High Dose Vitamin D

[DragonBits]

It's direct from this study, and the units are correct:

Thanks for finding it! Now I have to find an anti-vitamin D supplement!

 

[Cataceous]

Further reference:
Why Are So Many People Popping Vitamin D?
Have We Been Wrong About the Benefits of Vitamin D?
Vitamin D: Don't Overdo a Good Thing

 

[DragonBits]

Further reference:
Why Are So Many People Popping Vitamin D?
Have We Been Wrong About the Benefits of Vitamin D?
Vitamin D: Don't Overdo a Good Thing

Now I am more curious about what my level actually is.

As I stated, once I reached 56 ng/dl I stopped supplementing on a regular basis.

I do note my doctor's position was I should get about 50 ng/dl, though I have never taken advice about something like that without checking more than one source.

If I need to drop to 30-40 ng/dl, I probably won't need to supplement at all until fall. Given that summer is coming soon.

It is interesting that you can absorb 10,000-25000 IU from full body sun exposure.

I also note that there aren't actually multiple references, there are one or two studies (reference) and many, many stories all based on the same reference.

But my world is out of control, white men shouldn't exercise too much and now Vit D is on the outs.

I haven't decided as of yet, but likely I will reduce my Vit d levels.

 

[Cataceous]

...
I also note that there aren't actually multiple references, there are one or two studies (reference) and many, many stories all based on the same reference.
...

There are about a dozen underlying references and virtually no overlap:

One study with 5,108 participants, published this month in JAMA Cardiology, found that vitamin D did not prevent heart attacks.
...
Another study, published at the end of March, included 2,303 healthy postmenopausal women randomly assigned to take vitamin D and calcium supplements or a placebo. The supplements did not protect the women against cancer, the researchers concluded.
...
Other, more ambitious studies are underway, including a five-year randomized study of almost 26,000 healthy men and women directed by Dr. Manson and Julie Buring, who hope to answer once and for all whether taking vitamin D can prevent cancer, heart disease and strokes.

One 2015 randomised study of 409 elderly people in Finland suggested that vitamin D failed to offer any benefits compared to placebo or exercise – and that fracture rates were, in fact, slightly higher.
...
One study involving over 2,000 elderly Australians, which was largely ignored at the time, and the one just published found that patients given high doses of vitamin D or those on lower doses that increased vitamin D blood levels within the optimal range (as defined by bone specialists) had a 20-30% increased rate of fractures and falls compared to those on low doses or who failed to reach “optimal blood levels”.

For example, it was recently reported in JAMA Internal Medicine (JAMA) that women taking either high or low doses of vitamin D experienced no benefit with regards to bone density and muscle strength. Last month, a study in the British Journal of Nutrition showed no benefit from vitamin D on markers of inflammation, while yet another, on obese teens, published in Pediatric Obesity found no benefit on arterial function and an increase in triglyceride and total cholesterol levels.

What's worse, a study in London published in June in the journal Thoraxshowed that people given high-dose vitamin D every two months (averaging 2,000 IU per day) for a year were actually more likely to develop upper respiratory infections than those given a low dose (400 IU per day) -- and their infections lasted longer. Other studies have shown that people with the highest levels of vitamin D in their blood (over about 40 ng/mL -- typically due to excess supplement use) are more likely to develop heart disease, cancer, and die during studies when compared to people with moderate levels (National Acadamies Press 2010; JCEM2012).

 

[DragonBits]

There are about a dozen underlying references and virtually no overlap:

You have supplied copious reasons why you picked blood levels of 30-40 ng/mL for your Vitamin D levels.

I never saw any benefit of having higher levels for myself and I have in the past seen studies where it doesn't help with frailty, though I do see lots of recommendations for higher levels

Life Extension does concur that 30 ng/ml should be a minimum, but they recommend over 50 ng/ml. While I thought it might not be all that much of a benefit, I also didn't think it was a negative either. Your studies suggest it is a negative.

LEF posted a bunch of references at the end of that article.

Though their article was from 2010 and the studies you have posted are more recent.

================================

Based on recent and conclusive published studies, Life Extension®’s new minimum target level for optimal disease prevention is over 50 ng/mL of 25-hydroxyvitamin D

Startling Findings About Vitamin D - page 1 | Life Extension

I say your lower target of 30-40 seems well supported. good job in explaining it. Thanks

 

[DragonBits]

@Cataceous

FWIW, I tested Vit d levels 9/2018 and 7/2019.

9/2018 56.7
7/2019 90.6 (30-100 range)

IMO 90 is way too high, so I cut out all Vit D supplements and will retest next year Jan. I expect my Vit D level to be below 50, but who knows, that is why I am testing.

I expect I will maintain levels between 30-50 in the future.

There are significant dangers to hypervitaminosis of vitamin d, most significant is vascular calcification.

 

[Guided_by_Voices]

The best logic I have seen on vitamin D is that if one is going to supplement as opposed to getting it from sunlight, then magnesium, K2, and Vitamin A should also be supplemented. None of the supplementation studies did that, AFAIK. Therefore, they can mostly go straight into the trash. The VITAL study did show a benefit to Vitamin D supplementation (although in the data, not in the abstract), although it also included fish oil. Even with sunlight, most people are deficient in K2, Magnesium and possibly A. Also, regarding observational studies, blood levels of D maybe a marker for sun exposure in some cases, which has a lot of other benefits beyond levels of Vitamin D.

 

[DragonBits]

The best logic I have seen on vitamin D is that if one is going to supplement as opposed to getting it from sunlight, then magnesium, K2, and Vitamin A should also be supplemented. None of the supplementation studies did that, AFAIK. Therefore, they can mostly go straight into the trash. The VITAL study did show a benefit to Vitamin D supplementation (although in the data, not in the abstract), although it also included fish oil. Even with sunlight, most people are deficient in K2, Magnesium and possibly A. Also, regarding observational studies, blood levels of D maybe a marker for sun exposure in some cases, which has a lot of other benefits beyond levels of Vitamin D.

I have supplemented magnesium for a long time, it is one of the very few supplements I know has an effect. (On muscle cramps). Boron is another one, though boron only had an effect on FT and E2, which was while I was NOT on TRT. While on TRT, not sure how important it is.

I also supplement Vitamin K, using koncentrated k. Don't supplement Vitamin A.

My vitamin D levels have been as low as 25.1 (no supplements) to 90.6, can't say it made any difference. But it's possible there was a negative effect, hard to really determine that.

But in general I have had more negative health outcomes than positive from using too high a dose of supplements, so I would be careful. Thus, 30-50 for vit D sounds good to me. No doubt in the Chicago area in winter I get no vitamin D from sunlight.

I have never seen anyone actually measure their K2 levels, it's not easy. You can indirectly determine K2 levels by using Genova Diagnostics to test for an ELISA for Inactive desphospho-uncarboxylated MGP or dp-ucMGP.) No idea of how much that costs or how to get it done.

 

[Alive]

My doctor prescribed me 50000IU weekly dose of D2 and it raised my levels withing a couple of months.