I was deficient in Vitamin D3 before I started taking supplements. I’m just surprised at the low absorption of 5000 IUs. Now I wonder if another supplement is interfering with it and if the same thing is happening to any of my other supplements.
KarlT
#15
Are you talking about patients that vit D deficient? Or just people in general?
Goran
#16
Maybe try Cod liver oil, there is some vitamin D in those together with Vitamin E and A. Could be better absorption.
I have the same problem as you have, also supplemented with 5000IU for a while, I live in Thailand and do a lot of out door sport’s, still my levels was in the 30’s. After I tested I knew I had to do something different. So I added Cod liver oil, got a slight bump in my vitamin d levels after that. Now I am in the mid 40’s…still low but better still.
Maybe this is a genetic thing that is difficult to alter.
1 Like
David
#17
Good point! In my area of the country I see mostly low and defiecient Vitamin D levels. To get my ‘ideal’ levels in the 60-80 range the most common doses are in the 5,000 - 10,000 I/u range. In general, if the level is below 30, I start with 10,000 for 3 months and then recheck levels. If just in low normal ranges (30’s,) usually 5,000 I/u.
To give some balance to the discussion, I did run across an article that showed a higher fall rate in elderly patients that were on vitamin D replacement. Its nice to see more studies coming out on vitamin D since 10 years ago most providers never checked levels and bench mark research was supportive of many positives in replacing vitamin D
1 Like
My N=1 experiments where I tracked the effect on my sleep of a largish dose (24,000/12,000) indicate it takes a few days to process a large dose and also that there is a mildly negative effect of cholecalciferol. Hence I have gone for 25OHD which simply puts up the 25OHD levels without a fuss. I still take cholecalciferol as well, but to keep at 80/200 I intermittently use 25OH (dedrogyl).
The numbers may vary with other people, but I think the idea has broader merit.
3 Likes
I remember there was some discussion of Vitamin-D having a U-shaped dosing benefit curve (perhaps by @John_Hemming ? — I apologize if I remembered incorrectly) perhaps from this thread (Cautions to Synthetic Vitamin D3 - #58 by John_Hemming). In it, whichever person suggested that 5,000 IU daily is too high for most normal people, and that D bioaccumulates in fat cells. I try not to venture too much out in the sun normally, and if it were up to me I’d visit beaches at night and during the winter.
For me, I had last tested in January 2023 at 32 levels and was taking 5,000 per day and, combined with heavy weights (for me) and hard “muscle-building” work at the gym, produced some nice likely hormonal changes which were clearly evident. I’ve since cut back to 5,000 every other day until I get my next reading. If I’m still at 32-ish I’ll likely push it back to 5,000 per day until it moves upward.
What is a serum level I should consider cutting back on my D intake?
There is not much good reasearch looking at serum levels of 25ohd, but i would stick to the “normal range” max 80/200 depending on units
1 Like
Using the production of preD3 of an 8 year old as the standard (100%), an 18 year old produces 80%, while a 77 year old only produces 37%. Curiously, an 82 year old did better than the 77 year old (40%).
Source study below.
https://www.jci.org/articles/view/112134/pdf
7 Likes
Dr. Mark Hyman weighs in on D supplements.
He Recommends just over 3000 IU daily.
AnUser
#23
I take 4000 IU a day because my ALP was high and I haven’t been supplementing much. Will adjust once I test my vitamin D levels so serum levels are optimal.
The causal decrease risk of MS (via MR), is worthwhile as well. Might be immune mediated?
1 Like
I don’t know, guys. There really is a lot of controversy. I know people have strong opinions, but we have to follow the science. And there is no agreement at all around higher levels being optimal, as optimal itself has to be individualized. This is explored here:
And FWIW, UCLA, for example sees anything above 50 ng/mL as potentially having adverse effects:
“Ingestion of high levels of biotin in dietary supplements may lead to falsely increased results. Deficiency: less than 12 ng/mL Inadequate: 12-19 ng/mL Adequate: 20-50 ng/mL Potential adverse effects: greater than 50 ng/mL.”
They don’t try to specify “optimal”, and see as low as 20 ng/mL as adequate. My last level from a test couple of weeks ago was 38 ng/mL, at 66yo. I take 1000IU daily in a supplement, and don’t spend much time in the sun, have salmon once a week, mushrooms regularly.
I feel no need and have no plans to boost my vit. D levels. But of course everyone is in their own special situation and must do what is right for them, so, as always YMMV.
2 Likes
I think it is best to be between 30-50. I was at 30 after supplementing with 5000 IUs daily. I’m taking 10000 IUs now to get to 50. There’s not much benefit after that level.
The problem is that 90% of the non-supplementing population is deficient and below 20. That is a problem.
The issue AIUI is that the body has a limited ability to convert D3 (cholecalciferol) into 25OHD (which is what is measured and how the body stores vitamin D). Hence perhaps the first 1,000 or so massively increases 25OHD production and after that it dies down.
I take 25OHD as well as D3 to maintain my 25OHD, but it strikes me a that a vitamin D rich foodstuff would also provide 25OHD which might be better than D3 capsules.
2 Likes
Very interesting. While the table from the paper jumped from 8 to 18 years, then 77 years, it also included a graph showing the decline.
1 Like
I just had MOHS surgery for a basal cell carcinoma, stitches will come out tomorrow. Not really feeling like the sun is my friend tbh. Especially because the doc told me that having had a bcc once makes it more likely that I’ll have it again.
3 Likes
That’s amazing. I’m guessing you are a stubborn fellow. I haven’t used much sunscreen because I thought it caused me to get acne flare ups (when I was susceptible). But I had to put on some sunscreen strategically where I could (lips, nose) to avoid getting eaten alive while playing on the sunny mountains of Colorado.
Now I just wear a hat and long sleeve shirt when I’m in the sun for hours.
I agree that sunlight is good for health but too much UV is a mistake. I aim for NIR mostly (in shade, through clothes). The good thing about sunlight is the full spectrum vs the narrow band we get indoors (LED lights, filtering glass windows). We evolved in a sunlight rich environment; stuff goes wrong without it.
Bicep
#30
Stubborn probably, but I would say the true reason is that I just wasn’t cared for much as a youth and worked on open tractors too.
My ancestors were scotch Irish and lived about as far north as possible. Where my pants cover, my legs are so white it would hurt your eyes to look at them. I don’t tan I just get freckles and as my skin sees more sun the freckles get closer together until my arms are solid freckle, so very dark and they can be in the sun all during our long summer days and they don’t care. So even though I’m not really made to be at this latitude, still we have a solution here and it works quite well.
I’m in the same boat. I had a BCC diagnosed in 2011, removed in 2012 (single, small, on my back). Thankfully nothing since. I still have yearly derma full body exams. I’m not super concerned that I’ll have more BCCs. A more unpleasant is a different concern - having a BCC is associated with having more cancer of all kinds overall, I believe with the exception of pancreatic cancer where the association is less chance of getting it; the elevation in risk of other cancers is not very high, but not desirable obviously.
My approach with the sun is not to have any exposure during high UV intensity hours - no sunscreen use, only clothing protection - and small amounts of exposure early and late in the day. Importantly, consume food, beverages and supplements that are skin protective. All my sun skin damage was done during childhood summers before age 10, where every year we’d vacation in mediterranean countries, and I’d regularly fall asleep on the beach and get skin peeling sunburns (I’m northern scandinavian); this was back in the 60’s so sunscreen was not a big thing and skin peeling was a common summer vacation rite of passage. So the damage was done, but I’ve been careful and sun shy since the 80’s.
3 Likes
Same here except it was childhood in Australia and Arizona. Parents / grandparents regarded terrible sunburn with complacency. 
4 Likes
Vitamin D and cardiovascular health - “However, in the latest randomized controlled trials no benefits of vitamin D supplementation for CVD have been confirmed”:
MR doesn’t seem to support any connection between vit. D and cancer:
Quote:
“Results from MR analyses do not support causal associations between 25-hydroxyvitamin D and risk for cancer incidence or mortality.”
Based on the UK Biobank data, for diabetics and prediabetics, it is better to have at least adequate vit. D levels - above 30ng/mL - for all cause as well as CV mortality:
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/45/5/1219/144610/Association-of-Serum-25-Hydroxyvitamin-D-With
Diabetics and prediabetics. Serum levels present is not the same as levels achieved by supplementation
Koreans, but perhaps true for others. For ACM, it is better to have adequate vit. D levels - 30ng/mL at least, but no association with cancer, yet again, plus some for CV:
Quote:
“Based on the quartile cutoffs of serum 25(OH)D concentration, the highest quartile of serum 25(OH)D concentration (≥21.8 ng/mL) was associated with the lowest all-cause mortality (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85; P trend < .001), and CVD mortality (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42-0.85; P trend = .006). No association with cancer mortality outcome was found. In conclusion, higher serum 25(OH)D levels were associated with lower all-cause mortality in the general Korean population. An additional association was found between higher quartile of serum 25(OH)D and lower CVD mortality.”
1 Like
