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

Thread: My Vitamin D Testing Results page

  1. #1
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,079

    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
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,079
    Also, the report was able to tell that I am taking supplements.

  3. #3
    NutMeg's Avatar
    NutMeg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,513
    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
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,079
    What would be considered ideal?

  5. #5
    NutMeg's Avatar
    NutMeg is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    1,513

  6. #6
    animalcule's Avatar
    animalcule is offline Senior Member
    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
    Grizz's Avatar
    Grizz is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,879
    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
    barryman9000's Avatar
    barryman9000 is offline Senior Member
    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
    john_e_turner_ii's Avatar
    john_e_turner_ii is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Flower Mound, Texas
    Posts
    2,079
    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
    healthseekerKate's Avatar
    healthseekerKate is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    440
    >> 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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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