Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

mo79

200IU is very small, negligible and only found in average supermarket multivitamins. I can confirm from personal experience that it's not how much you take but how much you need to take according to your levels.

A London endocrinologist I know (just stating UK guidelines - or at least the guidelines of 2 hospitals - here for now Ted) states you need to be above 50nmol/L to be sufficient. So if you're less than 10nmol/L like my brother was, 200IU a day would have nothing at all if they didn't measure his blood volume. Resultantly they would've put him on anticonvulsants and something else to benefit his muscles. So I think tossing 200IU without knowing what blood level has been reached is pointless. Said endocrinologist was actually amazed vitamin D helped him because there hasn't been that much experience with it. True this isn't a cancer/heart case, but this was a young man who was mooted to probably be merely epileptic but they had to look further because of his unusual leg weakness too.

Also, the max. UK guidelines for vitamin D are 120nmol/L. Ted is only preaching 10nmol/L more maximum. So with a bit of compromise what he's saying isn't dangerous. Vitamin D either does something or it does nothing; worth a try as it's cheap in D3 form.

I don't know about Wellcome, but I wrote to the MRC and it's up to them (no government interference allowed) to decide whether submitted proposals by professionals are deserving of research and funds. It's possible no one here has yet submitted such proposals or it's not yet come 'round to priority for some reason or another, but may soon.

I also don't blame GPs, because it's true you have to go by the book, and it's saluted in the majority of cases. Also, on my GPs computer when a prescription is given, you're simply given 'vitamin D', but the pharmacies dispense vitamin D2 because it's what's usually found in combo D+calcium pills. My GP doesn't know much about vitamin D and not ashamed to admit it.

It's worth checking if someone's low and correcting them regardless - either by supplements or significant holidays in the sun.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

(just stating UK guidelines - or at least the guidelines of 2 hospitals - here for now Ted) states you need to be above 50nmol/L to be sufficient.

But why 50nmol/l?
Have they just thought of a number?
Where is the evidence to support 50nmo/L as sufficient.
Surely if we are going to suggest a minimal level it should be the level that enables everyone to absorb the optimal amount of calcium from their diet. Vitamin D is the key to unlocking the door to allow calcium to leave the intestine and enter the bloodstream. Vitamin D also works in the kidneys to help resorb calcium that otherwise would be excreted. Apart from people with African origins (these people have a more efficient calcium economy and can maintain bone mineral density at a slightly lower level than whites) we know from several studies for whites the best level for calcium homeostasis is >80nmol/L so everyone with a level below that is experiencing somewhat below optimal calcium absorption Whether 80 nmol/L is itself high enough is unclear.Bischoff in an analysis of the NHANES-III data, reports rising bone mineral density (BMD) values as a function of serum 25OHD up to levels well above 100 nmol/L.

Also, the max. UK guidelines for vitamin D are 120nmol/L.

Again for goodness sake what is the justification for this number?
Surely the upper guideline number should be the level that people who regularly spend all day exposed to sunlight naturally achieve. If that were chosen then 150-200 would be a somewhere near the mark.
Circulating Vitamin D3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Humans: shows us that

Figure 1
Circulating 25(OH)D as a Function of Vitamin D3 Status in Subjects from a Sun-Rich Environment

When people have ample sunshine (or at least those people in Hawaii who still go on the beach in what they call winter there) they tend to stick at around 50-60ng/ml or125-150nmol/L
If we look at those who took the supplements

Figure 2 Circulating 25(OH)D as a Function of Vitamin D3 Status in supplemented Subjects

Bear in mind these lactating mothers where taking 6,400 IU vitamin D3/day those who took the tablets (this is a factor that has to be taken into account the larger the study the more non compliance there will be ) again maintained a level above 100nmol/l and 130 -150 looks like a natural level that given the resources most bodies stabilise around. Isn't it just common sense that the level that allows optimal vitamin D status in mothers breast milk the kind of level we evolved to be comfortable with?

mo79

I'd say when they mean more than 50, they mean 60 at least because it's half of 120. 120 was probably the highest value they observed as someone being okay in England (probably a fair sun fan/holidayer) and didn't look further.

Regardless, as you say, people shouldn't fear reaching 80-120/130 as it's 'allowed'. I'm sure more is better, but until mainstream views catch up with the latest, it's better the many wary at least heed this if nothing else. Which means laughing at anything under a few thousand IU as treatment.

By the way, it makes full sense that blacks have a better calcium economy because South Asian and white women (and men) experience osteoporosis much more.

Ted_Hutchinson

mo79 wrote: »

I'd say when they mean more than 50, they mean 60 at least because it's half of 120. 120 was probably the highest value they observed as someone being okay in England (probably a fair sun fan/holidayer) and didn't look further.

Well I hear what you say. But I'm keeping my status over 130nmol/l. You never know what will happen tomorrow and if your very unlucky you may end up in hospital, where we know for certain the doctors will not check your 25(OH)D nor will they provide effective strength D3 to maintain a safe level. The half life of 25(OH)D is 2 -3 weeks so you really do need to have sufficient in reserve to last a short stay indoors without dropping under 100nmol/l.
The further along the flat part of the curve the longer you have before you slide down the steep descent. If you are only barely over 100nmol/l your body will not have built reserves and in 20 -30days without effective strength supplement you will be insufficient again. The whole point of my repeatedly linking to the Hollis paper is to try to get people to understand what is happening when you give people abundant supplies of D3 (either by sun/mouth) your 25(OH)D doesn't go up in a straight line graph, it stabilises and what increases is the body's store of D3. The greater the store the greater the safety margin, providing of course you stay within the NATURALLY attained and maintained levels.

mo79

Just to add, in case it got lost in emotionless text, I wasn't really challenging your views at all rather than showing that if people don't believe modern research to at least trust existing upper limits to a degree.

It's likely I've been D deficient for a long time, and at a healthy 28yrs old, I'm probably better off than most by addressing this issue at all. I know I'll need to maintain a certain high dosage almost permanently because of naturally tanned skin and hardly ever getting much significant sun (never sun bathe). At least while I remain a UK resident!

One of the most important benefits for me is heart disease. Many of the men, and some women, on my mother's side suffered heart problems around their early to mid 50s, so that's the benefit, regarding history, I'm most hopeful of.

There's actually a method to my wanting to achieve around 100nmol/L or a bit more for the time being: just to play ball with the mainstream by saying to an endo "look, I've achieved this as and it hasn't done me any harm. I'm going to try a little higher now. Follow what I do." And hopefully I'll sow a seed...
And I'll be looking to forward to seeing if it affects my cholesterol levels, as that to me is the jackpot association. Effect without resorting to £8.99 value pm statins.

Keep up the good work Ted. I'm ending my involvement on this thread as I'm done for now.

Ted_Hutchinson

More sun is healthy, despite skin cancer risk, study says In Norway, Moan estimated that doubling the sun exposure for the general population would also double the number of annual skin cancer deaths to about 300 but that 3,000 fewer people would die from other cancers

Vitamin D deficiency linked to heart, stroke risk
Those with low vitamin D levels had about a 60 percent higher risk of a cardiovascular event like heart attack, heart failure or stroke compared to those with higher levels, even with well-known cardiovascular risk factors such as diabetes, high cholesterol and high blood pressure taken into account.
The risk for heart attack, heart failure or stroke was double in people with both high blood pressure, also known as hypertension, and vitamin D deficiency, the researchers said.
Vitamin D Deficiency: A Risk Factor for Heart Disease? (anyone can register for medscape articles you don't have to be a health professional)
I do not understand the logic that says we have to wait for the final proof before suggesting people take effective strength supplements. Firstly, the cost of effective supplementation is very cheap. £13 will provide ample for one adult for a whole year. There is ample evidence that raising vitamin D status reduces cancer incidence so for this reason alone it worth having optimal status. Doubling current UK adult status would reduce colon cancer incidence by 72%. as colon cancer is particularly sensitive to calcium status and that doesn't optimise until the 80nmol/l threshold is passed.

We know that no adverse events occur under 10,000iu/daily so there should be no reluctance at all in suggesting amount up to 5000iu half the proposed safe upper limit. (even that has a HUGE safety margin as 40,000iu/daily is required for many months before vitamin D status is raised to over 350nmol/l the level above which hypercalcemia occurs.)

If we were betting people and the cost of a particular punt was insignificant, the dangers involved were absolutely nill, but the prize (cancer/heart disease reduction to mention just 2 of many) was absolutely wonderful, who would think twice about taking such a gamble.

No one is suggesting anyone takes any more than the body would normally make in just a few minutes (15-20mins in the UK), full body, sun exposure when shadow is shorter than height. We can't get the sun until April in the UK so supplements to equate with the vitamin d3 your skin would make given one brief sun exposure is all that is necessary.

Ted_Hutchinson

Vitamin D insufficiency linked to heart disease another newspaper article based on the new Vit d heart disease paper.


Low Vitamin D Plus Hypertension May Worsen Cardiovascular Risks (I found the audio clip for this ran double speed on IE but worked on Firefox) bear in mind when he is talking about testing you can get it done for £40

When reading this article you have to be aware that Framlingham Mass, where the research was done, is latitude 42 the same as ROME.
They have more days of natural UVB exposure than we do.
They have more hours sunshine annually than the UK.
They drink Vit d fortified milk.
They have vit d fortified cereals available (as do people in Canada).
Even in Canada/USA it is misleading to suggest/imply people can get a significant amount of their daily Vit D requirement from diet. 90-95% must come from sun exposure and if this isn't available from supplements or UVB lamps.
A portion of wild salmon can provide 400iu but who eats 10 portions of fish daily?
A glass of FORTIFIED milk (UK milk is not fortified)MAY provide 100iu but who drinks 40 glasses of milk daily?

While it is true the Canadian Cancer Society is suggesting EVERYONE takes 1000iu/daily Canadian Family Physicians are being told 2200iu/d is probably needed just to reach 80nmol/l

PS I have now found the full text of this paper here be quick and save it to disk as before when I have found this full text versions downloadable and put links to them they have later been blocked.

mo79

Okay, I'm back for a second, lol.

I've noticed D news almost daily, and don't think it's just because I've actively been looking for it.

It's kind of Pascal's Wager isn't it. It's either going to benefit you or do nothing at all (with the nothing being prevention you can't really thank)

I will probably need to take same dose pills in the Summer too as I very rarely get much sun. Probably only an hour a week - and just on face/arms, walking along and not basking. My brother for example had his 2 seziures and D deficiency diagnosis in a June/July! And I guess this is largely applicable to anyone who either has older skin or is not white.

I fully intend to take 5k daily, just after I complete my personal investigation vs. a Dr.

PS: Does D sufficiency reduce parathyroid hormone to minimal? My PTH isn't high but it isn't the lowest either.

melancholly

mo79 wrote: »

PS: Does D sufficiency reduce parathyroid hormone to minimal? My PTH isn't high but it isn't the lowest either.

if this isn't asking for medical advice, then i don't know what else could count as it.....

mo79

Kinda. You have to remember I've been prescribed vitamin D anyway so I've been told to take it, I just want to know if PTH reduction is an effect - like looking at an info sheet.