Vitamin D form sunlihgt - seems Ted is right.

djohn2002uk

mo79 wrote: »

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.

Mo, I'd like to know that too, as my wife has an underactive thyroid for which she is prescribed 1 or 2 50mcg tablets on alternate days and I wouldn't want that to be adversely affected.

mo79

I'm not sure, but I think though in the same place, thyroid and parathyroid are different. Parathyroid seems to increase calcium blood by taking it from the bones. So I assume if adequate vit D maintains unleeched calcium in the blood, the body reduces PTH because it's not needed to steal it from your skeleton.

I can see melancholly's concern with some stuff here, but I personally see this as solar nutrition advice. There's nothing really shocking about telling someone to get adequate (not over) sun exposure or take stuff that is widely available without prescription.

Ted_Hutchinson

melancholly wrote: »

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

It is asking for information to enable a fuller understanding of the medical advice the health professionals have previously offered.
A link to a site such as Introduction to Parathyroid Glands is simply information and not advice.
The same as this link Control of Parathyroid Hormone Secretion

The only way we can become informed health consumers and understand how health services are providing out of date inaccurate and dangerously misguided information, is when we become properly informed.

I can see why certain doctors are unhappy about their patients understanding how the treatment they are receiving may be fundamentally flawed. The history of medicine is one of a reluctance to accept new understanding and change practice in the light of new knowledge. If we simply wait for doctors to understand the latest Vitamin D3 research it will be 20yrs down the line before anything changes. For people with Vitamin D insufficiency (roughly 90% of the UK population at the moment) it is simply unacceptable that people here are allowed to impede the rate of consumer education.

This a site for consumers and informed consumers make better decisions.

Those who want to be informed may care to look at The image here
Those who prefer their patients not to know the truth will hit the report post button and try to get the thread deleted. Remember as you look at the declining PTH numbers compared to rising 25(OH)D status that MOST UK adults are now below 40nmol/l and will stay at that level until April and only start picking up status in mid April (depending on how sunny April is, fingers crossed here)
Most UK adults never get higher than 70nmol/l and then only for one month

Ted_Hutchinson

Anyone listen to Radio 4 PM tonight?

Go into the programme 14 minutes.

PS If you clicked the link you would find out. The sunshine/cancer research from message 57 was being discussed. Click the 15>> button then go back <1minute and you will hear the scientist discussing his work then the UK Cancer Research guy trying to pour cold water on it.
I'm afraid a visit to Cancer Research UK : SunSmart will show him to be somewhat disingenuous about actually encouraging people to get vitamin D from sunlight.
Would they tell people to stay out of the sun at the very time UVB is available if the intention was to raise Vitamin D status?
Hasn't anyone told them that when your shadow is longer than you are tall there is no useful UVB available to make vitamin D?

mo79

Cheers for that, it makes perfect sense as my PTH roughly correlates to my D level. And I found out that PTH in our early ancestors was off or barely on. All this stuff's kind of exciting too!

What's on R4 tonight Ted? I'm out for the evening anyway. Take care.

PS: djohn, yep thyroid is not to be confused with parathyroid. All's good.

djohn2002uk

Ted, taking 5000iu daily, how long would it take to get your status up to the required level? Please don't say "how long is a piece of string"....:rotfl:

Ted_Hutchinson

djohn2002uk wrote: »

Ted, taking 5000iu daily, how long would it take to get your status up to the required level? Please don't say "how long is a piece of string"....:rotfl:

As you are no doubt aware there is an element here reading this thread with the intention of removing from the site any information that shows health professionals in a poor light. I can therefore only ask you to click on message 36 and then click on the graph to make it full screen.

It takes them 40 days to raise from 75nmol/l to 125nmol/l at 5000iu/daily. This study was conducted in the winter in Omaha where 100iu is available from each glass of milk and more in fortified cereals.

Be aware they are starting from a point far ahead of the average UK adult.
The average UK 45 yr old adult is around 40nmol/l now. If you are older then your skin is thinner, has less cholesterol and therefore makes less vitamin D3,possibly as much as 65% less, (as would anyone taking statins, their purpose is to reduce cholesterol and thereby reduce vitamin d acquiring potential) and possibly you spent less time displaying your body near naked in the sunshine and are consequently even lower than 40nmol/l.

Remember the proposed safe upper limit is 10,000iu/daily. No adverse events have ever occured under 350nmol/l and it takes 40,000iu daily for over 150 days consecutively to reach anywhere near that level. It is therefore safer to assume your status is now below 40nmol/l than above.

Your body will be more desperate for vitamin D at <40nmol/l than those starting from 75nmol/l and therefore the rise from 40 -75nmol/l will be faster than from 75 to 110. So using just 5000iu daily will probably take more than 65 days to raise from below 40nmol/l to above 100nmol/l IMO. This is why the standard way to raise status is to spend 8 weeks taking ONE ONLY 50,000iu/D3 capsule each week for 8 weeks only. By taking significantly more daily than the body uses (50000iu/week=7000/daily body uses 4000iu/daily) the catch up situation is faster.

If you don't want to buy the separate 50,000iu capsules then your maths should enable you to work out that 10 x 5000 = 50000iu and taking one 5000 day one 2x 5000iu day2 and so on alternately would average 10x 5000 weekly and be slightly better than taking one 50,000iu each week (daily dosing is more effective than weekly) though not quite so money-saving as it would cost 50p a week instead of just 20p.

Penny-Pincher!!

18 months ago my PTH levels were dangerously high and calcium levels very low as was my Vit D. I now have a Vit D (Ergocalciferol 300,000iu/ml)injection every 8 weeks as well as taking daily amounts. My PTH levels are still high and calcium low but they have improved slightly. Several bone scans have proved bone density is very poor and maybe this wouldnt of been so poor if I had thought to take it sooner

PP
xx

Ted_Hutchinson

Penny-Pincher!! wrote: »

18 months ago my PTH levels were dangerously high and calcium levels very low as was my Vit D. I now have a Vit D (Ergocalciferol 300,000iu/ml)injection every 8 weeks as well as taking daily amounts.

why for goodness sake would anyone want to take Ergocalciferol.

My PTH levels are still high and calcium low but they have improved slightly. Several bone scans have proved bone density is very poor and maybe this wouldn't of been so poor if I had thought to take it sooner

Maybe if the total hostility my posts have been subjected to over the years had been treated differently perhaps more constructively, you would not have remained in this position for so long.

Cholecalciferol is 3X as effective as Ergocaciferol. Cholecaciferol cost 20p per 50,000iu. The jabs you are receiving will cost considerably more and are less effective. We really should be suing these incompetent negligent out of date idiots. 300000/56=5357iu/daily ergocalciferol is only a third as effective as cholecalciferol thus the same as 1785 IU/daily cholecaciferol. remember each 400iu/daily/d3 raise 9nmol.l so 1785 will do just over 36nmol/l so it's not surprising you will not raise your status very fast. Depending on whether and how much you are taking D2 or D3 orally will affect the situation but I doubt you will ever raise your status sufficiently taking any amount of D2 some people just do not metabolise it and simply cannot convert it to D3.

It is very likely that the 300,000iu Ergocalciferol has no effect on your D3 status whatsoever.
Vitamin D2 rip-offs .
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.
But the pharmacy and drug manufacturer collected $1413 for her 18-month course. Cost for a 4000 unit per day dose of D3/cholecalciferol: $45--and it would have actually worked.

Penny-Pincher!!

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

why for goodness sake would anyone want to take Ergocalciferol.
Maybe if the total hostility my posts have been subjected to over the years had been treated differently perhaps more constructively, you would not have remained in this position for so long.

It is very likely that the 300,000iu Ergocalciferol has no effect on your D3 status whatsoever.

Hi Ted

I have never been hostile in your posts and always find your posts very informative, however-you are not a doctor and not all illnesses that cause low Vit D levels can be treated as easily as you claim. I am under some of the top consultants/proffessors in the UK, so am pretty sure they know what they are doing.

I wish my illnesses could have been prevented by a Vitamin D tablet, but believe me, they couldnt have!

I hope your alright Ted, you do sound a little grumpy at the moment. Dont let other posters wind you up.

PP
xx