Monday, 17 May 2010

As we know that naturally human skin generates between 10.000~20,000iu vitamin D3 given full body non burning sun/uvb exposure it is a reasonable assumption that amounts under the level naturally acquired should be within the capacity of our DNA to manage safely.

5000iu ~10,000iu Vitamin D3 supplements are cheaply and easily obtained from the USA.
Grassrootshealth Banner shows most people can attain and maintain a 25(OH)D level around 60ng/ml ~ 150nmol/l with 6000iu/daily D3.

I maintain my 25(OH)D at 64ng/ml with 5000iu/daily + regular full body sun/uvb exposures.

I have put a copy of Vieth's paper
How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology
online as understanding the importance of keeping a HIGH but STABLE 25(OH)D is extremely important.

One of the main objections to using Ergocalciferol is it's potential for speeding up the catabolism of vitamin D as shown in Vitamin D2 Is Much Less Effective than Vitamin D3 in Humans

Comparison of Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Vitamin D3 in Ethanol Dosing Protocols for Two Months in Elderly Hip Fracture Patients This paper shows that there was little difference in the results of the different regimes however they were only seeking to raise 25(OH)D to 30 ng/ml (75 nmol/liter) and as some people don't achieve optimum bone mineral density until 44ng/ml that is too low a level for safety. Similarly human only store D3 when daily needs for Vitamin D have been met and we only start to have significant D3 reserves when 25(OH)D is above 50ng/ml and Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Fully Breastfed Infants on Oral Vitamin D Supplementation shows Vitamin D3 replete human breast milk is only available approaching 60ng/ml, the level human bodies naturally attain and maintain living near naked outdoor lives. (60~80ng/ml)

So if daily supplementation and/or regular sun/uvb exposure isn't practicable the nearest equivalent regime to daily would be weekly usage of 50,000iu.
Fortnightly use of 100,000iu or 200,000iu every 28 days.

Biotech pharmacal supply 50,000iu dry powder filled capsules. If you are buying for your personal use then PHONE your order using one of the cheap prefix call rates (1899 ~ 18185) remembering the time difference and ask for the Wholesale order value to be declared on the outer label. Otherwise you get stung for Tax and £8 Post office handling charge.

For best results these should be taken with the largest meal of the day ideally with butter, or coconut oil. Vitamin D3 is a fat soluble vitamin.

Ideally daily supplement use will keep levels most stable and it's relatively easy to catch up if you miss a day or so.
These are what I use.
Country Life, Vitamin D3, 5,000 IU, 200 Softgels"

I prefer Medium Chain Triglyceride oil as the carrier, it's easily and quickly metabolized and because it encourages fat burning is helpful for weight loss and improved mitochondrial function.

I do not recommend omega 6 oil based vitamin D capsules, There is too much omega in the diet so adding supplemental sources only makes matters worse.
The fish oil based D3 are fine but expensive and the amount of omega 3 they provide is so small as to be insignificant for the extra cost involved.
There are some in olive oil that work out a cheap option but it's not a huge saving and the MCT is far less likely to go rancid as MCT is extremely stable and has a 2 yr shelf life.

I've provided examples from IHERB as their $4 shipping to the UK is cheapest(allow 10 days). $5 discount code WAB666. UK readers keep order value below £18 or pay take + £8 handling charge. USA/Canadian readers may find Amazon/Swanson's/Vitacost etc cheaper depending on local shipping charges.

11 comments:

Karen Lewis said...

Hi Ted,

We've been using Biotech's 50,000 IUs once a week since October last year. Our Grassroots test originally showed a baseline of 24 ng/ml for me and 28 ng/ml for my husband, who has diabetes. 6 months down the line and our re-test, the first since supplementing showed me now to be at 84 ng/ml and the husband at 64 ng/ml. Not sure if my higher reading reflects the many hours in the past couple of months working in the back garden in short-sleeved tee-shirt v. hubby's preference for his den, or if the diabetes has reduced his absorption of vitamin D, or utilised more of it than me.

Did get benefit of phone order with wholesale price - 1st time around got belted for tax, which I didn't mind, but objected to the £8 ransom the Post Office insisted upon. :-)

Now we have got a bit of sunshine promised, and the back garden is finally made-over, I am looking forward to sitting out in the sunshine in the peace and quiet, soaking up the rays.

Regards,

Karen

TedHutchinson said...

My partner takes 5000iu/daily D3 same as I do but ends up with a higher 25(OH)D. It's probably to do with weight. I'm heavier so need more D3.
If you wanted you could spread your 50,000iu out a bit more If over the summer you took one a fortnight while still getting plenty of sun exposure that would be fine but I'd stick with one a week from October through to March.
I think hubby needs to carry on with his current regime.
But for other readers the message is that you cannot rely on a set daily amount of Vitamin D as each person responds individually to both sun exposure and Vitamin D from supplements. That is why a test either once or twice yearly initially is a good idea to enable you to learn how your body responds to effective natural intakes of Vitamin D3.

Karen Lewis said...

Hi Ted,

Yes, it might well be a weight thing. I am small-boned and 116 lb - hubby is larger and 152 lb.

I was considering going fortnightly with the dose as long as I can get some sun on me, and back to weekly in the autumn. We're participating in the Grassroots research so will be continuing to have twice yearly tests to keep a check on things.

I prefer to keep my levels up now as I'm coming up to menopause and the possibility of an increased risk for osteoporosis and breast cancer as I get older, and there seems to be quite a body of research to suggest that keeping one's D status optimal can prove beneficial in reducing those risks.

Regards,

Karen

Bill said...

Hiya Ted,
I took 10,000 iu daily for 6 months until May. Tested at 104 ng/ml. I've now dropped to 5000 iu per day and will be tested again in October. Ideally I would like to maintain 75/80 ng/ml, based on the how my body feels. I know that getting above 70 ng/ml eliminated joint pain. Especially an ache in my shoulder which I had for years and has not recurred.

Vitamin K2 seems to be gaining prominence. I get K2 from pastured butter and fermented cheese.
It would seem that D3,K2 and calcium are the holy trinity.

What's your thoughts on K2, Ted?

For me the final piece in my personal health jigsaw would seem to be sarcopenia. I am actively working on increasing muscle fibre.

TedHutchinson said...

It would seem that D3,K2 and calcium are the holy trinity.
I'm not sure I agree with that.
I would replace the calcium with magnesium.
I'm sure most adults should easily be able to get sufficient 1000~12000mg calcium from food sources and beverages and providing they don't eat too acidifying diet should be able to retain it.
I don't think sufficient magnesium is present in modern fast maturing grain and vegetable varieties or water and other beverages so I think magnesium supplementation is as important as checking Vitamin D3 levels and ensuring you have adequate K2 sources.
Bear in mind omega 3, vitamin E and curcumin also are able to use the vitamin D receptor and there are many good reasons to ensure omega 3 levels are higher, to achieve that omega 6 intake from industrial seed/grain oils has to be eliminated.
Almost without exception pain is related to inflammation or the inflammatory response.
Understanding the role of inflammation in chronic conditions is the key to resolving that pain.
We know vitamin D3, Omega 3 and magnesium are all anti inflammatory agents working both in body and brain. Understanding how adipose tissue generates pro-inflammatory cytokines together with excess omega 6 driving inflammation is the key to resolving that inflammation and reducing the pain.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ted,

My mother-in-law is 75 and in poor health. She's obese and pre-diabetic. Just this month, she has made a diet change---limiting her carbs to non-starchy vegetables only. Her blood sugars have dropped like a stone, and she's lost 10#.

Her MD ran a 25(OH)D this month, and it came back at 33. She has been diagnosed with osteopenia.

I'm hoping that putting her on D3, K2, and Mg will improve her bone health.

Do you have an links you can provide to support this? We're hoping to dodge the inevitable Fosomax prescription. Any other suggested reading?

Thanks.

Maggie

TedHutchinson said...

Hi Maggie
I'm not sure where you are posting from so the 25(OH)D level 33 could be 33nmol/l which is still very low and suggests that a very much higher intake of vitamin D3 daily is required 4000iu/d in addition to the current intake.
Or it could be 33ng/ml which is not dire but only just around the level that maximizes calcium uptake but certainly doesn't allow storage of Vitamin D and coming up to winter particularly I'd like to see a higher level another 1000iu/daily might just about be sufficient but an additional 2000iu/daily would be more likely to work for someone both obese and prediabetic.
40ng/ml 100nmol/l is my idea of a minimum acceptable level.(meets daily needs but doesn't provide an emergency reserve0.
60ng/ml 150nmol/l is best as that does provide a reserve and is also the level at which human breast milk is naturally vitamin D replete, not that breast feeding is an issue at 75yrs of age.

As for links it depends on what level of detail you are comfortable with.
Dr Davis heartscanblog Homegrown osteoporosis prevention and reversal is a good summary.
I could sort out some links to free full text medical research papers on the various suggestions Dr Davis makes but they do get a bit techy and while I enjoy puzzling out what they mean it's a bit overwhelming if you don't enjoy that kind of detail and it's no good expecting a 75yr old brain not in good health to deal with medical jargon.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ted,

Oops, in the USA. So, ng/ml.

Dr. Davis' summary looks just right in the amount & type of information. Thank you! I'll print it out.

Maggie

buy kamagra online said...

vitamin D3 is one of the most important nutritional vitamin which improving overall health condition.vitamin D deficiency causes blood pressure,diabetes,multiple sclerosis,arthritis.

Anonymous said...

I was taking 3000 to 4000 of Vitamin D3 every day, but it seems to have made my herpes outbreaks double or triple and I have read this from many others online. So it may not be good for everyone.

Bog said...

Ted,

Andreas banned me from his blog. Anyways, in regards to your statin postulations. Only those who have written a low-carb book believe in the "pleitrophic effects" of statins.

1) Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and prevention of cardiovascular disease

"There was little question after the first major statin trials that the reduction in CVD was related to lipid lowering and was totally consistent and supportive of the lipid hypothesis. However, stimulated by funding from the pharmaceutical industry, in which competition was fierce for market share and was driven mainly by the efficacy of lowering LDL-C levels, manufacturers of less-effective agents for lowering LDL-C levels helped propagate “beyond LDL-C” theories; these theories were that statins reduced CVD events by means other than lipid reduction, often termed pleotropic effects, usually shown in in vitro laboratory studies or small, poorly standardized surrogate marker trials. This belief culminated in an RCT by a pharmaceutical company that was designed to show that more LDL-C reduction with a competitor's statin achieved no greater benefit.13 However, the results of that study clearly and convincingly showed otherwise, with additional reduction in CVD events with the drug that lowered LDL-C levels more. Even with this evidence, and perhaps with an even more powerful statin about to be approved, the investigators suggested that the reduced events were due to pleotropic effects of the more efficacious statin. However, the trial was soon followed up with results from another head-to-head RCT, with the same drug at different LDL-C lowering doses,14 which eliminated the pleotropic potential and rein-forced that lower is better"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2665973/


2) A meta-analysis of 19 studies (81,859 participants in all) that lowered LDL and measured clinical disease or death, including 5 diet trials, 3 bile sequestrant trials, 1 surgery trial and 10 statin trials concluded that: "The pleiotropic effects [effects apparently unrelated to lowering LDL] of statins do not seem to contribute an additional cardiovascular risk reduction benefit beyond that expected from the degree of LDL-C lowering observed in other trials that primarily lowered LDL-C."

Robinson JG, Smith B, Maheshwari N, Schrott H. Pleiotropic effects of statins: benefit beyond cholesterol reduction? A meta-regression analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Nov 15;46(10):1855-62

I also covred your "Ned Koch says this" -arguments. What is it that you don't understand with this? I wonder why you even bother to spray this nonsense anymore, now that you've been corrected on the matter:

“Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling–perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3560398

"More dispute has arisen regarding the association of low cholesterol and mortality in elderly persons. For example, in the Honolulu Heart Program low cholesterol was associated with greater mortality risk. Obvious explanations for the association are intervening factors that both increase mortality risk and decrease the cholesterol level. In the nine-year follow-up of the Helsinki Aging Study, mortality risk was associated with both lowered cholesterol synthesis and lowered cholesterol absorption, which reflect terminal decline and lead to lower serum cholesterol levels. These associations are not identified, and the relationship between cholesterol and mortality becomes distorted unless the follow-up is long enough"

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/short/44/5/1002

Best regards, "Jeff"