T Nation

Vitamin D3 and Physical Results?

Had my first physical in 5 years and here are my results. 14 hrs fast prior to blood work. Have been supplementing with 5K iu of d3 daily for past 10 months now. Dr notes.(Issues of concern)

D3 level at 80. Range (32-100) On high side, stop all D3 Supps. Cholesterol high but HDL was 78 which is fantastic but LDL is 157 need to lower. Triglycerides are 83. Fasting glucose 104,hemoglobin A1C 5.6. All other tests normal.

Now my questions. After 10 months supplementing with D3, wouldn’t my level stay around 80? It would not continue to rise? Especially heading into cold NE winter. I thought this was a good. Why would I stop?

With a good HDL level and Triglyceride level wouldn’t these help with the LDL 157 level? I guess last time it was checked was at 130 ( 5 years ago).

And last issue for concern was the 104 glucose and A1C at 5.6. From what I understand this is a measure of blood sugar/ diabetes risk? I generally follow a high protein, high fat ( coconut oil, Evoo, fish oil etc), low carb diet. Not sure how this is high if not a huge carb consumer.

Any insight would be appreciated.

Vit D - Do you take calcium and magnesium supplements, and or eat sufficient food sources? If so please describe. This is not medical advice but I’m just curious if you understand the relationship between the three nutrients. I think you’re okay with that level of 80 since you are heading into the winter, and natural production will be reduced. FYI optimal levels of 25-hydroxy D are 30-80 ng/mL, and there is possible toxicity if you are above 80. Since you are teetering right at the upper level considered as optimal (80 ng/mL), I understand your doctor’s concern. I wouldn’t stop taking Vit D altogether. Maybe reduce the 5k daily to 4k. I would consider a retest once winter is over. When spring & summer give you a chance to resume natural production, reduce back to maybe something like 3k and retest. This is just my $.02. Discuss the options with your Dr.

Also, if you are unhappy with your doctor, by all means, get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd). Dr’s make mistakes all the time…

Also, it’s very important to note that the experts(1) say that: [quote]Long-term supplementation, without monitoring, may have serious consequences… (Note: Do not take more than 1,000 IU of vitamin D without testing and supervision by a knowledgeable healthcare practitioner.[/quote]

They recommend [quote]1,200-2,400 mg of calcium daily with magnesium at half that dose as well in conjunct to supplemental Vit D. They say that if your diet is high in protein, calcium lactate or carbonate is probably a better source of calcium.[/quote] I’m not sure I understand this completely, but I guess I’ll take their word for it. They also say: [quote]Make the effort to split up your daily dose. Do not take all your calcium and magnesium once a day. A higher percentage of the calcium dose is absorbed if delivered in smaller, more frequent amounts.[/quote]

It’s very important to realize that they recommend that Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time… [quote]Vitamin D will also enhance the uptake of toxic metals like lead, cadmium, aluminum and strontium if calcium, magnesium and phosphorus are not present in adequate amounts. Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time.[/quote]

(1) westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

Best,
BT

Consider something like this: www.sperti.com/home/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=82

Their has been no study to date that has shown toxicity under 200 ng/ml of Vitamin D. Hell 15 minutes on a beach (shirtless) would produce something like 10k-15k iu(ball-park figure). So I’d say your fine, especially with winter rolling around.

Neat little tool.

http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/calculator.asp

I swear by Slo-Niacin for cholesterol and a nice serving of steel cut oats every morning first thing.

[quote]BulletproofTiger wrote:
Also, if you are unhappy with your doctor, by all means, get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd). Dr’s make mistakes all the time…

Also, it’s very important to note that the experts(1) say that: Long-term supplementation, without monitoring, may have serious consequences… (Note: Do not take more than 1,000 IU of vitamin D without testing and supervision by a knowledgeable healthcare practitioner.

They recommend 1,200-2,400 mg of calcium daily with magnesium at half that dose as well in conjunct to supplemental Vit D. They say that if your diet is high in protein, calcium lactate or carbonate is probably a better source of calcium. I’m not sure I understand this completely, but I guess I’ll take their word for it. They also say: Make the effort to split up your daily dose. Do not take all your calcium and magnesium once a day. A higher percentage of the calcium dose is absorbed if delivered in smaller, more frequent amounts.

It’s very important to realize that they recommend that Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time… Vitamin D will also enhance the uptake of toxic metals like lead, cadmium, aluminum and strontium if calcium, magnesium and phosphorus are not present in adequate amounts. Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time.

(1) westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

Best,
BT

Consider something like this: www.sperti.com/home/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=82
[/quote]

Interesting post, I haven’t seen a doctor in the last several years and that info on vitamin D sparked my interest. I recently began supplementing with 4k IUs five weeks ago now that I am not getting very much sun – although, I have no idea what my calcium intake is at. I eat a lot of cottage cheese and peanutbutter; I imagine it’s average. Is it worth it to supp with calcium?

[quote]Fulford wrote:
Their has been no study to date that has shown toxicity under 200 ng/ml of Vitamin D. Hell 15 minutes on a beach (shirtless) would produce something like 10k-15k iu(ball-park figure). So I’d say your fine, especially with winter rolling around. [/quote]

Recent research by Heaney has actually shown that healthy humans utilize about 4,000 units of vitamin D a day (from all sources). So it would appear that getting 5k solely from supplemental sources is most likely unnecessary, but at the same time 5k probably wouldn’t hurt.

Also, you can’t just say that it takes 15 minutes to produce a certain amount of vit D, because the amount of time it takes to produce vit D is dependent on the person’s skin tone and the amount of time it takes them to burn/turn pink. People of light skin tone might take only 15 minutes, while darker skinned people may take something like 2 hours. But note that vit D production in the skin is already maximized before your skin turns pink.

My doctor told me to keep it below 90, my levels came back 66.3 after six months of 4000 ius and then six months of 8000 ius. He said I was fine and should keep with that dosage as that should be adequate.

Doctors are still coming around to the whole idea of Vitamin D, with winter coming around, I’d think your current dosage is fine but of course, I’m not a doctor.

[quote]Chi-Towns-Finest wrote:
BulletproofTiger wrote:
Also, if you are unhappy with your doctor, by all means, get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd). Dr’s make mistakes all the time…

Also, it’s very important to note that the experts(1) say that: Long-term supplementation, without monitoring, may have serious consequences… (Note: Do not take more than 1,000 IU of vitamin D without testing and supervision by a knowledgeable healthcare practitioner.

They recommend 1,200-2,400 mg of calcium daily with magnesium at half that dose as well in conjunct to supplemental Vit D. They say that if your diet is high in protein, calcium lactate or carbonate is probably a better source of calcium. I’m not sure I understand this completely, but I guess I’ll take their word for it. They also say: Make the effort to split up your daily dose. Do not take all your calcium and magnesium once a day. A higher percentage of the calcium dose is absorbed if delivered in smaller, more frequent amounts.

It’s very important to realize that they recommend that Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time… Vitamin D will also enhance the uptake of toxic metals like lead, cadmium, aluminum and strontium if calcium, magnesium and phosphorus are not present in adequate amounts. Vitamin D supplementation should never be suggested unless calcium intake is sufficient or supplemented at the same time.

(1) westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html

Best,
BT

Consider something like this: www.sperti.com/home/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=82

Interesting post, I haven’t seen a doctor in the last several years and that info on vitamin D sparked my interest. I recently began supplementing with 4k IUs five weeks ago now that I am not getting very much sun – although, I have no idea what my calcium intake is at. I eat a lot of cottage cheese and peanutbutter; I imagine it’s average. Is it worth it to supp with calcium?
[/quote]

My instinct is to say yes, but I’m no expert, and I do not pretend to be one. I simply share the information if I find it to be credible. However, the recomendations I shared above are the recomendations that I truest.

But I’d say it’s impossible to nail down an answer without going to a doctor, and requesting a blood test. Everytone is different in the amount of calcium they absorb, but Vit D does increase calcium absorption, although the increased calcium uptake will turn to your bone supply if you don’t get enough from food/supplements.

I imagine if you use the recomendations above, you would PROBABLY be just fine. To use the recomendations above, of course, you have to have a fairly reasonable estimate of your Ca and Mg leves from your food and other supplements before you decide to just add a certain additional amount.

I hope that helps.

BT

Are we using ng/ml or nmol/L right now? In neither case do i think it is alarming, although 80ng/ml is a bit high. 80 nmol/L is just fine, and there is some evidence that you are even better set at a houndred.

Usually, a given dosage will give off a given rise in serum levels until you reach ‘high’ levels, where the relationsship bends off. It is not possible to overdose using sun.

I should start citing my references lol. This year is defiantly going to be the D year. Hopefully A lot of studies regarding vitamin D in the high intakes will be pop-in up soon. We know what it takes to prevent deficiency and insufficiency, but what are truly the benefits? Personally I’m on the high end of this spectrum and hope to see some concrete info soon enough. I love the D!! vitamin D that is you sicko’s.

[quote]Higgins wrote:
My doctor told me to keep it below 90, my levels came back 66.3 after six months of 4000 ius and then six months of 8000 ius. He said I was fine and should keep with that dosage as that should be adequate.

Doctors are still coming around to the whole idea of Vitamin D, with winter coming around, I’d think your current dosage is fine but of course, I’m not a doctor.[/quote]

One thing to point out is my level in at 80 on a scale of (32-100)? It doesn’t specify if its ng/dl.? From my understanding their are a few different tests out there. I am going to continue at 5kiu daily. I feel great and winter is coming. Cant remember last time I got sick. The part on calcium is interesting and honestly I have no idea what my intake is. Never really paid attention to it. Thanks for all who responded.

If the range is 32-100 it’s ng/ml. The Vitamin D Council recommends keeping your levels between 50-80 ng/ml, so your 80 is right at the top.

[quote]mikew55 wrote:
Higgins wrote:
My doctor told me to keep it below 90, my levels came back 66.3 after six months of 4000 ius and then six months of 8000 ius. He said I was fine and should keep with that dosage as that should be adequate.

Doctors are still coming around to the whole idea of Vitamin D, with winter coming around, I’d think your current dosage is fine but of course, I’m not a doctor.

One thing to point out is my level in at 80 on a scale of (32-100)? It doesn’t specify if its ng/dl.? From my understanding their are a few different tests out there. I am going to continue at 5kiu daily. I feel great and winter is coming. Cant remember last time I got sick. The part on calcium is interesting and honestly I have no idea what my intake is. Never really paid attention to it. Thanks for all who responded.[/quote]

Exactly, that’s what is important.

One thing to note after looking at BulletproofTiger’s source (Miracle of Vitamin D) is that it includes way at the bottom an update which includes:

" If you are using supplements of vitamin D (natural or synthetic) or are light skinned and have had significant sun exposure in tropical or subtropical areas and haven’t done so before, it is very important to test your blood levels of D.

Optimal values of 25(OH)D are 40-50 ng/ml
Acceptable values of 25(OH)D are 35-55 ng/ml
Levels above 55 ng/ml will be toxic for some individuals.

There is no good reason to maintain levels of D in this higher range and strong evidence showing potential harm."

http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnutrition/vitamindmiracle.html#updatefall02

Hello,

In the following video and article, toxicity is addressed :

They show evidences that Vitamin D levels below 200ng/ml is not toxic.

Also the video shows very interesting graphics, worth looking at.

Regards,
Guillaume.