Are high doses of Vitamin D Healthy? See this article page

[john_e_turner_ii]

I heard this interview on NPR this past week: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/29/131668...d-on-vitamin-d

I think it's worth a look. I never took a lot of Vitamin D until I got on MDA, and heard from so many that it was necessary to increase my intake. I felt fine before that however. I currently taking about 8000 units daily, but think I will reduce it to about 1000-2000 until more research is done.

I remember when Vitamin E was the big thing about 10 years ago, and it turns out that taking too much actually shortens lifespan based on studies.

It seems we all can get on a kick about certain supplements from time to time.

[mikebike]

John, you should have your level checked. I take 10k units a day and my last level was 63, right where it should be. Before I started (at my Endocronogist suggestion) I was very low, in the teens and had pretty bad depression during the winter.

Also, take this study with a grain of salt. There's plenty of exsisting threads where this study has been discussed extensively.

[barryman9000]

The Institute of Medicine panel rejects those claims [cancer, heart disease, etc]. The only benefit, it says, is to maintain healthy bones.

Healthy bones? I'll take it.

Interesting stuff though. I'll keep taking my 6,000iu/day but keep an eye out for more studies.

The Institute of Medicine experts worry that taking vitamin D in large doses over a long period might harm some people. The evidence is inconclusive

[Dragonfly]

There's a great reply to this report here.

Think about it--we create 10,000-50,000 IUs of D3 just from sunbathing (bikini exposure, Southern states, summertime)--it makes sense to me that we are designed to expect larger amounts than the article recommends. Read the Vitamin D thread here for more anecdotal evidence of the value of making sure your vitamin D levels are sufficient per the Vitamin D Council recommendations

[john_e_turner_ii]

John, you should have your level checked. I take 10k units a day and my last level was 63, right where it should be. Before I started (at my Endocronogist suggestion) I was very low, in the teens and had pretty bad depression during the winter.

Also, take this study with a grain of salt. There's plenty of exsisting threads where this study has been discussed extensively.

I did get tested, and I was at adequate levels, although I was taking Vitamin D supplement of about 1000 per day at the time. However, based on what a lot of people in here were recommending, I still increased my dosage to 8000 per day. So, I think if my test results show I am fine at 1000, then I will probably stick at that.

[ProtoAlex]

"Adequate" is normally a term used to describe the bare minimum amount needed to not induce major system malfunctions. It's almost always very far from optimal. Considering that we now know that vit D is a factor in the proper transcription of over 200 different genes and that it binds at over 2000 sites along our genome including many areas related to a number of different autoimmune diseases (ScienceDaily), I think you can properly discount the advice of any paper which states vit D is only for bone health as being severely outdated.

[Dragonfly]

I did get tested, and I was at adequate levels, although I was taking Vitamin D supplement of about 1000 per day at the time. However, based on what a lot of people in here were recommending, I still increased my dosage to 8000 per day. So, I think if my test results show I am fine at 1000, then I will probably stick at that.

Out of curiosity, what were your levels? Was the test done by LabCorp or Quest?

[john_e_turner_ii]

Out of curiosity, what were your levels? Was the test done by LabCorp or Quest?

My results were 42, and it was LabCorp.

[john_e_turner_ii]

My reason for posting this is for everyone to think about why they are taking how much they are taking. Just as I pointed out, Vitamin E was the miracle supplement in the early 90's, and it turned out to be really negative in high doses. I am on suggesting that high doses of Vitamin D is unhealthy. But for myself, I am going to keep my dosage on the lower end for now until further studies are completed.

[Dragonfly]

My results were 42, and it was LabCorp.

OK, so I imagine you know already that this would not be considered adequate by the Vitamin D Council folks. Their recommended range is 50-80. Dr. Mercola noted that he personally felt best when his levels were at 79--the upper end of the range. I am waiting for my test results to see where where I am at after supplementing 8,000 IUs/day for a year.

But for myself, I am going to keep my dosage on the lower end for now until further studies are completed.

Your choice, of course! I think you may be waiting quite awhile for further studies. There is little financial incentive by pharmaceutical companies to do testing and I doubt that the government will act very quickly. I am going by how I feel, backed up by my test results.