Vitamin d levels

[bokelley]

5000iu

[weeniegeniewife]

Actually, if someone is really deficient in vitamin D then 2,000 iu's a day is recommended. That being said, even though I am deficient I only take 1,000 iu's per day.

I have actually heard of people taking 2,000 a day and then a 50,000iu dose q week. Crazy!

[bokelley]

This is what she sales:
http://www.orthomolecularproducts.co...f-9d2175b7376d
This is what I bought
http://m.samsclub.com/catalog/product/prod1180817

[bokelley]

Actually, if someone is really deficient in vitamin D then 2,000 iu's a day is recommended. That being said, even though I am deficient I only take 1,000 iu's per day.

I have actually heard of people taking 2,000 a day and then a 50,000iu dose q week. Crazy!

I know she does the 50,000 q wk for 8 wks then daily 5000iu after that.

[MissCrabette]

Well, wait a minute here. In your first post you said you took this daily. Then you said she recommended it every other day.

Then 50k units weekly followed by 5k. Weekly? That's not such an outrageous dose anymore.

[bokelley]

I take it daily. They did some bloodwork last week that showed the high level. So now she just says to take the 5000iu every other day if I was worried about it. She said my calcium levels were fine so she is not worried.

And the 50,000 was what she does for people with very low vit d

She gives them vit d shot of 50,000 then after the 8 wks. You start the 5000iu daily

[Deebs]

DH and I composed this together, and this is the most metered response I have ever heard from him...

The issue seems to be between toxicologists and prev med folks, but that level is still high even for prev med. The Food and Nutrition Board used to identify 50 micrograms per day (2000 iu) as the upper limit for vitamin D for most healthy adults. The upper limit is defined as the "maximum level of total chronic daily intake of a nutrient judged to be likely to pose no risk of adverse health effects to the most sensitive members of the healthy population.". Basically to get that upper limit, they start with the no observed adverse effects level and they divide it by an uncertainty factor. The no adverse effects level (NOAEL) was 60 micrograms/day (2400 iu). There are recent studies that suggest that intake levels as high as 4000 iu might be safe for most of the population. However, it's role at that level is not well defined, benefit is not well proven, therefore, the risk benefit ratio is completely out of whack.

DH has furiously been pulling up research to help figure out why you're getting the advice that you are getting. There are articles out about the fact that this isn't very clear cut. There is a lot of expert opinion that there may be benefit to higher doses, but with no or limited research to back that up. There was a new Food and Nutrition Board (of the IOM) report out in November, 2011 that raised the upper limit (UL) to 4000 IU/day, a marked increase. The current NOAEL is now 10,000 IU/day, what is interesting is how it was derived. Normally, one process or ill effect stands out and becomes the "measuring point" to calculate the NOAEL. In this case they used hypercalcimia as the adverse effect. However, the committee stated, "the upper limits for vitamin D were especially challenging because available data have focused on very high levels of intake that cause intoxication and little is known about the effects of chronic excess intake at lower levels.". They do acknowledge some studies show that 10,000 iu per day was not associated with classic toxicity. However, because vit D is physiologically managed by the body as a hormone, there are a "myriad of variables and feedback loops related to its health effects." Without a clear marker, they used hypercalcimia, but greatly increased the uncertainty factor as there are likely other adverse effects not well described yet. You should read the report on the fnb website. They looked at all of the research, on breast cancer, heart health, pancreatic cancer, skin health, etc. What they found was that Vitamin D was not helpful, but it does help with bone health (at the previously recommended doses ~ 1,000 IU/day). The committee said "taken as a whole, the body of evidence suggests that there is reason to proceed cautiously in assuming that higher levels of Vitamin D intake below those expected to cause hypervitaminosis D are harmless, especially in the absence of data to demonstrate benefit at such intake levels".

In short, you absolutely could be suffering ill effects from this but using high dose vit D is currently in vogue among some physicians, so it is not surprising to find doctors who would use it in this way. That said, I don't think you would find many physicians with a toxicology background who would recommend using it in this manner. And while it may be trendy, there is no evidence it works. At the minimum, I would cut back to the recent recommendation of NO MORE than 4000 iu/day.

I have to add (against DHs advice) that in my schooling as a public health professional, we were taught that physicians selling their own supplements should be regarded as quacks and that it is HIGHLY unethical because they are likely to try to sell the supplements regardless of what research shows.

[bokelley]

Thank you guys so much. I was going crazy trying to figure this all out. I showed dh what deebs put and he said for to me to stop taking them. And we r going to run my levels again in a month to see what the level is. I kinda agree with the whole selling ur own supplements. Seems like a conflict of interest. Thank you I knew imsn would know!!

Dh also said he was going to look over my labs on Monday and see what calcium levels they did draw, he isn't sure that they drew the correct calcium lab.

[weeniegeniewife]

Honestly, if you are tanning regularly then you don't need supplementation on top.

[Sheherezade]

I'm glad this thread is resolved - but just wanted to throw in my own experience. DH was diagnosed with low Vit D earlier this year. His level was 9. They put him on the 50,000 units a week and then told him to stay on 2000 iu a day after. He hasn't necessarily taken the 2000 iu's faithfully since, though. They did blood levels of the Vit D over 6 mos - and it took 6 mos for it to rise from 9 to 42. Now, he's in normal range. I can't begin to tell you what a difference it has made in his health though. He talks about how dramatically different he feels often - so I can see why there are docs pushing for changes in the Vit D rec's. Also, the basic research that's currently working in Vit D looks very promising even if the translational research has not shown clear effects.

Obviously, we live in a shadowy cave in the frozen north and are very pale people, so it's no surprise that Vit D would be low here. If your D is normal, I have no idea why you'd be given supplements. Also, selling pills is a big no-no in my book as well.