Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

Ted_Hutchinson

This clinical review for Canadian doctors (remember most Canadians live near the USA border and are thus further south than the UK, enjoy 30% more hours sunlight, and drink vit d fortified milk) says Researchers have estimated that the oral dose of vitamin D3 to attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels >80 nmol/L is 2200 IU/d if baseline levels are 20 to 40 nmol/L, 1800 IU/d if levels are 40 to 60 nmol/L, and 1160 IU/d if levels are between 60 and 80 nmol/L

Those amounts are to raise to 80nmol/l. The level that maximises calcium uptake from diet. AND is associated with 72% less colon cancer.

The level associated with overall least cancer incidence is 137.5nmol/l and that is a further 50nmol/l raise needed and thus DOUBLE the above amounts would be required.

peat

If it is the case that the body uses 3000-5000IU each day, how can it be that the doses indicated in the statement below can raise the status at all? Surely one would need more than the 3000-5000IU - or am I being dense?

"Researchers have estimated that the oral dose of vitamin D3 to attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels >80 nmol/L is 2200 IU/d if baseline levels are 20 to 40 nmol/L, 1800 IU/d if levels are 40 to 60 nmol/L, and 1160 IU/d if levels are between 60 and 80 nmol/L"

Ted_Hutchinson

peat wrote: »

If it is the case that the body uses 3000-5000IU each day, how can it be that the doses indicated in the statement below can raise the status at all? Surely one would need more than the 3000-5000IU - or am I being dense?

"Researchers have estimated that the oral dose of vitamin D3 to attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels >80 nmol/L is 2200 IU/d if baseline levels are 20 to 40 nmol/L, 1800 IU/d if levels are 40 to 60 nmol/L, and 1160 IU/d if levels are between 60 and 80 nmol/L"

For most of human evolution we lived naked in the jungle much like these guys. Our bodies evolved to be rather profligate with Vitamin D3 as the supply from the sun through the skin was inexhaustible.

Modern lifestyles are totally different and most people wear clothes, sunscreen, sunblock drive cars rather than walk/cycle, spend lots of time near the air conditioning in summer and therefore what was an abundant resource is now a scarce resource but evolution takes hundreds of years for the fittest to survive and although the effects of vitamin D insufficiency result in higher cancer incidence this happens generally in later years and therefore, because it is past child bearing years will not affect evolutionary survival.

The diagrams showing [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Metabolism of vitamin D under conditions of low vitamin D supply show how the process works under low supply and the figure below shows the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]Figure 2B. Metabolism of vitamin D under conditions of adequate vitamin D supply.[/FONT][/FONT]

If you look at those diagrams you will see the tank at the top, represents the vitamin D you get from sunlight/food/supplements.

There will always be some Vit d3 there as most comes from sunlight and even though this isn't available for those living above latitude 42 from October to March we will have stacked away some in our fatty tissues during the summer and we will also get some from eating fish, eggs, fortified margarine maybe a little from our supplements/multivitamin/minerals.

So even though there is apparently little or no deliberate consumption of vitamin D UK white adults, on average have a winter status around 40nmol/l older people though are probably down to 23nmol/l.

So although we don't have sufficient for all the bodies systems to work as nature intended we do have sufficient to struggle on.

Given a more than adequate supply 4000iu/d is the amount our bodies will use daily.

If the body has less than it needs you will not die immediately, you simply suffer more pain, more inflammation, more colds/flu more cancer more heart disease and are less physically strong. People can and are kept alive in nursing homes with no access to sunlight and no effective levels of supplementation. They just live very restricted lives as very fragile vulnerable individuals.

Every single IU of vitamin D you obtain will improve the situation.

Every little helps.

But the lower your current status the MORE advantage your body will seek to obtain from any extra input.

25 mcg/d of vitamin D results in average 25(OH)D concentrations of
69 nmol/L,
while four times that amount 4000iu/d increases 25(OH)D concentrations by only another 27 nmol/L

The increment with each additional amount of vitamin D becomes progressively smaller as the amount of vitamin D your body has stored and converted to 25(OH)D level increases.

If you actually have cancer and are looking for advice on what would be an effective level of Vitamin D3 status to enhance the efficacy of your treatment (so you have the better prognosis those diagnosed/treated in the summer rather than winter enjoy) then this link has the details.

Ted_Hutchinson

Perhaps if you think of the analogy of charge source/s>>> feeding a battery which then allows>> pumps,>> lights>> security systems>> sound systems etc to function.

The percentage of systems that function at any one time is relative to the amount of power the battery is providing. When on half power only half the systems function. More power means more functionality, better security, more effective feedback mechanisms, better total control of all the various systems.

With vitamin D (the charger feeding the battery store) is sunlight, food, supplements.

The amount of power you put into the system to charge the battery enables some or all of the functions to operate as the designer intended. To get everything working demands 4000iu/d if you put in less than that then the functionality is compromised but the consequences may be in the long run rather than an immediate breakdown.

If you only have 50% of the ideal intake/chargers working then the battery never gets topped up sufficiently to make all the lights/security systems function as brightly as you would like.

So for one example of what happens if your vit d power source and store is under supplied see today's vitamin D news that shows how it's possible that low vitamin D status prevents/limits/restricts control of the inflammatory response.

Interleukin 6 is a measure of the bodies inflammatory response.

Those people with low vitamin D status show a poorer control of their inflammatory response to accident/injury. It is likely vitamin D deficiency explains the worse adverse outcomes in some of these older adults.

Badger_Lady

I was having a conversation with a friend about this recently...

She told me that you should always wear a sunblock moisturiser on your face, every day of every week throughout the year.

I argued that, particularly in winter, your face is the only uncovered skin available to absorb vitamin D from the sun. As a vegan, I have limited options for getting adequate amounts from my diet, and know that I rely heavily on driving around in my convertible etc.

But is there a sunblock / moisturiser that can protect your skin whilst also allowing you to absorb whatever it is that produces Vitamin D in your body?

mo79

Hi Ted,

Nice to see you still waving the D flag. I've been on higher D3 for about a month or two, and it hasn't hurt me. And if it isn't placebo effect I think I feel mentally more sharp for well into late at night, not turning off at about 6.

I wonder though, what you think of this news from Hollick. I think D3 is the way to go due to being what we make naturally and price, but it certainly works if you're on D2. It's shown to have worked okay enough on rickets and as part of osteoporosis treatment, and even in my brother he achieved higher levels the further higher doses went, that were equivalent to D3 expectation.

I'm going to continue with D3, but I think if people find it hard to find, even taking D2 is better than nothing due to it's easy availability. I think the main concern is advocating a higher dosage level more than form.

Ted_Hutchinson

Badger_Lady wrote: »

She told me that you should always wear a sunblock moisturiser on your face, every day of every week throughout the year

DCs metabolize sunlight-induced vitamin D3 to 'program' T cell attraction to the epidermal chemokine CCL27. explained here Science News Central

"Guardian of the genome" protein found to underlie skin tanning

Human cathelicidin antimicrobial peptide (CAMP) gene is a direct target of the vitamin D receptor and is strongly up-regulated in myeloid cells by 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3

The above are just a few of the recent papers that lead me to believe that SHORT regular Non burning full body sun exposures are more healthy than keeping the skin covered and ensuring OPTIMAL vitamin D3 status is maintained with EFFECTIVE strength D3 supplements. It isn't just because a few minutes in the sun when your shadow is shorter than your height will raise your vitamin D status. I like to think that my body will, after a few minutes in the sun have greater and more immediate access to the substance from which 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) is generated will better enable it to function as a natural antibiotic,

I argued that, particularly in winter, your face is the only uncovered skin available to absorb vitamin D from the sun. [/auote] I'm afraid that in winter the amount of UVB penetrating the upper atmosphere and reaching the earth is neglicable. That is why our vit d status drops so much. You would have to be driving in the Southern hemisphere or certainly below latitude 37 to be getting UVB/VIT D from sunlight.

But is there a sunblock / moisturiser that can protect your skin whilst also allowing you to absorb whatever it is that produces Vitamin D in your body?

I don't think that a sunscreen that only allowed the burning UVB to penetrate but prevented the tanning UVA (also associated with skin cancer) rays would be a good idea.

The simplest way to obtain the maximum amount of Vitamin D and protect your skin is to only have a short session but expose the maximum amount of skin you dare. The least tanned areas make the most vitamin D. So providing your skin never burns or even goes pink and you don't stay in the sun long enough for the newly made vitamin D to be turned into suprasterols. Short regular sessions when your shadow is shorter than your height(indicating the presence of UVB) is the best way IMO. But you have to time limit the sun exposure session to give your body time to absorb the vitamin D3 that has just been made near the surface of the skin. So 10 -20minutes depending on latitude/sun intensity as near to midday as possible then cover up for 30minutes would achieve maximum protection with Vitamin D while generating the least risk for your skin.
Higher serum vitamin D concentrations are associated with longer leukocyte telomere length in women together with other recent research links higher vitamin D status to longer life.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

I wonder though, what you think of this news from Hollick.

I suspect this work from Holick is to try to ingratiate himself with big pharma or he has come to the conclusion, if none of the vit d scientists have succeeded so far in persuading medics to prescribe D3 it would be better for them to use D2 (and be complicit in the rip off) than not have people's vitamin D insufficiency corrected at all.

Vitamin D2 rip-offs
lfcip brand of erogocalciferol (vitamin D), 30 capsules for $28.20.
Prescription ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) (Drisdol brand), 50 caps for $130.84.
Ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as Drisdol oral solution, 1 bottle $146.26.
Carlson's brand cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), 120 capsules $5.09.

shows the difference and the reason why big pharma don't want people getting well for nothing or next to nothing.

If you read all Dr Davis's entries for Vitamin D you will see in his experience people come to him with all the risk factors for heart disease who have had their vitamin D status raised with D2 but who appear unable to convert it to D3 and therefore although appearing to have a high vit d 2 score this isn't reflected in the reduction of risk factors for heart disease. Changing these people from D2 to D3 and the level of risk factors drops. Just one snippet from Dr Davis One woman I consulted on came into the office having been prescribed Drisdol capsules, 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician). Blood level of active 25-OH-vitamin D3: Zero.

And that again shows the vast amounts of D2 that are needed. 50,000 units every day for the past 18 months (by mistake by her physician) That was a bad mistake as theoretically that person should have been suffering from hypercalcemia.

Most people should be able to raise status in 8 weeks with JUST ONE X 50,000iu D3 each week then drop down to 5000iu daily.

One 50,000iu a week is the equivalent of 7000iu/daily.
peat earlier in the thread pointed out that taking MORE than your daily requirement is the fastest way to raise status.

I also note that NONE of the people in Holick's trial achieved levels above 30ng/ml and as you need your status to be ABOVE 30ng/ml in order to achieve the 72% reduction in colon cancer incidence and maximise your calcium uptake I don't see the point.

We need reliability and efficiency. The purpose is to raise D3 levels so why not use D3 to start with?

I can see logically (though I don't share their sentiments) those who never wear leather or take advantage of animals in any other way, may not want to use a product derived from the waste products of the wool industry (lanolin irradiated with UVB to produce D3) but I really cannot see any reason why the medical profession are so reluctant to use it, such that not one product appears at present to be listed as a stand alone supplement available on prescription for correcting Vitamin D deficiency at any strength.

PS I'm also concerned that Holick says “The maintenance of the serum 25(OH)D3 levels was most likely due to the release of vitamin D3 stored in the body fat since skin synthesis of vitamin D3 does not occur during the winter in Boston,” said Holick,
It seems to me that should people not have access to stores of Vitamin D3 in fatty tissue waiting to be released by supplemental D2 then using D2 will fail to achieve it's purpose. There must be lots of old people in nursing homes who haven't seen sunlight for donkeys years that simply won't have stores of D3 to draw out. It also implies there may be a threshold limit above which D2 will not raise 25(OH)D D3 readings.
Hollis shows in Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans he can measure D3 stores separately from 25(OH)D so perhaps people with low 25(OH)D and high D3 Cholecalciferol would find D2 useful to what extent it could raise status to 150nmol/l I doubt. I can't understand either why anyone would want to spend the money finding out. Be interesting to see the financing of that research project.

mo79

I wondered that as everywhere else I see Hollick's name tied with D3 :rotfl:

D2 (with calcium) certainly fully cured my brother of seizures and muscles weakness but I guess that's because he was so low prior to treatment that any benefit could be gleaned.

It's interesting that D2 still depends on D3 reserves as, if my ears didn't deceive me, my brother's doctor said that sunlight was needed to make the D2 work best (I guess in his case, particularly)... Catch 22?

PS: I was just experimenting with 2-4000IU and now want to try Bio-Tech's stuff; I see they have online ordering now too. At 21nmol/L (late September reading, before 2 months of 2-4k D3) what's a good approach? One 50k a week for 8 weeks, then 5000IU a day? I know Dr. Joe's Regimen would be safe but I'm just a bit mentally chicken.

melancholly

can i just recommend that anyone thinking of taking supplements, particularly in high doses, speaks to their GP first - most people with a healthy diet and lifestyle (which actually probably isn't many of us at this time of year!) do not need supplements for most vitamins EDIT: AND BY THIS I INCLUDE VITAMIN D. with any fat soluble supplement there is a particular long term risk of liver damage when taken in high doses.

i'm not saying that vitamin D is necessarily bad for you, but it has side effects that can include raised levels of calcium (which may be good if you at risk of osteoporosis but bad if you're not, as it can effect heart rhythms). it is always concerning to see only one side of the picture being painted (even if for many people the benefits can outweigh the risks, the risks must be highlighted clearly).

a health professional who can see someone's personal medical history and give specific advice should always be recommended and i am increasingly frustrated that on these threads, it never is!