Vitamin D- I'm at a loss page

[naiadknight]

I've read through Mark's posts on it, tried to decipher Cilla's phototype stuff, read through several websites, and am still somewhat lost. There are 3 major questions bugging me:
1) Partly cloudy may help with Vit D creation; overcast, you're SOL; fully sunny, you're A- OK. For each of those 3 conditions, what would you recommend (in general; I'm English/ Norwegian white) supplementing, assuming I spend half an hour outside with my arms, face, and possibly calves exposed at high noon?
2) How plausible is it that by taking 4-6K IU oral D3 daily, I could reach toxicity levels?
3) Is there any way to determine how much D3 you've synthesized that day in order to optimize D3 taken orally?

[chia]

I just read an article by Shane Ellison, about Vitamin D, and taking supplements in synthetic form, although D3 is better than D2, he claims it's still not appropriate whatsover and risky. He recommends taking cod liver oil with NO D added..and food sources.. I used take large doses of D3 since where I am, there isn't much sun, but am going to switch to CLO.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane158.htm

please read the article and make an informed decision about vitamin d in capsule form.

hope I helped... :-)

[Stabby]

Partly cloudy isn't reliable for good synthesis, even for very pale people. Back in the day we would be outside all of the time and it wouldn't be a problem. is pretty hard to get to toxic levels no matter what you do. Our bodies naturally want to use about 4-6k IU a day so if we take that and don't get any sunlight that will be our maintenance dose. It is pretty difficult to know how much we can synthesize. The general consensus seems to mean anywhere between 10000 and 20000 for 20-30 minutes of full body exposure, but certain factors can detract from that like low serum cholesterol.

Just as a point of reference, I'm pretty damn pale and 3 months of 10000IU per day and all the sun exposure I could muster took me from 29 ng/ml to 37, whereas the optimal range is over 50 and toxicity is much higher than that so you can probably take supplements and get sun exposure for months before having to take a test. Testing is super important, but there isn't much danger so it doesn't have to be so frequent.

[Grol]

I just read an article by Shane Ellison, about Vitamin D, and taking supplements in synthetic form, although D3 is better than D2, he claims it's still not appropriate whatsover and risky.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane158.htm

That was a stunning read considering my contrarian senses have been in full spidey mode lately. Vitamin D does feel very much like a fad. It is not sunshine. Thanks for tuning me into Shane. I wish he supported his more controversial statements with the evidence he seems so sure of. Anyway, I went through his archives a little. He is worth reading.

[Stabby]

I like evidence and I hate the naturalist fallacy so I'm a little bit murderous right now *brandishes knife*

I don't think anybody should replace sunlight with vitamin d but the whole "synthetic, unnatural" bit doesn't work with vitamin d. Cholecalciferol is cholecalciferol and it is indistinguishable in pill form from the foods that he recommends. It is best to take the supplements with a lot of fat like butter or tallow.

[shadgal]

My reflexologist recommended 'Vit D Revolution' book by Soram Khalsa published 2009. I haven't read it so can't comment but pretty comprehensive on the subject.

[Paleo Man]

Leading long-time Vitamin-D researcher Michael Holick PhD MD has a new book, "The Vitamin D Solution" that provides enough useful info to warrant a look by a Primal enthusiast.

He maintains that you can bring Vitamin D levels into the lower reference range through supplementation, but can't do more than that, though you can ultimately achieve toxicity with enough supplementation. He suggests 2000 IU for supplementation for most folks, more for those with lots of body fat, as he argues that they need as much as 2X - 3X as much.

Holick says that sun exposure is needed to get levels beyond the lower reference range and into the healthy range, but not too much. He has charts of suggested daily exposure depending on location and latitude in the US. In many cases 10 minutes a day several days a week with a good part of the body exposed should be enough. He states that Vitamin D from sun lasts significantly longer in the body than Vitamin D from supplements. Also that there is no practical difference in supplementing with D3 vs D2. For some years he was a pariah among dermatologists for suggesting any sun exposure.

A lot of interesting studies cited on Vitamin D and cancer, immune function, cardiovascular function.

Recently heard a recorded radio program featuring Dr. Loren Cordain from his website where he discussed the effect of a substance in wheat that has the effect of inhibiting Vitamin D metabolism in humans. I checked on the medical reference involved and found that the study did indeed seem to show this. Another reason to go Paleo/Primal and avoid wheat and gluten grains like the plague.

[cillakat]

I've read through Mark's posts on it, tried to decipher Cilla's phototype stuff, read through several websites, and am still somewhat lost. There are 3 major questions bugging me:
1) Partly cloudy may help with Vit D creation; overcast, you're SOL; fully sunny, you're A- OK. For each of those 3 conditions, what would you recommend (in general; I'm English/ Norwegian white) supplementing, assuming I spend half an hour outside with my arms, face, and possibly calves exposed at high noon?
2) How plausible is it that by taking 4-6K IU oral D3 daily, I could reach toxicity levels?
3) Is there any way to determine how much D3 you've synthesized that day in order to optimize D3 taken orally?

To make it simple, here's what do:

1)some days I meticulously avoid the sun and take 1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight d3 per day
2)on some other days, I don't take any D3 and midday, go on in a bikini until the point just before a burn occurs (about 35 min per side right now....of course that'll continue to increase as I get darker). when I do this, i still protect my face, neck, chest, hands and forarms

your questions answered

#1 ignore the complicated weather stuff. assume that if it's cloudy/partly cloudy you're not getting much if any and simply don't attempt D that day. take the full amount in supplements (1000 IU per 25 lbs body weight).

#2 When I spent time outside as you describe - hands, face, neck and maybe chest (ie V-neck tshirts) and never any sunscreen, I had vitamin d levels in the mid 20s. it's typically assumed that it takes about 1000 IU to raise serum levels 10 ng/mL (of course weight plays in here as well but this is a good rule of thumb)

#3 You won't get toxic...but what will happen is that you'll keep taking the same amount in the winter, then b/c you're not getting as much sun, your levels will drop.

Really, we want pretty steady levels without significant droppage as it appears to affect immune function.

I am, there isn't much sun, but am going to switch to CLO.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Ellison/shane158.htm
please read the article and make an informed decision about vitamin d in capsule form.
hope I helped... :-)

I won't even waste my time crafting a response to that nonsense. It's ridiculous. While sun is better than supplements (ie offers more than just cholecalciferol) D3 supplements have been shown in *hundreds* of studies to be beneficial. The cholecalciferol itself is helpful reardless of it's source. The evidence is available for anyone who cares to look. the vitamindcouncil.org has links to all of the pubmed data and information on how to distill the good from the bad vitamin d science.

Please do whatever necessary to maintain your 25(OH)D levels in the middle of the reference range.

And on that note, why not just test your D levels? Your doc can do it or for about $65, you can do it on your own without your docs involvement.

[Staffie]

+1 for Dr. Holicks Vitamin D Solution. I just finished it today after seeing recommended by Dr. Eades. Well written easy read with lots studies and references to support his position. He has a web site for Q&As. http://www.drholicksdsolution.com/

[cillakat]

He maintains that you can bring Vitamin D levels into the lower reference range through supplementation, but can't do more than that

Interesting. Untrue. But interesting.

I meticulously avoided the sun for 5 years and one month. Most of that time I maintained my D levels between 50-65 ng/mL....65ng/mL being the middle of the reference range through supplementation. When it dropped, it was because I'd fallen off the supplementation wagon.

I'm wondering how one can bring levels into the lower reference range with supplemention and how one can get toxic with supplementation, yet cannot achieve the middle ground of 'optimal' with supplementation. It's simply illogical.


So far, the best resource I've found for vitamin D information is The Vitamin D Council. www.vitamindcouncil.org