Thursday, 17 December 2009

This blog is in response to Dr Briffa's post here. as I keep having problems commenting on his blogs.

While 44ng/ml is sufficient to not only maximize uptake of calcium (>32ng/ml) and ensure maximum bone mineral density (>42ng/ml), pregnant and nursing mothers should be aware that in order to maximize the amount of vitamin D3 in human breast milk 6400iu/daily was found to be necessary to raise (>58ng/ml) at latitude 32.
This is detailed in the Taylor, Wagner and Hollis paper.
Vitamin D supplementation during lactation to support infant and mother.
Although 4000iu/daily met the mothers daily needs in full it left babies being born with lower 25(OH)D status than required for optimum calcium absorption

They also found DAILY use of supplements was required by pregnant and nursing mothers to ensure an even daily Vitamin D3 supply to the foetus & baby.
It makes virtually no measurable difference for everyone else if you supplement daily or weekly.

While Dr Briffa will not be lactating he may be interested seeing in the
Grassrootshealth chart showing disease incidence by 25(OH)D status.
this may encourage him to go just another 10ng/ml higher and a bit nearer to the natural level at which human breast milk flows replete with D3.

Although 5000iu cholecalciferol capsules are now available online in the UK may I remind readers these are cheaper from USA discount providers like IHERB providing you don't order more than £18 in any single order as you then have to pay VAT on import + £8 Post Office handling fee.
WAB666 Introductory discount code WAB666.

These recent papers make me think the recent move to encourage mothers to take the "official" prenatal Vitamins available will do little or nothing to reduce MS or other disease incidence.

Developmental vitamin D de´Čüciency causes abnormal brain development

Vitamin D, a neuro-immunomodulator: Implications for neurodegenerative and autoimmune diseases

If we are going to ensure babies come into the world vitamin D replete then we have to ensure vitamin D is getting to the foetus and via breast milk to the baby. As Dr Briffa has discover getting anywhere near 55ng/ml requires a lot more vitamin D3 than is "officially" regarded as sufficient.

9 comments:

Bill said...

I'm a 55 year old male.
Although I don't have a baseline 25(OH)D count, I have been supplementing daily with 6000iu of D3 for 9 months, and my reading was 54.7ng/ml last month.
I have increased to 10,000 iu/daily, hopefully having another blood test next week.

TedHutchinson said...

I think levels betweeen 55ng/ml and 65ng/ml are optimal.

I think you could achieve that with just an extra 1000iu/daily total 7000iu rather than an extra 4000iu/d total 10,000iu/d.

However 65~90ng/ml are suggested for treating cancer and should that be your diagnosis then I think you've made a sensible decision.

It will be interesting to hear what the result of the next 25(OH)D test is. Unless you've a winter sun holiday in the tropics booked, you will not be getting UVB from sunlight in UK until March, so until then there will be no need to reduce the current 10,000iu/d intake.

Veith has shown 10,000iu/daily is safe.
I predict, with 10,000iu/d, your next test will be around the 85~90ng/ml mark. While I think that may be a sensible level for someone fighting chronic illness I'm happy to keep my level nearer the 60ng/ml mark.

Bill said...

I am thinking along your guidelines.
I'll keep it at 10,000 and then drop the dosage subject to the results.
I might as well continue as I am now until after the test.
I am looking for a 65-70 ng/ml consistent level.
No serious illness issues with me.

It beggars belief that 25(OH)D testing is not normal practice, throughout medical treatment.
Low cost preventative maintenance is the logical way to go.
It'll do for me.

Thanks Ted.

Steve said...

Ted,

Thanks for visiting my blog with your helpful comments.

Is there anything I can say that will change your mind about the discomforts 5000 IU/day vitamin D tablets can cause?

One milligram of vitamin D is 40,000 IU. One milligram is so small it is imperceptible. Special scales are required to accurate weigh one milligram. Taking 2 or more milligrams of vitamin D daily is certain to cause trouble even for the most vitamin D tolerant individuals. Concentrated vitamin D is potent stuff, and even 5000 IU tablets are pretty potent.

You have commented several times about the levels of vitamin D found circulating in the blood of ancient peoples. I believe you claim this number is between 55 and 65 ng/ml. How can you possible know such a thing? Humanity has only had the capability of measuring vitamin D blood levels for a couple of decades. How could we possibly know how much sun exposure ancient humans got and the status of their skin.

Steve

TedHutchinson said...

@ Steve
Is there anything I can say that will change your mind about the discomforts 5000 IU/day vitamin D tablets can cause? If you could find a published peer reviewed paper showing scientific evidence that your experience is demonstrable and can be replicated in a impartial scientific experiment where in a double blind trial placebo and Vitamin D3 capsules were trialled without either the person administering and the person consuming the capsule knowing if they were getting the placebo or the Vitamin D3 I'd accept it was the D3 causing the effect.

As you know I have access to a medical library so am able to read the full text of the majority of Vitamin D3 research papers. If your experience were typical or indeed significant in others we would find the drop out rate from Vitamin D3 interventions much higher. It would be stated in the research that a significant amount of people were unable to tolerate the treatment because of the discomfort. But in practice that doesn't happen. At least not in any of the research I have read. If you know better then please provide links to the research you are citing.

Safety of vitamin D3 in adults with multiple sclerosis Here is an example using very high doses of Vitamin D3.

Perhaps you are not taking your D3 with food?
Taking vitamin D with the largest meal improves absorption and results in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Bill said...

Ted, You said,
"I predict, with 10,000iu/d, your next test will be around the 85~90ng/ml mark."
My test after supplementing with 10,000iu/d for 2 months was 65.3ng/ml. That was on 23rd December.
I always take with food containing oil/fat to maximise absorption.
Furthermore, when I upped the dose, within 2 weeks my painful shoulder eased significantly, and I can only put that down to the change in dosage.
You predicted that my level would be 85+ which was not the case. So it would seem that the dosage is not directly proportional to the level.
I have another blood test in April and this will be after continuing the 10,000iu/d dosage since December. This should help to clarify my own situation.
It would seem that we are all different in our absorption of supplementing...

TedHutchinson said...

Sure look at the graph here and you see that even 10,000iu/daily doesn't get everyone above 60ng/ml You can still see even at 10,000iu/d some individuals around the 40ng/ml mark,of course we don't know what inflammatory condition there body's may be dealing with.
Shows the importance of regular testing. Mind you at 65ng/ml your at a reasonable level. But if you live in the UK even by April there will not be much of rise in 25(OH)D as a result of sun exposure but from April through to September sun exposure, combined with the 10,000iu/d/D3 should help get you nearer my prediction.

Derek Johnston said...

Great post!Like to know more about the over dosage of calcium with Vitamin D3
Lamberts

Kevin Cooper said...

Your post is really good providing good information.. I liked it and enjoyed reading it. Keep sharing such important posts. vitamin d 1000 iu