Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: My Vitamin D Testing Results

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,148

    My Vitamin D Testing Results

    Shop Now
    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. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,148
    Also, the report was able to tell that I am taking supplements.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,511
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,148
    What would be considered ideal?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,511

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    247
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,833
    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

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    355
    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."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,148
    Quote 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?

  10. #10
    Shop Now
    >> 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •