3 ms·

> 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

> 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...
- gnulinux 8y ago
  That happens all the time. Please check https://labdoor.com/ https://labdoor.com/ before buying any unregulated drug.
  - dhimes 8y ago
    Oh dammit! I wish I had seen this before I went to the drug store...
koheripbal 8y ago
Remember that 60,000 was chosen so that toxicity could be very reliably demonstrated. It does not mean that lower doses are not also toxic.
kolbe 8y ago
I know you have faith that taking large doses of vitamin d isn't dangerous, but there is very little evidence supporting its value. We all have to make serious decisions every day without scientific support, so I don't begrudge you the right to do what you believe is best for you. But don't you think it's a little irresponsible to try to convince people that this belief of yours is actually effective? AFICT, there's as good a change that your advice will take ten years off of a life as it has of improving life. And you want to push this on others?

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...
gnulinux 8y ago
That happens all the time. Please check https://labdoor.com/ https://labdoor.com/ before buying any unregulated drug.
- dhimes 8y ago
  Oh dammit! I wish I had seen this before I went to the drug store...

koheripbal 8y ago

Remember that 60,000 was chosen so that toxicity could be very reliably demonstrated. It does not mean that lower doses are not also toxic.

kolbe 8y ago

I know you have faith that taking large doses of vitamin d isn't dangerous, but there is very little evidence supporting its value. We all have to make serious decisions every day without scientific support, so I don't begrudge you the right to do what you believe is best for you. But don't you think it's a little irresponsible to try to convince people that this belief of yours is actually effective? AFICT, there's as good a change that your advice will take ten years off of a life as it has of improving life. And you want to push this on others?