T Nation

Vitamin D and Vitamin K


I have very low VIT D so will start taking some but dont know how much and whether i should take calcium with it.

Also read that Vit K MK 7 or MK 4? prevents your arteries becoming calcifed etc from too much VIT D

How much do I need to take?

My level is 18 n/mol which was very low for the range given


Most experts will say in general 2,000-5,000 IU/day. Considering yours is that low it might be a good idea to go for that upper range and retest in a few months.


I take 2,000 IU a day of vitamin D. Mine was low the last time it was tested.


I believe a testing level of 120ng/ml or greater is where you will begin to see vitamin D3 placing calcium in places undesired. Everyone is different in the amount of D3 needed. It is best to test. I personally try to keep a testing level between 60 to 70ng/ml. Haven't had problems when doing so.

An article along those lines.

"The folly of an RDA for vitamin D"


"Tom is a 50-year old, 198-lb white male. At the start, his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level was 28.8 ng/ml in July. Tom supplements vitamin D, 2000 units per day, in gelcap form. Six months later in January (winter), Tom?s 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 67.4 ng/ml.

Jerry is another 50-year old white male with similar build and weight. Jerry?s starting summer 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 26.4 ng/ml. Jerry takes 12,000 units vitamin D per day, also in gelcap form. In winter, six months later, Jerry?s 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.2 ng/ml.

Two men, similar builds, similar body weight, both Caucasian, similar starting levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Yet they have markedly different needs for vitamin D dose to achieve a similar level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. Why?

It?s unlikely to be due to variation in vitamin D supplement preparations, since I monitor vitamin D levels at least every 6 months and, even with changes in preparations, dose needs remain fairly constant.

The differences in this situation are likely genetically-determined. To my knowledge, however, the precise means by which genetic variation accounts for it has not been worked out."


It's hard to OD on Vitamin D, don't sweat it. That said, don't go taking 50,000 IU a day and claim the internet told you it was safe.


Wait, did you get tested by a doc? what did he say?

I think a typical procedure when levels are super low is to take a really big dose up front (sometimes prescription) and then drop down to normal maintenance levels.


I wouldn't be surprised if its still low.

8,000-10,000iu daily finally got me into the high-normal range.


I buy 400 capsules for $9 ...1000iu each capsule//

I just open and poor about 5 to 10 little round capsules into my mouth and swallow with water.


I forget the numbers, but the doc said I was just a little low. I remember her telling me a lot of people are low.


I had a client taking 4,000 IU/day for 2 months, her levels were at 97, doctor freaked out told her to stop taking and 6 weeks later retest.

She was down to mid 40s that fast.


So is there any kind of a ballpark figure to shoot for or does everyone have their own completely different asshole? I mean, opinion.

From what I've read so far here and there I was thinking about shooting for 60-70 ng/ml as a high but safe figure. Current level - 44ng/ml while supplementing with 400IU (from one of my fish oils, not actual D3 supp), planning to add 2500IU per day and retest in a while.


I suspect that everyone has their own asshole with the their Vit D levels. At least without testing.

I saw a youtube of a smart professor-guy about Vit D where he argued that the entire population could supplement around 1000-2000 IU a day with basically zero chance of anything bad happening.


EasyRhino - Ive heard similar things from pretty nerdy looking people (I also, sidenote, know poliqiun recommends a bolus dose for those who are low around 30,000+). A lot of articles flooded out about all the wonders of Vit D. It lasted about a month or shortly more then poured the articles about excessive dosage. Ive heard the reason for this, from "certian" people, is that it is actually all as fantastic as its claimed to be but Big Brutha and the GOV dont want y'alls to know about that. Similar to other vitamins that are banned that have been linked to curing cancer and such.
I take up to 40,000 a day with no problems (that I know of) except I piss sunshine. If Im outside a lot I wont take it at all.


For those supplementing: remember that D is fat-soluble, so you need to have ingested some dietary fat recently when taking the pill(s).

Also, you need D to absorb and utilize calcium, so if you significantly increase your D intake (or sun exposure, now that it's warmed up), you may not need as much calcium.

Re: Sun for D
Full spectrum sunlight is only available in temperate zones from 11am - 1pm spring and fall, and 10am - 2pm summer; 15 - 20 minutes per day on bare skin (not just face and arms) will give you as much D as you can make. Outside of those windows, because of the angle of the sun, you can get enough UVA to get melanoma w/o getting any UVB to make vit D; so, avoid the sun like the plague other than the 15 - 20 min during the window of opportunity.

Midnight. Mongo sleep now.


Re: Vit K2.

Grass-fed, pastured cow is your best bet (beef, cheese, butter, milk, cream). CAFO cows have none.

(vit K2 was what Dr. Weston Price called "activator X", one of the secrets of the health of people eating "traditional" - pre-industrial - foods.)


Yea there's lots of info on Vit K2 on the weston a price foundations website. (also lots of info on vit D as well).


not sure what my levels are currently at, but i just started taking hyper-doses of D3 (50,000 IUs twice/week) as recommended my poliquin.

How long do you guys believe is a good period of time to wait before getting my levels checked?


8 weeks would prob be fine. As Poliquin would say, you're not a bad person if you check sooner. You would have a hard time reaching toxic levels in 4 or 5 months, would be my guess.



Personally, I wouldn't take doses that high without getting checked first. So I guess my vote would be "now".


Living in California, that's probably wise.
With him living in Alberta, Canada, the concern would be much less.