Boots online 3for2+Half price Vit d back instock (Boots instore possible 50%+3for2)

Chris25

Possibly different as I don't think it was an online promotion but.....I've bought their equivalent of Perfectil before when it was marked at half price. I asked an assistant if they were still 342 and she didn't know but suggested I take them to the till and explain that I only wanted them if they were 342. They were, they had a long enough shelf life and I was very happy.
I got a frangrance voucher too and was able to use it against some reduced aftershave. Very pleased that day

Ted_Hutchinson

Well what my local Boots branch told me about downloading the online purchase detail showing the 50% + 3 for 2 offers enabling 6 pots of vitamin d to be bought for £5.96 doesn't work in Lincoln. I tried a couple of branches and neither were prepared to price match the online offer.

I'll try my local branch again tomorrow to see if they are willing to back up what they told me on Thursday but I think it's probably my local manager rather than company policy.

Edit I did manage to get my local Boots to honour what they said earlier in the week but although I managed to get the 6 pots for £5.96 it really wasn't worth the hassle as the manager wasn't there and the hanging around while they decided how to ring it through the till really didn't make it a time/cost effective purchase and I couldn't recommend it to others.

mo79

Hi Ted,

Just a small question I'm sure you'll be able to answer (you commented on a blog post I did in Aug).
Why is D3 better than D2? I know that D2 is a patented version, but that's about all I know.

I took 400IU D2 capsules for exactly a year and it raised my very low 10nmol/L by 11 to 21nmol/L (so a full 11 as you've reported earlier in this thread about 7-12, and referring to D3).
But would 400IU D3 double the value I achieved by D2, or is it that both up levels similarly but the body 'recognises' and works with D3 better?
My brother takes a combo of 2628IU of D1 and D2 (dry tablets) and reached 48nmol/L, so non-D3 can raise blood values and be effective. But I do fully agree that D3 must be better if it's what we naturally make.

I want to go on to D3 very shortly. But if there's a difference between how much IUs of D2 and D3 raise blood levels, I'd like to know. I exhibit no (known) symptoms of D insufficiency (my calcium is slightly high at 2.59 [2.15-2.55 normal) but 2 other members of my family are treated it by it. In fact I theorise that some cases of epilepsy (essentially recurrent seziures not found to have a clear cause) are to do with vitamin D, and there are documents online that support this. And my brother's seizures stopped, but he also had leg weakness which is what made them look at D and calcium (which was low in him).

Some anticonvulsants appear to be calcium channel blockers. Better to metabolise calcium properly than block it from straying elsewhere, maybe?
However, I'm not telling anyone to stop epilepsy medication. I just think it might be *one* cause, especially as D is rarely looked at in blood tests.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

Why is D3 better than D2? I know that D2 is a patented version, but that's about all I know.

See here The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement basically on the whole 1000iu of Vitamin D3 is equivalent to 3000iu of D2. Holick makes the same point in Vitamin D Deficiency Leaves Millions of Children and Adults at Risk For Numerous Diseases and Disorders

I took 400IU D2 capsules for exactly a year and it raised my very low 10nmol/L by 11 to 21nmol/L (so a full 11 as you've reported earlier in this thread about 7-12, and referring to D3).

yes but you are at the extreme end of the deficiency spectrum it is easier to raise status the lower you are, when you eventually get to 120nmol/l you will find each 400iu/d3/daily produces a lower increase.

this graph from Heaney shows the curve.Slide 33 ( 00:17:19 )
even without maximising the screen you can see that amounts under 1000iu a day hardly have any impact. If that link has errors try this one select Session 2: Vitamin D Physiology and then use the arrows by the slide preview to fast forward to slide 33 (unless you want to hear the whole talk which perhaps you should as slide 18 explains why you really need to make 80nmol/l your first goal.

A person living as we evolved would have a Natural levels around 50–70 ng/mL (125–175 nmol/L). For lowest cancer incidence 130nmol/l is regarded as optimal. As 400iu is a trivial amount that hardly makes any difference at all if you want to improve your health you need to take an effective amount that actually raised your status above the 80nmol/l threshold for calcium uptake. See the Heaney paper at one of the above links.

But would 400IU D3 double the value I achieved by D2, or is it that both up levels similarly but the body 'recognises' and works with D3 better?
My brother takes a combo of 2628IU of D1 and D2 (dry tablets) and reached 48nmol/L, so non-D3 can raise blood values and be effective. But I do fully agree that D3 must be better if it's what we naturally make.

well yes doctors still use D2 but when there is a proven better more effective, less potentially toxic (though that is quite irrelevant at the levels we are discussing here) more moneysaving alternative I simply cannot see why anyone uses the more expensive less effective versions.

I want to go on to D3 very shortly. But if there's a difference between how much IUs of D2 and D3 raise blood levels, I'd like to know.

The Holick paper sets out the differences in how much D3 raises compared with D2 but at your very low level you need to be thinking about Dr Joe's Vitamin D regimen you can get 50,000iu cholecalciferol from Bio-Tech D3-5

There certainly is a need for those on AED to have their bone mineral density and vitamin d status monitored.

mo79

Ah right, that makes sense. Being very low in D means that D1, D2 or D3 will give me the same initial raise but as I'm more near to sufficiency, D3 will be what keeps me maintained than the others, as well as more naturally and safely at higher levels in long term...I'm just typing out loud to myself.

I was aware about D3 being less toxic which is why it's worthy of discussion with my brother's doc. I was only tested because it seemed worthy to do and it piqued me.
I read about Dr. Cannell of vit D council USA downing a whole bottle of pure D3 capsules (about 40,000IU) and surprised an audience who thought he'd die haha. Just for precaution he stayed entirely out of the sun for a few days.

About 80nmol/L is what I planned to reach. Could you give me any insight as to why doctors say a max. range of 120nmol/L is the highest you should be and no more?

The Dr. Joe's article about leg weakness was spot on. My brother was having problems, not walking, but getting up from chairs (only in his early 20s), and eventually had 2 fits. I'm just happy that they at least identified D as a factor as he's been fine since.

I think the reason why not all those with calcium and vitamin D problems get fits is due to genes that regulate whether you get this warning signal. Recent news.

I think promotion of D is very valid. I think my father's high blood pressure (attributed to no known organ problems) is most likely D deficiency, and we're going to look at that. And in my case D is about armouring up from any possible related problems in the future. And who knows maybe it will make me feel better than I think I am now.

Thanks again.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

About 80nmol/L is what I planned to reach. Could you give me any insight as to why doctors say a max. range of 120nmol/L is the highest you should be and no more?

To be honest I think it one of those things they say to ensure they get published and appear not too far outside the current consensus of opinion. If we take as fact the consensus opinion of Vit d experts that 400iu raises status by on average 9nmol/l to get to 120 requires 120/9= 5200iu daily to achieve and if they said that they'd not only be saying the current TUL was way out of line they'd have to tell people to take more than the TUL to achieve optimal status. I think they want to raise the limits by stages so the public don't suss out the health professionals have been wrong about vitamin d for such a long time. If they started saying 150nmol/l (an entirely natural status enjoyed by those who wear little if any clothing and have daily access to sunlight) was the optimal level to aim for they'd have to accept that 7000iu/daily was necessary and that would put them 3 times over the current TUL. (10,000iu is actually still a safe upper limit.) but actually the benefits of extra vit d are hard to justify above 130nmol/l. Things like physical muscular performance start to go down once you pass 125nmol/L

. And who knows maybe it will make me feel better than I think I am now.

Well less pain Vitamin D deficiency linked to greater and
lower risk of cancerVitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk:makes it a moneysaving and possibly life saving choice.

mo79

Makes sense.

1 hospital doctor I know believes normal vit D values to be *anywhere* between 15-125nmol/L, another knows at least 50nmol/L+ is sufficiency but less than 100, and a GP knows not much at all about vit D.
In this instance, we'd be mad to not research about this ourselves.

I think American advice against vit D is possibly malicious with their strange healthcare system, whereas the NHS is more just misguided about this area. Probably because we just blindly ape mainstream US evidence.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

1 hospital doctor I know believes normal vit D values to be *anywhere* between 15-125nmol/L,

Well he is right, in the same way by 2025, if we carry on eating and drinking and not exercising at the current rate it will be NORMAL to be obese, in fact there will be more obese and pre-obese than a healthy weight. Simply because most people have insufficient status and are heading towards, heart disease osteoporosis, Type 1 and 2 diabetes Multiple sclerosis Rheumatoid arthritis Osteoarthritis Periodontal disease Increased susceptibility to infection Low birth weight infants Low seizure threshold Cancers: breast, prostate, colon, pancreas, ovary, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma Hypertension Myocardial infarction Stroke, CHF Wheezing in childhood Falls in the elderly and low Muscle strength in the elderly is not a reason for you to do the same. You don't have to follow the herd. You can think and act for yourself.

another knows at least 50nmol/L+ is sufficiency

well it may be sufficient if your career in the disease industry depends on a steady flow of patients to keep your departments cash flow, treatment targets, profitable. If you don't want to contribute to your local hospitals breast cancer treatments target you need to know that Calcium Levels May Be Crucial in Cancer Spread and serum calcium levels were inversely associated with breast cancer risk in a dose-response manner. We know how much vitamin d is needed to maximise calcium uptake and stop the body having to recycle it from bones?
I'm quite sure your doctor knows as well as you and I that this is optimised at 80nmol/L but he also knows that keeping the level down to 50 will increase the number of patients he has to treat and will boost the value of his shares in the pharmaceutical industry.

but less than 100,

well certainly one wouldn't want a situation where all the body's systems could operate fully without restriction from inadequate supply of vitamin d. Goodness me if that happened people wouldn't get ill at the current rate and what would the disease industry do then. We are a drug based economy and if people stop getting ill at the current rate the economy will collapse.

and a GP knows not much at all about vit D.

but you can't blame them they get their information from NHS services like the NLH Home > Primary Care Question Answering Service and if you look at the answers they provide for Vitamin d related questions it's clear they haven't read any of the research from the last ten years. It's just laughable.

In this instance, we'd be mad to not research about this ourselves.

While it's the case that D2 Ergocalciferol is being prescribed as the vitamin d of choice it's clear the health service is putting the best interests of the drug industry ahead of the best interests of it's patients.

I think American advice against vit D is possibly malicious with their strange healthcare system, whereas the NHS is more just misguided about this area. Probably because we just blindly ape mainstream US evidence.

The NHS are being quietly privatised and so it's not in any-one's long term interest to rock the boat, that's if they dared. If you've followed the careers of anyone who has acted as a whistle-blower in the NHS you'd know why no one speaks out of turn. Shipman or his like could be practicing still for all the differences in culture I've noticed in the NHS.

mo79

Thought I'd share some supplement links.

5000IU D3 x 120 for £21.80 (exc. £1.95 p&p)

or

400IU (think it's D3...) BOGOF, free p&p, £1.38 for 60 or £4.50 for 180.

Thanks again Ted. I'm hoping to use the knowledge gained over the last few months to debate with a hospital doctor soon, and I'll be sure to jump in with D3 soon after.
The public adoption of physiological level D3 treatment has the potential to smash the cholesterol theory (as cholesterol precursor being the material UVB uses to make D) and prove that arterial calcification due to poor calcium metabolism is the popular cause.

Here's some BBC News today.

aurora_borealis_2

I want some topical vitamin D3.

Any ideas please?