Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

Ted_Hutchinson

[quote=

melancholly

;7638973]can i just recommend that anyone thinking of taking supplements, particularly in high doses, speaks to their GP first [/quote]But the average UK adult currently has a vitamin D status only half that required for calcium absorption.
Their GP will not test for 25(OH)D nor does he have available as form of Vitamin D3 supplement available to prescribe a stand alone supplement to current vitamin D insufficiency.

- 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.

This thread is NOT about other vitamins. It is not helpful for you to take the thread off topic with other issues that relate to other vitamins/minerals. I agree with you entirely that most vitamins and minerals are best sourced from diet but only 10% of our daily Vitamin D requirement can be met from food sources so that debate is for another thread.

with any fat soluble supplement there is a particular long term risk of liver damage when taken in high doses

When will you stop scaremongering and understand the amount of Vitamin d your body naturally acquires from short exposure to sunshine is the amount that your body actually needs. The trials that have been done using far higher strengths of D3 the information from the links I provide all support the fact that more harm is done by not having optimal vitamin D status.
Please spend some time listening to the evidence before you post information you do not understand.
TheVieth session is Session 4: Vitamin D and Population Health
Slide 76 ( 01:00:31 )

it has side effects that can include raised levels of calcium

It is irresponsible scaremongering to make claims that you cannot substantiate. Why don't you ever read the research I provide links to?

The first and last serum calcium values for the 31 participants in the higher-dosage groups are shown in Figure 4. No value rose above the upper limit of normal, and, as is visually evident, treatment did not increase the dispersion of serum calcium values.

Now please study current DOH advice Sunshine Vitamnessential for pregnant women - Cases of vitamin D deficiency and Rickets are on the rise -

Then explain to me how any GP can go against the official advice from the DOH?

The DOH say 400iu /d/D3 is all that is necessary.
But on the other side of the pond we find Canadian doctors are told.
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,
Canadian mothers are told by the Canadian Paediatric Association to take 2000iu/daily
and in the USA we see 2000iu is the minimum Black women need to raise status to 80nmol/l and many need 4000iu/d
Dose response to vitamin D supplementation among postmenopausal ...

This shows some doctors are waking up to reality.

Vitamin D in pregnancy: an old problem still to be solved?
I know it is difficult for health professionals to grasp the idea that by abiding by official policy they are doing more harm than good but until you spend as much time as I do researching this matter you will continue to do so.

The evidence that raising vitamin D status above 80nmol/l reduces colon cancer incidence by 72% is overwhelming. EVERYONE (unless they have just returned from a 3 week tropical holiday or regularly 3xweekly use a uivbsunbed, or live below lat37) reading this post needs to pay attention and raise their vitamin D intake.

To end any speculation about your need to raise your current vitamin D status why not ask your doctor for a 25(OH)D test.
If he isn't prepared to arrange one on the NHS then ask him to download a referral form from The Doctors Laboratory

The test will only cost you £40 and stop you worrying about self medication.
As I have had mine done (on the NHS for free) I do know what I am talking about and am totally confident that taking 5000iu/daily /d3 AND getting full body sun exposure whenever possible (I didn't use D3 the days I thought it was going to be sunny/warm/still enough for sunbathing) will not raise status above 150nmol/l as the graphs I have provided predict.

If it stops the sabotaging of my threads it will be a small price to pay. But do remember 400iu only raises status 9nmol/l and face&hands sun exposure will not raise status above 70nmol/l at best in summer, That is below the safe level for colon cancer incidence and you need to be above 130nmol/l for breast/prostate/lung and the other sun sensitive cancers. If anyone doesn't believe me put your money where your mouth is and go invest £40. It may save your life.

Do take note that I back up my claims melancholly cannot back up her claim that most people do not need vitamin D supplements this time of year.
The evidence is that 98% of the UK population are vitamin D insufficient at this time of the year.

melancholly

you know ted, i did start to read the links you go to, but with about 20 in any one post, i just gave up!

being someone involved in science i know that no single study is ever enough to give 'proof'. i go to summaries and the best i can go to is the NIH. they are a huge organisation and this websites sums up all the same stuff that you go on about but with the necessary caveats.
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

i am not the irresponsible scaremonger - i am simply trying to say that your advice, whilst relevant and well intended, should not be a substitute for seeing a doctor. you are not trained and you are irresponsible in portraying yourself as an expert when you do not understand biochemistry, endocrinology, developmental biology, neuroscience or indeed any medical science.

i gave a reasoned post, acknowledging that vitamin D could be very beneficial for some people, but as always, unless someone gets out the pompoms and gives you 100% support you react with personal comments and yet more links to studies that you and most of the users of MSE cannot understand. as we tell first year undergraduate students who continually use quotes rather than summarising themselves, you clearly do not grasp what is important or you would not have to use other people's words so much.

the way you react to any caveats put forward by people - with a 'you're too stupid to understand or you're part of a medical conspiracy' response - is, apart from quite immature, tedius. fundmentally, the way you make your point undermines it.

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

I am not the irresponsible scaremonger

The information you post is not up to date with the latest scientific findings. When the vitamin D experts are using up to 280000iu/weekly without being able to induce hypercalcemia it is irresponsible for you to suggest this is a possibility at the dose levels needed to raise status to optimal.

not be a substitute for seeing a doctor

but where in the UK is there at doctor who accepts and practices evidence based medicine?

Where is there a doctor in the UK who routinely test 25(OH)D without being asked?

Where is there a UK doctor prescribing Cholecalciferol as a stand alone supplement to correct vitamin d insufficiency?

When you can answer those questions and provide actual evidence based information regarding the product identifier to show the readers doctor has available a suitable product for correcting Vitamin D insufficiency then your advice may be worth reading.

The evidence is that UK doctors are NOT aware of how to test for vitamin D insufficiency. Otherwise the average winter vitamin D status would not be below 40nmol/l.
There is no evidence that UK doctors are able to prescribe cholecalciferol at effective strengths or as single supplement the safest form.

Until you can back up your claim that a local GP can sort the vit d insufficiency situation your advice is just plain wrong.

melancholly

my suggestion: see a GP before self medicating

Ted' response: above

i rest my case

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

my suggestion: see a GP before self medicating

Ted' response: above

i rest my case

Where is your evidence your GP has a suitable product available to correct vitamin D3 insufficiency?
Name that product and state the NHS product identifier.
If you can't put up shut up.
I produce evidence to support all my posts.
It is absolutely reasonable to expect you to do the same.

mo79

Hi Ted,

Just to want ask, that at 21nmol/L at a late September '07 measurement (after taking 400IU D2 for one year after my level was shown to be 10nmol/L, and then 2000IU D3 for last 2 months) is it fine to do the 50,000IU once per week for 2 months and then 5000IU per day? I'd mentally prefer not to do Dr. Joe's Regimen, just out of being a bit chicken even though I know it'd be fine. :rolleyes:

Melancholly, I can see your concerns about this. But I don't think general dosages under 10,000 are harmful (it just sounds scary because of the many digits) from what I've gleaned between personal mainstream medical and up-to-date information. I think a vitamin D test will probably surprise a lot of people as about 90% of the UK are at least insufficient if not rock bottom.

melancholly

indeed Ted, all GPs are rubbish, the NHS supidly waits for conclusive evidence about long term product safety before giving recommendations for new treatments which flies in the face of what is best for public health, and one man with the power of google does know more than anyone with years of training and experience or in fact, groups of people dedicated to public health.

how have i been so foolish for so long

*off to edit ignore list*

misspointy

Just a quick question as I havent read through all the Vit D threads. I take a vitamin D supplement from Boots...is this the same as vitamin D3 which you talk about?
I started to take it this winter as around November time I start to feel like crap and it lasts till about March time...Ive often wondered if I suffer from SAD???
Is the Boots supplement enough to have any good affect?

Thanks

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

Just to want ask, that at 21nmol/L at a late September '07 measurement (after taking 400IU D2 for one year after my level was shown to be 10nmol/L, and then 2000IU D3 for last 2 months) is it fine to do the 50,000IU once per week for 2 months and then 5000IU per day? I'd mentally prefer not to do Dr. Joe's Regimen, just out of being a bit chicken even though I know it'd be fine. :rolleyes:

Bear in mind Dr Joe's Regime apparently does not cause problems and that is at latitude 37 Redwood City, CA 50,000 IU daily until 80-120 nmol/L blood levels are reached then 1,000 to 7,000 IU daily

Those numbers worry me though and I could not possibly support anyone using 50,000iu/daily even with the doctor doing regular 25(OH)D every week. I provide links to Dr Joe's site so people can see how modest the levels to be found in the information my links provide really is.

Your extra 2000 represents the same as 5 x 400iu tablets and The Urgent Need to Recommend an Intake of Vitamin D that is Effective
shows us each 400iu raises status by around 9nmol/l so it is reasonable to predict your level has been raised by 45nmol/l so 21nmol/L in September should be now 66nmol/l as unless you have been to a suntan parlour or spent Xmas in the Canaries you will not have gained any from UVB.
Now it depends on whether you want to have optimal or simply sufficient to reduce your colon cancer incidence
If you want to raise to 125 nmol/l or 130nmol/l that means 130-66= 64 nmol/l required and that means 7x400=2800iu extra daily in addition to the 2000iu/d you are already taking. =4800
So taking 5000iu daily from now until the end of March should have you up to 130 in 60-90 days.

Using 1 x 50,000iu each WEEK for 8 weeks will speed the job but isn't necessary as you are already on the way. If you wanted to obtain 50,000iu weekly using 5000iu capsules it would easy to take one 5000 one day and 2x5000 the next through the week so you would total 10 x 5000iu over the week and would only be at the proposed safe upper limit every other day and it would only be needed for 5-6 weeks as a catch up device. The graph I've linked to from Heaneys research shows that 5000iu/daily should be achieve what you want.

I am not rubbishing all doctors. I owe my life to one so I know they aren't all bad. But we must recognise the position they are in. They cannot, because OFFICIALLY 2000iu is the SAFE UPPER LIMIT tell people to take more than that amount.

But from the link about to the urgent need paper we can all work out 2000iu is 5 x 400 and that will raise 45nmol/l so if mo79 sticks at a total of 2000iu/daily his status will stick where it is until the summer and if in the mean time a colon cancer cell starts it will have insufficient calcitriol to work it's antiproliferative effects. This isn't medical advice it is basic simple arithmetic.

It therefore is safer IMO for mo79 to take the extra now and raise status to protect himself than go to his doctor only be told 2000iu is the safe upper limit and it is inadvisable to take more. That is all the official advice will permit his doctor to say.

His GP would only be permitted to give advice within the current medical consensus as it is known UK but in Canada or the USA doctors are now openly saying more vitamin D is required and more is safe than the UK consensus believes. I just want UK people to be given as good advice as is available in Canada.

I believe, as no one has anything to gain from suggesting a level of supplementing that costs 5p daily (or 20pWeekly for those who go for the 50,000iu option) so there is no incentive to pressure doctors to update their Vit d information in the UK

But if you don't believe me get your own test done for £40
The Doctors Laboratory

Look at the D3 number and I will bet if you haven't been taking effective strength vit d or using a suntan bed or are just back from the tropics, that your level will be average for the UK (this includes people taking 400iu/d) and that is around 40nmol/L

Therefore to raise to 130nmol/l to enjoy the lowest cancer incidence status you will need a further 90nmol/l and that represents 10 x 400iu tablets daily which is double any UK doctor will advise.

That is why it is daft to ask your GP if you know the information he is basing his opinion on has been superseded by recent research.

.

Ted_Hutchinson

misspointy wrote: »

I take a vitamin D supplement from Boots...is this the same as vitamin D3 which you talk about?

Yes if it is the 12.5mcg 500iu cholecalciferol that was on 3 for 2 recently.

I started to take it this winter as around November time I start to feel like crap and it lasts till about March time...Ive often wondered if I suffer from SAD???

People who suffer from SAD need to take an EFFECTIVE amount of vitamin D3
500iu/daily can only raise status by 9- 15nmol/l
If you are average uk white adult you are now around 40nmol/l
Taking one daily will mean you get to 49-55nmol/l
Well under optimal.
Vieth research shows Randomized comparison of the effects of the vitamin D3 adequate intake versus 100 mcg (4000 IU) per day on biochemical responses and the wellbeing of patients
8 x 500=4000iu
I take the equivalent of 10 x 500iu/daily. But I expect I am fatter than you and fat soaks up some of the vit d.

Is the Boots supplement enough to have any good affect?

Every little helps but if you spend £4000 daily and only earn £500 you will not accrue any savings but will get deeper in debt. You can't be in debt vitamin D wise.
Your body just cannot do everything it was designed to do.
That is why you feel crap in winter.

Here is a You Tube beginners guide to Vitamin D

Here is a longer presentation for medical students. It is basic information every doctor should know but presented in a simple manner so everyone who isn't a doctor should still be able to understand it.