6 ms·

Was your supplement dosage enough though? In the order of 10000 IU per day? The problem with vitamin D was that up until about a year ago, official recommendat

Was your supplement dosage enough though? In the order of 10000 IU per day? The problem with vitamin D was that up until about a year ago, official recommendations in many countries were mistakenly low (500-1000 IUs), which as it turned out, was not enough for many people. It was even hard to find proper pills that has high enough dosages, because when you got to your local farmacist which was going by the official recommendations, all they had were 200-500 IU pills, because they were not expecting that anyone would need more. So as an average citizen who does not do their research properly, if they just went into a farmacist and took the first Vitamin D supplement they saw, the chances were that they were getting one which had basically no effect. When the dosage is right, many people experience positive effects and dormant Vitamin D levels really do go up. The sun is not required.

rapsey 8y ago
It was 6000+
- Ensorceled 8y ago
  Just another anecdote, a friend of mine with Lyme Disease has serious problems absorbing vitamin D (and other nutrients) via food, his doctor has him on 10K per day.
  - gbrown 8y ago
    If I recall correctly, such a treatment is not yet evidence based, though clinical trials are ongoing.
- MikeCapone 8y ago
  Was it gelcaps or dry tablets? Vitamin D is fat-soluble so much better absorbed in gelcap format (and taken with a meal).
  - lukeschlather 8y ago
    Personally, I've been taking 5000 IUs/day and recently started stepping that closer to 10,000 IUs. I use the liquid drops which are in oil, and I always try to take them with some sort of meal. The liquid is a lot cheaper and seems like the ideal way to absorb it to me. This is in cloudy wintertime Seattle. In sunny times it may be completely unnecessary.
wolfi1 8y ago
I would be very careful with liposoluble vitamines, they can aggregate in your fat tissue and cause toxic effects
dhimes 8y ago
Do you have a source for the 10000 IU per day guideline? If that's D3, that's 25 times to "recommended" amount, well above what is considered safe for long-term use. Now, I realize that our understanding of these things are in a state of (often violent) flux, but I would like to know who's recommended such a high amount. The problem with Vitamin D is that it is fat-soluble, not water-soluble, so your body doesn't expel the excess very quickly and it builds up. Too much can be harmful, particularly to your bones and kidneys[1]. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
- e9 8y ago
  Mark Hyman made post on it(he is Hillary Clinton’s doctor): https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/24/vitamin-d-why-you-are-probably-not-getting-enough/ https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/24/vitamin-d-why-you-are-pr...
  - dhimes 8y ago
    That's a good read. He says you can go high (10000 IU/day) for 6-10 months, under doctor's supervision, then cut back down 2000-4000/day. This also makes sense from the perspective that it's fat-soluble, so you should be able to "fill up the tank" as he puts it.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  > well above what is considered safe for long-term use. The Mayo clinic article says: > Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. So 10,000, while it's well above the "recommended" dosage, is nowhere near the toxic level. Although when I was looking around the toxic level was 20,000, still, I've seen no guidance regarding Vitamin D that suggests 10,000 IUs/day can be toxic. (Especially if your BMI is over 25, and you're not getting much sunlight.)
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    Mayo clinic article concerns excessive supplementation, isolated on vitamin D, specifically. A hypothesis exists that increasing vitamin K consumption in proportion to the vitamin D, and restricting calcium intake, would eliminate the main symptoms of excessive vitamin D supplementation. Nonhuman animal experimentation confirms, but it has not been tested in humans (likely due to the obvious ethical concerns). Vitamin D, vitamin K, and calcium are all related. I have seen guidance specifically for vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), indicating that adverse symptoms may be observed at lower levels of supplementation than for vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), but it was quite some time ago, and I don't know if the claim was confirmed or refuted scientifically.
Amygaz 8y ago
The problem with Vit D3 supplement is that you don’t absorb most of it. It is well known, than the bioavailability of the supplements is not the same and that even the molecule itself is not the same as the one your organism produces. Also, the science is starting to question the supplementation. It’s too early to tell, but one hypothesis is that it is a biomarker at the end of a pathway and not at the beginning of it, i.e. as a consequence of a proper diet and sunlight, and not a cause of a healthy system.
- neuronic 8y ago
  So the vitamin D might be there due to a healthy system instead of the system being healthy due to vitamin D. An analogy would be the analysis of car exhaust, finding certain levels of CO2, and trying to fix cars with "bad exhaust" by throwing more CO2 into the intake (except maybe this would even have a negative effect by hindering combustion).
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    > An analogy would be the analysis of car exhaust, finding certain levels of CO2, and trying to fix cars with "bad exhaust" by throwing more CO2 into the intake (except maybe this would even have a negative effect by hindering combustion). This is an hilarious (and fitting) analogy for nutrition sciences.
    - hopler 8y ago
      There was a classic TV ad by an oil company that said that CO2 is great because it is plant food. It's still an argument used by folks who oppose CO2 controls.
- newscracker 8y ago
  > It is well known, than the bioavailability of the supplements is not the same and that even the molecule itself is not the same as the one your organism produces. Reputed and trustworthy citations from scientific sources required, please.
C1sc0cat 8y ago
I didn't have any problems getting 20k IU in the UK had to get it prescribed
opportune 8y ago
taking vitamin D at such a high dose can give you health problems such as kidney stones. When I took 5000 IUs for a period of time I started getting painful kidneys just from the urinary effects. Now I try to get my vitamin D through more normal sources by eating lots of UV-exposed mushrooms, salmon, and sardines. Plus side is these foods are all quite healthy even without the vitamin D
drited 8y ago
That is interesting. I had read that 500 was ineffective but did not know that 10000 was effective. If you've done the research what is the most reliable source you found ?

rapsey 8y ago

It was 6000+

Ensorceled 8y ago
Just another anecdote, a friend of mine with Lyme Disease has serious problems absorbing vitamin D (and other nutrients) via food, his doctor has him on 10K per day.
- gbrown 8y ago
  If I recall correctly, such a treatment is not yet evidence based, though clinical trials are ongoing.
MikeCapone 8y ago
Was it gelcaps or dry tablets? Vitamin D is fat-soluble so much better absorbed in gelcap format (and taken with a meal).
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  Personally, I've been taking 5000 IUs/day and recently started stepping that closer to 10,000 IUs. I use the liquid drops which are in oil, and I always try to take them with some sort of meal. The liquid is a lot cheaper and seems like the ideal way to absorb it to me. This is in cloudy wintertime Seattle. In sunny times it may be completely unnecessary.

wolfi1 8y ago

I would be very careful with liposoluble vitamines, they can aggregate in your fat tissue and cause toxic effects

dhimes 8y ago

Do you have a source for the 10000 IU per day guideline? If that's D3, that's 25 times to "recommended" amount, well above what is considered safe for long-term use. Now, I realize that our understanding of these things are in a state of (often violent) flux, but I would like to know who's recommended such a high amount. The problem with Vitamin D is that it is fat-soluble, not water-soluble, so your body doesn't expel the excess very quickly and it builds up. Too much can be harmful, particularly to your bones and kidneys[1]. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/vitamin-d-toxicity/faq-20058108 https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...

e9 8y ago
Mark Hyman made post on it(he is Hillary Clinton’s doctor): https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/24/vitamin-d-why-you-are-probably-not-getting-enough/ https://drhyman.com/blog/2010/08/24/vitamin-d-why-you-are-pr...
- dhimes 8y ago
  That's a good read. He says you can go high (10000 IU/day) for 6-10 months, under doctor's supervision, then cut back down 2000-4000/day. This also makes sense from the perspective that it's fat-soluble, so you should be able to "fill up the tank" as he puts it.
lukeschlather 8y ago
> well above what is considered safe for long-term use. The Mayo clinic article says: > Taking 60,000 international units (IU) a day of vitamin D for several months has been shown to cause toxicity. So 10,000, while it's well above the "recommended" dosage, is nowhere near the toxic level. Although when I was looking around the toxic level was 20,000, still, I've seen no guidance regarding Vitamin D that suggests 10,000 IUs/day can be toxic. (Especially if your BMI is over 25, and you're not getting much sunlight.)
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Mayo clinic article concerns excessive supplementation, isolated on vitamin D, specifically. A hypothesis exists that increasing vitamin K consumption in proportion to the vitamin D, and restricting calcium intake, would eliminate the main symptoms of excessive vitamin D supplementation. Nonhuman animal experimentation confirms, but it has not been tested in humans (likely due to the obvious ethical concerns). Vitamin D, vitamin K, and calcium are all related. I have seen guidance specifically for vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), indicating that adverse symptoms may be observed at lower levels of supplementation than for vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), but it was quite some time ago, and I don't know if the claim was confirmed or refuted scientifically.

Amygaz 8y ago

The problem with Vit D3 supplement is that you don’t absorb most of it. It is well known, than the bioavailability of the supplements is not the same and that even the molecule itself is not the same as the one your organism produces. Also, the science is starting to question the supplementation. It’s too early to tell, but one hypothesis is that it is a biomarker at the end of a pathway and not at the beginning of it, i.e. as a consequence of a proper diet and sunlight, and not a cause of a healthy system.

neuronic 8y ago
So the vitamin D might be there due to a healthy system instead of the system being healthy due to vitamin D. An analogy would be the analysis of car exhaust, finding certain levels of CO2, and trying to fix cars with "bad exhaust" by throwing more CO2 into the intake (except maybe this would even have a negative effect by hindering combustion).
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > An analogy would be the analysis of car exhaust, finding certain levels of CO2, and trying to fix cars with "bad exhaust" by throwing more CO2 into the intake (except maybe this would even have a negative effect by hindering combustion). This is an hilarious (and fitting) analogy for nutrition sciences.
  - hopler 8y ago
    There was a classic TV ad by an oil company that said that CO2 is great because it is plant food. It's still an argument used by folks who oppose CO2 controls.
newscracker 8y ago
> It is well known, than the bioavailability of the supplements is not the same and that even the molecule itself is not the same as the one your organism produces. Reputed and trustworthy citations from scientific sources required, please.

C1sc0cat 8y ago

I didn't have any problems getting 20k IU in the UK had to get it prescribed

opportune 8y ago

taking vitamin D at such a high dose can give you health problems such as kidney stones. When I took 5000 IUs for a period of time I started getting painful kidneys just from the urinary effects. Now I try to get my vitamin D through more normal sources by eating lots of UV-exposed mushrooms, salmon, and sardines. Plus side is these foods are all quite healthy even without the vitamin D

drited 8y ago

That is interesting. I had read that 500 was ineffective but did not know that 10000 was effective. If you've done the research what is the most reliable source you found ?