My Vitamin D Testing Results
My results were:
It looks like based on this report that the range is 30-100, so I guess I am good, right?
Also, the report was able to tell that I am taking supplements.
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.
What would be considered ideal?
That I don't know, might have to wait for Katherine to answer
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.
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.
Best to all,
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."
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?
Originally Posted by 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?
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.