued many of its old products, in the early 1990's.

But in fact few studies show safety and efficacy for it, and we may see it go the way of other old products, which the FDA has cracked down on.
If the owners of the patent do not come up with NEW data, then it will be gone just like quinine.

Another vitamin deemed in the old days to be "dangerous" is folic acid. Today very few doctors would consider 1mg of folic acid as dangerous. In fact some believe that low folate levels contribute to heart disease significantly. (it is only problematic in undiagnosed B12 deficiency, and with our foods now enriched with folate, some people may be EATING 1mg of folic acid a day anyway!).

I personally think D3 is more valuable, and will continue to use and recommend it.

Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Jun 4. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
Vitamin D in Health and Disease.
Heaney RP.

Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska.

Vitamin D functions in the body through both an endocrine mechanism (regulation of calcium absorption) and an autocrine mechanism (facilitation of gene expression). The former acts through circulating calcitriol, whereas the latter, which accounts for more than 80% of the metabolic utilization of the vitamin each day, produces, uses, and degrades calcitriol exclusively intracellularly. In patients with end-stage kidney disease, the endocrine mechanism is effectively disabled; however, the autocrine mechanism is able to function normally so long as the patient has adequate serum levels of 25(OH)D, on which its function is absolutely dependent. For this reason, calcitriol and its analogs do not constitute adequate replacement in managing vitamin D needs of such patients. Optimal serum 25(OH)D levels are greater than 32 ng/mL (80 nmol/L). The consequences of low 25(OH)D status include increased risk of various chronic diseases, ranging from hypertension to diabetes to cancer. The safest and most economical way to ensure adequate vitamin D status is to use oral dosing of native vitamin D. (Both daily and intermittent regimens work well.) Serum 25(OH)D can be expected to rise by about 1 ng/mL (2.5 nmol/L) for every 100 IU of additional vitamin D each day. Recent data indicate that cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) is substantially more potent than ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and that the safe upper intake level for vitamin D3 is 10,000 IU/d.

PMID: 18525006 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher

Calcitriol= Rocaltrol

and
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 May 20. [Epub ahead of print]Click here to read Links
Short and Long Term Variations in Serum Calciotrophic Hormones after a Single Very Large Dose of Ergocalciferol (Vitamin D2) or Cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) in the Elderly.
Romagnoli E, Mascia ML, Cipriani C, Fassino V, Mazzei F, D'Erasmo E, Carnevale V, Scillitani A, Minisola S.

Department of Clinical Sciences (E.R., M.L.M., C.C., V.F., E.D.E., S.M.) and Department of Chemistry and Technology of Biologically Active Substances (F.M.), University of Rome "Sapienza", 00161 Rome, Italy; Department of Internal Medicine (V.C.) and Department of Endocrinology (A.S.), "Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza" Hospital, 71013 San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy.

Context: In humans, few studies have compared the potencies of ergocalciferol and cholecalciferol in improving and maintaining vitamin D status. Objective: To evaluate the effects of a single very large dose of both calciferols on serum changes of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD), 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D), ionised calcium and parathyroid hormone (PTH) at baseline, and at 3, 7, 30 and 60 days. Design: This was a prospective randomized intervention study. Setting: The study was performed in a nursing-home residence. Participants: Thirty-two elderly female patients (age range 66-97 years), with vitamin D deficiency. Intervention: Participants were randomized into 4 groups of eight to receive a single dose of 300,000 IU of ergocalciferol or cholecalciferol by oral (os) or intramuscular (im) route. Results: 25(OH)D levels sharply increased at day 3 only when vitamins were given orally. The 30 day-basal difference in serum 25(OH)D was significantly greater after cholecalciferol oral administration (47.8+/-7.3 ng/ml) compared with other forms (D3 im: 15.9+/-11.3; D2 os:17.3+/-4.7; D2 im: 5+/-4.4; all p<0.001). The AUC of the serum 25(OH)D against time (AUC60) was: D3 os: 3193+/-759 ng x d/mL vs D2 os: 1820+/-512, p<0.001; D3 im: 1361+/-492 vs D2 im 728+/-195, p<0.01. 25(OH)D significantly influences PTH levels at 3 (p<0.03), 7 (p<0.01), 30 (p<0.01) and 60 (p<0.05). At 60 days, the form of vitamin (cholecalciferol), significantly lowers PTH levels (p=0.037). Conclusions: Cholecalciferol is almost twice as potent as ergocalciferol in raising serum 25(OH)D, when administered either by mouth or im. 25(OH)D plays a role in modulating serum PTH.

PMID: 18492750 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

Why use a synthetic product that your body has to convert to activate, when active forms are available and LESS EXPENSIVE?

Today we know many vitamins are not utilized well in the body. In fact there are over 25 folate polymorphisms that make folic acid useless for some people.
(there are DNA tests now to show who cannot methylate folic acid properly)
We have very new and inexpensive activated forms for many vitamins now. Using old, synthetic products doesn't make much sense anymore.
Methylfolate is over the counter, and coming back from being withheld by Merck (for more money), in fact.
The Vit D in milk is D2 --typically 100 IU of D2 in an 8oz cup. Not much by today's standards.

Kathi49

06-25-2008, 10:34 AM

Nana4&cntn

06-25-2008, 01:05 PM

Ted and MrsD,

Thank you for educating us on the differences between D2 and D3 once again, I think you two have radar when it comes to seeing posts regarding VitD!

Kathy

lobelsteve

06-25-2008, 02:10 PM

Jo6

06-25-2008, 03:21 PM

well, that sounds encourging. Dr.L, I had thought you and I could build a Nudest Colony since we live fairly close. I do know of several in Ga. I couldn't take the sun, a couple of my meds. says a no no. I bet we could get rich~~~~ well, maybe a little money. We could wear our blinders on the days the undesireabel's are there.

I am not joking about the ones in Ga. I've never visited any of them, but may be tempted to do so since Ted talks about it so often. I know several that do go, sometimes several days a week besides the weeks.

Oh well Dr.L if you are intrested yell out the back door and wave your red flag.*lildevil To all others that need Vits. good luck. Jo

Gimpy

06-25-2008, 04:25 PM

Discussed this with an Endocrinologist today.

She recommends D2 to top off the tanks and D3 to maintain.
She said D deficiency mimics FMS and everyone with myofascial pain may benefit with OTC Vit D at 1200units/day.

She told me not to bother testing, just make sure all of my FMS and myofascial patients were taking D3 1200iu for 3 months and see how they did.

O.K., I am having a difficult time following all the medical terminology and what converts to what.

This is something I want to try, but don't necessarily want to go for testing and get a rx for it.

What would be a good over the counter "D3 1200iu" to purchase?

I am very interested in this and want to give it a good shot.

Linda

mrsdoubtfyre

06-25-2008, 05:56 PM

NOW brand 2000 IU liquigel cap:

http://www.iherb.com/ProductDetails.aspx?c=1&pid=8229

I personally think 1,200 IU is low.

I do not take it in summer either, when I tan up.

Patients really need testing to see HOW low they are. This concept of don't test may fly for normals...but people with pain issues, or other long term illness need testing, IMO.

I have heard of doctors now just telling everyone to take some Vit D.
This may not be enough for people with severe issues.
It may be enough for younger, more healthy appearing patients.

What this says to me is this:
Doctors still don't have a clue. Think about that!

Ted Hutchinson

06-25-2008, 06:01 PM

The standard of care for physicians is determined by physicians and not vitamin salesmen. If you think Drisdol is not the correct Vitamin D replacement, you'll have to have convincing data published in higher level journals.

1: J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):677-81. Epub 2007 Dec 18. Links
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, Klein EK, Young A, Bibuld D, Reitz R, Salameh W, Ameri A, Tannenbaum AD.
Department of Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany Street, M-1013, Boston, Massachusetts 02118, USA. mfholick@bu.edu

CONTEXT: Two reports suggested that vitamin D2 is less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining vitamin D status. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine whether vitamin D2 was less effective than vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or increased the catabolism of 25-hydroxyvitamin D3. SUBJECTS AND DESIGN: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study of healthy adults ages 18-84 yr who received placebo, 1000 IU vitamin D3, 1000 IU vitamin D2, or 500 IU vitamin D2 plus 500 IU vitamin D3 daily for 11 wk at the end of the winter. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the healthy adults were vitamin D deficient at the start of the study. The circulating levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (mean+/-sd) increased to the same extent in the groups that received 1000 IU daily as vitamin D2 (baseline 16.9+/-10.5 ng/ml; 11 wk 26.8+/-9.6 ng/ml), vitamin D3 (baseline 19.6+/-11.1 ng/ml; 11 wk 28.9+/-11.0 ng/ml), or a combination of 500 IU vitamin D2 and 500 IU vitamin D3 (baseline 20.2+/-10.4 ng/ml; 11 wk 28.4+/-7.7 ng/ml). The 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels did not change in the group that received 1000 IU vitamin D2 daily. The 1000 IU dose of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 did not raise 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in vitamin D-deficient subjects above 30 ng/ml. CONCLUSION: A 1000 IU dose of vitamin D2 daily was as effective as 1000 IU vitamin D3 in maintaining serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and did not negatively influence serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 levels. Therefore, vitamin D2 is equally as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining 25-hydroxyvitamin D status.

I think maybe you would do well to read the full text of that paper.

Consider how many people were in that trial. How many groups the trial divided into and then consider how many people were in each group?

To extrapolate from such a low number that D2 is always as effective as D3 knowing that many people simply do not utilize D2 and cannot convert D2 to D3 is in my mind totally irresponsible. You can not guarantee to pick up the non converters, particularly the elderly ones if your sample trial group is so small and contains no more than a handful of people over 50.

Similarly the D2 they used was not the bog standard off the shelf variety you or any other pharmacist would normally supply. It was a specially made sample tested for quality before the trial. Part of the problem with D2 is the quality and standardization of different batches. You don't get this possibility with D3.

The other point I wanted to make was this trial was only aiming to raise status a relatively trivial amount. Although we expect 100iu/daily/d3 to raise status 1ng 2.5 nmol/l so 10 x 100 = 1000 = 10ng or 25nmol/l most UK adults actually need to double this amount just to reach 80nmol/l and quadruple that amount to achieve 50ng 125nmol/l. While Holick may have shown his special batch of D2 worked in his small group I don't think it is safe or reasonable to extrapolate that throughout the dose range the same viability of this specially produced D2 will work as effectively as D3 nor that generally speaking D2 is always throughout the dose range as effective. Those doctors who monitor their patients levels and progress regularly simply do not confirm this happens in practice.

You are far too gullible and easily conned. It is my view health professionals should put the best interests of their patients first and foremost. You are trying to put the best interests of big pharma ahead of those of the sick.

That is ethically challenged IMO. Shame on you.

Just consider the price differential. Do you really think it is sensible to use a product costing $147.76 (http://www.americarx.com/Products/17960.html) for 50 doses when a more effective safer longer lasting more efficient alternative is available for $30.00 for 100doses (https://secure.bio-tech-pharm.com/detail.aspx?product_id=20&cat_id=2&subcat_id=0)

Ted Hutchinson

06-25-2008, 06:44 PM

Ted,

To answer you, I don't have a copy of the report. So, I just called the doc's office. I remember it was a panel but the nurse just now told me it was 59 and that was done in March. She also gave me the codes or names of all them but I didn't write them down. But the 25 you mentioned WAS one of them (I had your post in front of me while talking to her). So, 59 it is or was! I don't want to nag or appear too bossy but there are two measuring systems for Vit d and in order to understand your numbers it would be helpful to know the letters that indicate the measuring system your lab is using.
If you were 25nmol/l in April and are now 59nmol/l in June after taking one 50,000iu/weekly approx 7000iu/daily that sounds a reasonable response so far and if you continue with one 50,000iuweekly until your level is up to 125nmol/l you will start to notice the difference having an optimal anti inflammatory status makes. 60nmol/l is far too low though to be considering your level satisfactory. 80nmol/l allows the absorption of calcium to be optimized so that may be regarded as the first safe level to aim for. 100nmol/l (representing 4000iuintake daily normally) allows some people to start storing vitamin D but it really isn't until 125nmol/l that we see any significant increased in stored D3 and the lowest breast/colon cancer incidence tends to be over 130nmol/l. I aim for nearer 150nmol/l as that ensures I have a margin for error and have always some supplies in store to draw down for emergency use as and when my body requires. If I had a cancer diagnosis I would aim a little higher and make sure my level was always above 150nmol/l 60ng. In the absence of sunshine, you need to take about 1,000iu/d per 30 pounds of body weight to do this.

If on the other hand you were 25ng and are now 59ng then you can stop the 50,000iu and drop down to 5000iu daily ( the same supplier provides both at reasonable prices) as your level is now 147.5 nmol/l (same as mine) and I doubt raising status any higher will provide any greater benefit. However as I suspect you have only recently achieved this level you can expect some further improvement as it takes some time for all the 10 trillion cells in your body to be supplied appropriately. If you can maintain this level over the next 3-6 months or better indefinitely into the future, you will find that having a reserve of stored Vitamin D3 should improve the ability of your body to respond to inflammation and thus be able to reduce other pain meds.

I don't particularly suggest public nudity. I manage to get my sunshine strategically positioning the summerhouse doors so I can lay in the sun both out of the wind and out of public view.

Kathi49

06-25-2008, 08:32 PM

Thanks for the info. Ted but I really just want to stick with what I have been doing. As for inflammation, I take fish oil and more recently Limbrel which really seems to help. But I have only taken the latter for a very short time; however, could tell a difference almost immediately as far as OA pain goes. I don't have any connective tissue diseases or FMS; have been tested for that as well. Most of it is simply OA and neuropathic pain from spinal issues. I just think one size does NOT fit all. I mean after all, there are Lupus patients who have to avoid the sun. So, I would just rather take the supplement that I already do and just stick with it until I am told differently from a doc.

lobelsteve

06-25-2008, 09:52 PM

You are far too gullible and easily conned. It is my view health professionals should put the best interests of their patients first and foremost. You are trying to put the best interests of big pharma ahead of those of the sick.

That is ethically challenged IMO. Shame on you.

Thanks for the insults.
I speak as an MD for an opioid product and a skeletal muscle relaxer.
I do not prescribe vitamin d with any regularity- if they are low based on standardized lab testing within the generally medically accepted normal values- they will get either OTC D3 or Drisdol followed by D3. This is what the docs who know better than you, me, or anyone else on this board or in medical practic do- becuase that is what the best available data tells them to do. and that is why I share the info here.

You are using propoganda techniques to sell a product- namely- saying I am some how in bed (or all docs are) with Big Pharma and that somehow I do not care for my patients and that I am ethically challenged because of your false assumptions. I think you have debased yourself to the point whereas I wiould recommend the good folks here should disregard your advertisements and ask their PCP or Endocrinologist abot Vitamin D. THough, I am fairly certain you can take the context of a vague subset of symptoms and tell everyone they need your products. I suppose me coming on the forum is somehow an attempt to make money? Real docs dont' do that= and I'm fairly certain my waiting room would turn into an opium den if I marketed myself to the general public as a Pain Specialist. I'm here because I like to try and help people out.

(and I am not anybody's doctor here and any advice here is caveat emptor- there is no doctor-patient relationship by providing nonspecific advice in an open forum. If the courts decide differently or the legal staff affiliated with my employment says so- I disappear overnight- kids gotta eat:) )

Gimpy

06-25-2008, 10:16 PM

I think that "Ted" thinks lobelsteve is Pharm Steve. Not that that justifies anything.

Linda

Kira

06-26-2008, 12:59 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Steve on this. Ted, you have crossed the line.

mrsdoubtfyre

06-26-2008, 03:07 AM

Thanks for the insults.
I speak as an MD for an opioid product and a skeletal muscle relaxer.
I do not prescribe vitamin d with any regularity- if they are low based on standardized lab testing within the generally medically accepted normal values- they will get either OTC D3 or Drisdol followed by D3. This is what the docs who know better than you, me, or anyone else on this board or in medical practic do- becuase that is what the best available data tells them to do. and that is why I share the info here.

You are using propoganda techniques to sell a product- namely- saying I am some how in bed (or all docs are) with Big Pharma and that somehow I do not care for my patients and that I am ethically challenged because of your false assumptions. I think you have debased yourself to the point whereas I wiould recommend the good folks here should disregard your advertisements and ask their PCP or Endocrinologist abot Vitamin D. THough, I am fairly certain you can take the context of a vague subset of symptoms and tell everyone they need your products. I suppose me coming on the forum is somehow an attempt to make money? Real docs dont' do that= and I'm fairly certain my waiting room would turn into an opium den if I marketed myself to the general public as a Pain Specialist. I'm here because I like to try and help people out.

(and I am not anybody's doctor here and any advice here is caveat emptor- there is no doctor-patient relationship by providing nonspecific advice in an open forum. If the courts decide differently or the legal staff affiliated with my employment says so- I disappear overnight- kids gotta eat:) )

I personally do not think the new Vit D research is propaganda.

Who better to learn about it, read about it, and apply it to patients, than a doctor who is trained to read this material?

Right now the genetic research on how our bodies work inside biochemically is revealing many exciting things. The major medical schools are giving full scholarships with living expenses for students wishing to combine medical and genetic degrees. The U of Mich just built a huge genetics lab on campus!

Where medicine is going is tayloring treatments to the genetic needs of patients. We now have DNA testing for many cytochrome P450 enzymes, and how people vary in the metabolism of drugs. Do doctor's avail themselves of this? By and large, no. Treating people, is done by trial and error still.
Even drug companies may remain clueless -- the recent dangerous release of Crestor (for lowering cholesterol) was found to be deadly to a certain population with different genetic capacity to metabolize it. (predominately Asian, but not all). This drug was approved by the FDA before this serious situation was recognized. Seldane was on the market for over a decade and almost OTC when it was discovered to be killing people with drug interactions with other common drugs.
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20050303/fda-updates-crestor-warning-information

Within the next decade we will see even more progress in understanding how all of us differ, and why we all express illness differently.

The creative and effective doctor keeps up with the times. If a new thing comes to light--- either positive or negative-- I believe that patients EXPECT doctors to understand it, and utilize it or protect them from it.

So far the new data on Vit D is similar to the B12 information. The difference lies in that B12 metabolic failures are noisey...give neuro symptoms which bring patients to the doctor. The doctors unfortunately often do NOT consider B12 either, until it is far advanced on average. There are papers, from medical journals on this, Dr. Snow is one, that is often quoted.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10386505
This is the abstract for that paper-- which I have, but it is hard to find online these days. Do doctors know about Dr. Snow? From what I see, most
don't.
: Arch Intern Med. 1999 Jun 28;159(12):1289-98.Click here to read Links

Comment in:
Arch Intern Med. 1999 Dec 13-27;159(22):2746-7.
Arch Intern Med. 1999 Dec 13-27;159(22):2747-8.

Laboratory diagnosis of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency: a guide for the primary care physician.
Snow CF.

Division of Primary Care, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, Calif., USA.

At one time, the diagnosis of a deficiency of vitamin B12 or folate was considered to be relatively straightforward. As knowledge has accumulated, the limitations of such tests as serum vitamin level measurements and the Schilling test have become apparent. With the development of newer tests, atypical and subclinical deficiency states have been recognized. In this review, available tests used in the diagnosis of vitamin B12 and folate deficiency are discussed, and a rational approach to the diagnosis of these deficiency states is presented.

PMID: 10386505 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
India, is very aggressive with B12 diagnosis and so is Japan. India because of the high numbers of vegetarians, and Japan because of the
drug accident involving Vioform oral which caused an epidemic of B12 deficiency damage. One can find alot of useful information from
both of those countries because of the unfortunate clustering of B12 deficiency. But their data and experience applies to all humans regardless of
country of origin.

But Vit D is silent....a slow relentless decline into a category of illness we take for granted. Cancer, Depression, etc. Many other things too.
The way doctors (and patients) look at cancer is not to look for Vit deficiency. (although selenium deficiency has caused cancer in other countries).

People come to forums for learning. And to vent. I certainly continue to learn. And I try to encourage others to do so too.

Nana4&cntn

06-26-2008, 04:13 AM

Kathi49

06-26-2008, 07:05 AM

I also wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Steve.

Gimpy

06-26-2008, 01:05 PM

Nana4&cntn

06-26-2008, 01:38 PM

I also agree with Dr. Steve. I do think that Ted went way overboard yesterday. His insults were down right nasty.

mrsdoubtfyre

06-26-2008, 01:57 PM

Mrs. D.

If you re-read what Lobelsteve wrote, he didn't say the material was propoganda, he said it was the "tone" Ted was taking, i.e.....

"You are far too gullible and easily conned. It is my view health professionals should put the best interests of their patients first and foremost. You are trying to put the best interests of big pharma ahead of those of the sick.

That is ethically challenged IMO. Shame on you."

L

Well, I have been on the receiving end of Dr. Steve too.

The person on the end of big pharma is NOT Ted. And I see a huge problem here... Dr. Steve thinking that? It is so obviously the reverse. Is Dr. Steve really reading the posts, or only reacting? I wonder..... Big Pharma has nothing to gain from the Vit D information that many physicians now are testing for and treating. The form most often prescribed by physicians is D2, the generic for Drisdol. (no insurance is going to pay for brand name).

What might happen however, is BIG PHARMA will LOSE BUSINESS as people become restored when their low D is fixed. That means fewer meds prescribed and fewer procedures (that make money for BIG DOCTORS) being performed.
I see more anxiety FOR doctors and BIG PHARMA when those days occur.

I won't get into some kind of blame thing, here, because it really doesn't matter to ME what Dr. Steve thinks. He accused me of being a drug company representative publically here.(because I dared to post some information about a new exciting treatment for PN) That accusation (and its aggressive vehemence) was just LAUGHABLE to ME! LOLOL (in the past) And demonstrated to me that Dr. Steve does not read my posts carefully.

I have seen others here get heated and enthusiastic-- it appears to be a common thing on this forum. Taking "sides" is rather unnecessary IMO.

Nana4&cntn

06-26-2008, 02:22 PM

Mrs D,

I will speak for myself here, Ted comes in like a bully to ANY forum he chooses and bombards the folks in the forums with a ton of info most of us have seen before. I also believe many Doctors do prefer D3 over D2, mine is one of them. His Exact words were "I love D3". Most doctors are not corrupt, and want their patients to be well! I have never seen a Doc that would prefer to keep me dependent or ill for their own pocketbooks! I believe that is something the Mega Vitamin pushers would like us to believe. That is MY opinion on this. If you choose not to come to this forum that is your choice!

mrsdoubtfyre

06-26-2008, 02:39 PM

were using that D2 for a while weren't you? I recall that from the vitamin forum.
http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=29255
You thought it was D3, but it really was not? I am personally glad you did finally switch to the proper product, in the end.

No one is getting rich on supplements that cost pennies a day.

If the vitamin pushers wanted to make $$ off D3 you could be paying huge prices. Just look on Iherb at how low the prices really are!

I wonder what doctors really think about US patients .

Here is a link a friend just sent me today in email...you might find it interesting:
Reader's Digest offered two dozen doctors a chance to tell it like it really is, and general practitioners, surgeons, shrinks, pediatricians, and other specialists took the challenge. Some wanted to be anonymous; some didn't care. But all of them revealed funny, frightening, and downright shocking things that can help you be a better, smarter patient.

http://www.rd.com/living-healthy/41-medical-secrets/article75920.html

I personally think people with chronic illness and pain, need to be more proactive in their own treatment. As we discover more biochemical reasons for our bodies' problems, we can learn and do some things for ourselves.
The availability of information, that is in medical channels, is there for us to learn. For example, the literature was publishing the damaging effects of transfats for over a decade, before the actual movement to remove them from our food supply. It was not propaganda or misleading information, it was REAL... and now people today this very minute are benefiting. But it took a LONG TIME.... I used to be flamed for even bringing this subject up...here on BrainTalk! So I am not new to this controversy. And I will continue where and when
I see fit irregardless of hostility or whatever.

Ted Hutchinson

06-26-2008, 03:05 PM

Thanks for the insults. I did not insult you. I simply made clear my view that I believe those who use a more expensive but less effective product are putting the best interests of their patients at risk and I consider that shameful.

I do not prescribe vitamin d with any regularity- if they are low based on standardized lab testing within the generally medically accepted normal values- they will get either OTC D3 or Drisdol followed by D3. This is what the docs who know better than you, me, or anyone else on this board or in medical practic do- becuase that is what the best available data tells them to do. and that is why I share the info here. that is pompous claptrap that you simply cannot justify. If there is any information that justifies the use of D2 over D3 I have yet to see it. I challenge you to produce a link to it. You must be a fool to think doctors always know best.

You are using propoganda techniques to sell a product- namely- saying I am some how in bed (or all docs are) with Big Pharma and that somehow I do not care for my patients and that I am ethically challenged because of your false assumptions. Prove any of my assumptions are false. Provide the evidence. Support your claims with links as I do.

I think you have debased yourself to the point whereas I wiould recommend the good folks here should disregard your advertisements and ask their PCP or Endocrinologist abot Vitamin D. Well that is your opinion
and you are welcome to it. I simply tell the truth as I see it.

I'm here because I like to try and help people out. exactly the same reasons I post here. I back up each of the claims I make with links to the medical references I use so people can see exactly where I have obtained the information I rely on.

I simply do not believe you can ever justify the use of D2 in preference to D3.
Therefore the motives for anyone ever using D2 must be suspect.

I hope you can provide good, evidence based, reasons for the preference for D2 at any point in the treatment protocol then I look forward to considering it.

Ted Hutchinson

06-26-2008, 03:20 PM

Kira, I agree with you

"Ted you have gone too far" I would also say maybe you should stay with the Vitamin Forum. To insult someone who is here on his own time to offer Medical information is sooo wrong on so many levels!

KathyI hear what you say but I do feel you must consider the evidence.
The study Steve linked to is fundamentally flawed. If Steve actually read the full text of that study I am sure he would agree that the conclusions are not justified from the data provided.
You can work out if what I am saying is fair or reasonable.
Did Steve justify his use of that paper.
Did he explain how many people were actually involved in taking D2?
If you only have a couple of people in the trial over 60 taking D2 is it fair to conclude that every person over 60 can use D2 as efficiently as D3?
If you really believe that then as I say you must be very gullible and very easily fooled.

If you have obtained for your trial a specially prepared batch of D2 and checked it out to test is viability before you start, is it then reasonable to conclude that every batch of presciption D2 will meet that standard?

Come on Get Real Start using your own brains and not be simply the pawns of the medical industry.

I am surprised and disappointed with Steves response.
I am sure he can do better.

If there is one shred of evidence to support the preferential use of D2 instead of D3 I am sure Steve will find it and make it available to us here.

But I do not think he will. I have been studying Vit d for long enough to know what I am saying is sufficiently evidence based to stand legal scrutiny.

Ted Hutchinson

06-26-2008, 03:43 PM

Mrs D,

I will speak for myself here, Ted comes in like a bully to ANY forum he chooses and bombards the folks in the forums with a ton of info most of us have seen before.The point of repeating information is to attract the attention of the new readers. Surely those readers who have read the stuff I keep repeating have sufficient common sense to skip it. NO ONE MAKES you read all of every post. While appreciate my style tends to be a bit bombastic I simply state the evidence as I see it and I expect those who disagree with the argument I put forward to spend as much time as I do preparing my posts to prepare their replies.
I provide links to the sources of medical evidence I rely on.
I think it is reasonable for those who want to argue with me to provide links the evidence they are relying on.
That isn't bullying it's just fair and reasonable.
Because I am aware people with chronic conditions may use the information I provide to assist their condition I ensure that everything I write is based on the latest scientific understanding. Most of it is simple common sense.

If you can't follow the plot's in this paper (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17218096) and see the 25(OH)D level at which those bodies started to store significant amounts of D3 then I can't help you.

I also believe many Doctors do prefer D3 over D2, mine is one of them. His Exact words were "I love D3". That's great and I love to hear that but in the UK D3 simply isn't available. I had this letter published in the BMJ recently (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7657/1318#197072) I link to it not to boast but for you to see what UK doctors say in the following replies, about the problem of obtaining Vitamin D in ANY FORM. We can only buy D3 in 400iu and 1000iu tablets and then the 1000iu are hard to find and probably D2. The reason I post links to sources of mail order sources of supply is simply to enable people to find cheap reliable sources.

I'm not selling or pushing anything. I just want people to understand the simple basic facts of Vitamin D3.

We evolved as naked apes.
Pale naked skins gave us the ability to survive at higher latitudes.
Our bodies evolved over 2million years to thrive best with a 25(OH)D above 50ng 125nmol/l
Each 100iu of D3 raises status 1ng. 2.5nmol/l
1000iu raises status 10ng 25nmol/l
to obtain 50ng 125nmol/l requires a total of 5000iu/daily/D3.
The suggested safe upper limit should be raised to 10,000iu.

If there is anything there you disagree with then I'm happy to debate it ad infinitum. I'm sure you know the links I could provide, If you don't I'll edit them in happily.

Nana4&cntn

06-26-2008, 04:34 PM

MrsD, yes I took D2 1x, then talked with my doc and ordered D3 from Bio-tech, you were right there.

Ted, I have no reason to read your studies as I have a pain Doc and an Internist who are very well aware of what the differences are, and what I need to get my levels up to where they need to be. If I wanted further info I would go to the Vitamin Forum, I do believe the other folks here have the sense to do that also! I do believe you are wasting your time and our space!

Jo6

06-26-2008, 04:47 PM

Ms. D, if you will read the first 3 sentences of the last post you posted you will find FLAMING! That was really petty to put this in, no purpose at all that I can see.

Ted, your last few post have all been nonsense. You come into the Alzheimer's Forum and take the place over. for instance, a new poster come in for the 1st time and tries to tell thier problems.

Then you jump right in with the stuff you have posted elswhere. We try to listen to the new poster, share what we know and might help them. then you pop right back up continuing your STUFF. (stuff was your word, not mine) It's very hard to give any help to the Caregivers and patients. We seldom have patients.

Now they can read this stuff on about all the other boards. Many of these people never return. those that do will PM one of the reg., trying to find out what Ted is talking about. His post will get to the middle of page, he starts with another grand medicine that will probably make AD go away.

He will post to himself to keep his stuff at the top of the page. I have asked him nicely to just post it in the Websights on top of all pages. That way anybody that wants can read it once or 50 times. We could go on and try to help each other. Alzheimer's Disease is a horrible disease. Very heartbreaking.

This is not in the forums best interest. IMHO I think some of the others here are trying to get this point to you. I know I don't care for it and nobody makes me read it. I don't read it until I see things getting out of hand between you and Ms. D. Both of you start yelling "flaming". no, it isn't the board's members, it is all of us. Save a few. I wish you both would stop this nonsence.
Jo

Kathi49

06-26-2008, 06:27 PM

I agee with Jo; just utter nonsense to carry on like this. Last time I checked there is an Alternative and Complimentary Medicine Forum and Vitamin and Mineral Defiiciency Forum. Perhaps these posts need to be moved there. I realize this is a CP Forum but this deep desire to be "right" gets a little ridiculous. If the SME's are confident with their findings then place them in the forums they belong in. That way people can CHOOSE to read what they want to research. There is no need to attack Dr. Steve. He has helped us all a great deal and I agree with what he has stated.

Nana4&cntn

06-26-2008, 06:50 PM

I also agree with Jo, please stay in the Vitamin and Alternative Medicine Forums. Leave us alone! I have noticed several people have stayed away from this Forum today and I personally hold the 2 of you responsible. So if you see something slated for here or Spine Disorders in New posts please do not respond here! People look at all of the forums they are interested in. Let them find you!:mad:

lobelsteve

06-26-2008, 08:47 PM

Thanks for the support from those who do.

I think it best not to comment further on this- rather, ask your treating physician about Vitamin D deficiency and see what they recommend. Any D is better than deficiency. As for me, I just bought 1000 Enzyte, because after the other channel told me I had 20 pounds of toxins in my colon, I still had money to throw away. Everyone is free to read, research, and make their own decisions. As for my health, the doctor knows best.

Gimpy

06-27-2008, 12:05 AM

On the internet we must be careful to not take what is said in these forums as God's truth anyway. We don't really know who is on the other end of the keyboard. However, after time, one gets a good feeling about regular posters and can tell whose info to take and who just comes around to keep their posts up or appear to be something their not.

Irregardless of what is posted here, one should always do their own research and ask their doctors directly. A whole lot of do-do can be written into scientific form and passed for the real thing as easily as a good hearted person can provide the wrong info innocently enough.

Do your homework folks, we should never rely on this type of data in these forums as 100% factual. Take what you want from it, and throw the rest away.

Just my opinion, and I know who I trust.

Me

Jo6

06-27-2008, 12:21 PM

Gimpy, I agree with you.

Dr.L, I wanted to thank you for answering my questions last week. I asked for your opinion, you gave it. I do support you in whatever you do. You have certainly helped me and I see no harm with that. Take care, Jo

Kathi49

06-27-2008, 01:26 PM

Gimpy,

I also agree with you and meant to say that I am sorry your thread turned into what it did. I know you were just posting a link for general information and there was no harm in that. :) I have said all along that everyone should ask their docs before doing or taking anything. And do the homework. So, I'll just echo what doc Steve said...as for my own health I look to my docs. :) That's not to say I haven't learned a lot but I do take some of it with a grain of salt. Alot of things presented do not always apply. But those that do, I do take with me to the docs. :) I just mean I have learned alot from everyone and everyone has always been very helpful, yet I still remain cautious knowing how I react to certain meds, etc.

Gimpy

06-27-2008, 01:53 PM

GardeniaGirl

06-27-2008, 07:19 PM

I don't think its as simple as either a) talk to doctors or b) believe everything you read on the internet.

Clearly there is a huge grey zone between the two.

I've had (and have) some great doctors.

But doctors are humans too....and they don't know everything.

The good ones will admit this.

I've done a ton of my own research over the years and a lot of it has helped me tremendously - if I sat around waiting to get all my information from my docs, I would have about 15% of the information I have about my disease, vitamins, etc.

I think its best to be an informed patient - one who takes the time to educate him or herself, learns how to assess the information one finds on the web, and is proactive about his or her health.

Bobbi

06-27-2008, 10:30 PM

... just want to thank you for intro'ing the thread, Gimpy. I'm due for some testing re: Vit. D. Now, I'll read through the entire thread :).

Kira

06-28-2008, 04:09 PM

Regarding the topic of being able to trust your doctors' knowledge, intentions, and ethics...

On my journey to get my weird disease diagnosed & to get all of the various complications dx'd and treated... I have had a LOT of doctors. Some good, some bad, some mediocre. But, I have ALWAYS known that it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to choose doctors that come highly recommended, have good credentials, and, most importantly, seem to genuinely have the patients' best interests in mind. I went through quite a few doctors before deciding on my current team, and now I have CHOSEN a group of doctors that I feel comfortable with. If they show poor judgement, a weak knowledge base, a lack of interest, etc... then I am not going to trust them with my health. It is that simple. For those of us with serious medical issues, it is critical to actively choose good doctors.

So, when strangers online tell us that we should trust them rather than listening to our doctors, it is not just criticizing the doctors... it is criticizing US. It is basically saying that we aren't competent to make our own choices about our healthcare... like we all must be complete idiots for daring to listen to our doctors.