5 ms·

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-ter

by 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.
- learc83 8y ago
  I'm always worried about how easy it would be for manufacturers to accidentally put more in a pill than the label says. 10,000 IU is only 1.25 mg, and vitamins aren't well regulated. It's not like you'd notice if your supplement contained 100,000 IU.
  - Johnny555 8y ago
    USP and other certifications are supposed to address this, but the onus is on the consumer to seek out the certification label. http://www.usp.org/verification-services/verified-mark http://www.usp.org/verification-services/verified-mark Others include NSF, UL, and consumerlab https://www.consumerreports.org/vitamins-supplements/what-usp-verified-and-other-supplement-seals-mean/ https://www.consumerreports.org/vitamins-supplements/what-us... There's still the chance that a manufacturing mistake could result in bad dosage but that applies to all products including medicine.
    - learc83 8y ago
      Vitamin D is particularly worrisome to me because a few milligrams is the difference between therapeutic and toxic.
  - olau 8y ago
    ... and in fact it has happened. With drops for infants that had a 75 times too high concentration: http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-health-authority-warns-of-toxic-vitamin-d-product.html http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-health-authority-warns-of-toxi...
TACIXAT 8y ago
Thankfully it was posted to HN so I could find it. Google search has a truly become useless for this stuff. It's early in the morning, but I think I'm reading the abstract right. [1] 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/
- searine 8y ago
  Try google scholar next time instead of regular google search.
- Strom 8y ago
  To add some anecdotal info, those numbers are much more closer to my own personal experience. I've been experimenting with various dosages, with regular blood tests by a doctor, for a few years now. Currently I've setteled at 4000 IU/day to stay at 75 nmol/L, which is the lower end of what is considered normal.
- dhimes 8y ago
  Excellent! Thank you!

by dhimes 8y ago

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.
learc83 8y ago
I'm always worried about how easy it would be for manufacturers to accidentally put more in a pill than the label says. 10,000 IU is only 1.25 mg, and vitamins aren't well regulated. It's not like you'd notice if your supplement contained 100,000 IU.
- Johnny555 8y ago
  USP and other certifications are supposed to address this, but the onus is on the consumer to seek out the certification label. http://www.usp.org/verification-services/verified-mark http://www.usp.org/verification-services/verified-mark Others include NSF, UL, and consumerlab https://www.consumerreports.org/vitamins-supplements/what-usp-verified-and-other-supplement-seals-mean/ https://www.consumerreports.org/vitamins-supplements/what-us... There's still the chance that a manufacturing mistake could result in bad dosage but that applies to all products including medicine.
  - learc83 8y ago
    Vitamin D is particularly worrisome to me because a few milligrams is the difference between therapeutic and toxic.
- olau 8y ago
  ... and in fact it has happened. With drops for infants that had a 75 times too high concentration: http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-health-authority-warns-of-toxic-vitamin-d-product.html http://cphpost.dk/news/danish-health-authority-warns-of-toxi...

TACIXAT 8y ago

Thankfully it was posted to HN so I could find it. Google search has a truly become useless for this stuff. It's early in the morning, but I think I'm reading the abstract right. [1] 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28768407/

searine 8y ago
Try google scholar next time instead of regular google search.
Strom 8y ago
To add some anecdotal info, those numbers are much more closer to my own personal experience. I've been experimenting with various dosages, with regular blood tests by a doctor, for a few years now. Currently I've setteled at 4000 IU/day to stay at 75 nmol/L, which is the lower end of what is considered normal.
dhimes 8y ago
Excellent! Thank you!