Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

My Vitamin D Testing Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • My Vitamin D Testing Results

    My results were:

    Total: 42

    It looks like based on this report that the range is 30-100, so I guess I am good, right?

  • #2
    Also, the report was able to tell that I am taking supplements.

    Comment


    • #3
      You are basically a 12 out of 70, to me that would seem to be the low end of normal and would mean not particularly 'good', not bad but could use soem improvement.
      Meghan

      My MDA journal

      Primal Ponderings- my blog- finally added some food pron :P

      And best of all my Body Fat Makeover!!

      Comment


      • #4
        What would be considered ideal?

        Comment


        • #5
          That I don't know, might have to wait for Katherine to answer
          Meghan

          My MDA journal

          Primal Ponderings- my blog- finally added some food pron :P

          And best of all my Body Fat Makeover!!

          Comment


          • #6
            I hear 60-70 being thrown around as the optimal range. My doc tested my D last year and it was 40, he told me to get it up ASAP.

            Comment


            • #7
              Here is the OFFICIAL authority, from Cillikat's file:
              ❍ 32 ng/mL (80 nmol/L) is the bottom of the current reference range in the US.
              This level leaves us in a state of substrate starvation which isn't good. And if
              Quest** did your test - see note above - you need to divide by 1.3.

              ❍ 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) the minimum recommended by currently by
              any major D researcher (see grassrootshealth.net).

              ❍ 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) is the point at which we have sufficient substrate
              for managing calcium levels and have additional to use for other necessary
              physiological functions - including gene expression (300+ other functions in our bodies)

              ❍ 60-70 ng/mL (150-175 nmol/L) is the 'middle of the current reference range
              for the major US labs. European and canadian labs are behind the times on this
              one and are still generally using a much lower range that accepts truly
              deficient levels as normal.

              ❍ 80 ng/mL (200 nmol/L) is the higher end of normal but still within the physiological
              range of what we could achieve from significant midday sun exposure.

              ❍ 100 ng/mL (250 nmol/L) a level still obtainable by extensive sun exposure -
              think lifeguards in South Florida. That this levels can be achieved only through
              sun exposure implies that this is still a physiologically appropriate level.

              ❍ 200 ng/mL (500 nmol/L) is the lowest blood level of 25(OH)D at which there
              has been documented D toxicity. There has never been a case reported at levels
              lower than that.
              https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dztmcwq_204jqp4wpc3

              Best to all,
              Grizz

              Comment


              • #8
                Saw my dermatologist yesterday. She said every single patient she's ever talked to about Vitamin D found they were deficient (> 30ng/ml). And pointed out that not long ago, 30ng/ml was considered normal - which I took to mean "fine."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Grizz View Post
                  Here is the OFFICIAL authority, from Cillikat's file:
                  ❍ 32 ng/mL (80 nmol/L) is the bottom of the current reference range in the US.
                  This level leaves us in a state of substrate starvation which isn't good. And if
                  Quest** did your test - see note above - you need to divide by 1.3.

                  ❍ 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) the minimum recommended by currently by
                  any major D researcher (see grassrootshealth.net).

                  ❍ 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L) is the point at which we have sufficient substrate
                  for managing calcium levels and have additional to use for other necessary
                  physiological functions - including gene expression (300+ other functions in our bodies)

                  ❍ 60-70 ng/mL (150-175 nmol/L) is the 'middle of the current reference range
                  for the major US labs. European and canadian labs are behind the times on this
                  one and are still generally using a much lower range that accepts truly
                  deficient levels as normal.

                  ❍ 80 ng/mL (200 nmol/L) is the higher end of normal but still within the physiological
                  range of what we could achieve from significant midday sun exposure.

                  ❍ 100 ng/mL (250 nmol/L) a level still obtainable by extensive sun exposure -
                  think lifeguards in South Florida. That this levels can be achieved only through
                  sun exposure implies that this is still a physiologically appropriate level.

                  ❍ 200 ng/mL (500 nmol/L) is the lowest blood level of 25(OH)D at which there
                  has been documented D toxicity. There has never been a case reported at levels
                  lower than that.
                  https://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dztmcwq_204jqp4wpc3

                  Best to all,
                  Grizz
                  Ok, so I am supplementing with D3 at about 4600 units per day, and my level is at 42. I guess I could double my dosage and that would put me at probably 70-80?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    >> Ok, so I am supplementing with D3 at about 4600 units per day, and my level is at 42. I guess I could double my dosage and that would put me at probably 70-80?

                    The relationship isn't necessarily that predictable, but you will do well to double your dose for at least a few months, and then get yourself tested again. I'll be interested to hear the results!

                    I had suspected that I was very deficient last year, so I took 10,000 IU per day for a year, and then got tested; my level was 52 ng/ml. Not bad, but I'm aiming for the 70-80 range. Now I'm taking 15,000 IU/day, and am eager to know if this is a good sustainable daily dose, or possibly too much.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I am certain to get some FLAK about this, and I am not advocating it. Take it or leave it as you see fit.

                      My friend who is suffering Diabetes-2 was told by his doctor to take 20,000 IU daily to be certain he gets enough, and that 20,000 IU is no where near enough to overdose. He has been on this dose for over 2 years and has not had any problems. We are talking here of 5,000 IU D3 Gellcaps. He takes 4 each day.

                      So how much is overdose? There is obviously a LOT of controversy. Here are some studies that suggest 80,000 or more IU of supplements does create an overdose.
                      http://www.easy-immune-health.com/Ov...Vitamin-D.html

                      I recently upped my dosage to 10,000 IU daily (from 5,000) based on this info. Will take the Vitamin-D blood test in a few months.

                      Best to all,
                      Grizz
                      Last edited by Grizz; 10-08-2010, 03:54 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I just upped mine to about 8600, so I will see how my test goes next time. The thing is, summer just ended, but it's still sunny and warm here in Texas. I imagine my numbers will go down some as winter comes on with less daylight, and less of me going outside due to the cold. So, I don't see a problem increasing my dosage.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by john_e_turner_ii View Post
                          I just upped mine to about 8600, so I will see how my test goes next time. The thing is, summer just ended, but it's still sunny and warm here in Texas. I imagine my numbers will go down some as winter comes on with less daylight, and less of me going outside due to the cold. So, I don't see a problem increasing my dosage.
                          Why not try the "1000IU/25lbs body weight" suggested by Cilla.

                          I doubt that you weight 115 or 215lbs (which is what your prior and current supplementation would suggest).


                          Edit:
                          Do you know how he knew you were supplementing? I find that interesting because it suggests that the naturally formed VitD and the supplemented are not the same. I wonder if they have the same bioefficiency.
                          Last edited by lcme; 10-08-2010, 08:37 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by lcme View Post
                            Why not try the "1000IU/25lbs body weight" suggested by Cilla.

                            I doubt that you weight 115 or 215lbs (which is what your prior and current supplementation would suggest).


                            Edit:
                            Do you know how he knew you were supplementing? I find that interesting because it suggests that the naturally formed VitD and the supplemented are not the same. I wonder if they have the same bioefficiency.
                            I weigh about 160, so taking 8000 or so would probably be right.

                            As far as how the test knew I was supplementing, I am not sure. I guess it can tell based on the type of Vitamin D?

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X