[quote]pokeflute wrote:
Why doesn’t anyone mention milk in these threads?[/quote]
Because we’ve done our research, that’s why.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]Grimlorn wrote:
Are softgels really important? I just ordered 5000 IU tablets. Taking 1 a day.[/quote]
I’m taking 5,000 IU’s a day also.
What about everyone else?[/quote]
~7500 iu’s per 35 iu’s x bodyweight in pounds.
[quote]Alex Stoddard wrote:
[quote]pokeflute wrote:
Whats different with the vitamin d in my milk?[/quote]
Unless labeled otherwise, it’s likely Vitamin D2, which sucks. Sucks Big Rhinosaurus balls. We supplement with D3.
EVen if they use D3, 1 cup has 50% of RDA = 200IU
You’ll only need to drink 20 cups (5 L) to get 4000IU. Pray you’re not Lactose Intolerant :P[/quote]
Thanks for the explanation
Does anyone know if SAD lights/lamps increase the body’s natural production of Vitamin D? In Wisconsin, we obviously get very little exposure to natural light from here until spring time. I want to put one in my 7 month olds crib and give him about 30 minutes of exposure first thing in the morning. I’m already giving him vitamin D3 however at night time and obviously want to be cautious with him and was curious if anyone knew the answer to this. I searched online but to no success…
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Does anyone know if SAD lights/lamps increase the body’s natural production of Vitamin D? In Wisconsin, we obviously get very little exposure to natural light from here until spring time. I want to put one in my 7 month olds crib and give him about 30 minutes of exposure first thing in the morning. I’m already giving him vitamin D3 however at night time and obviously want to be cautious with him and was curious if anyone knew the answer to this. I searched online but to no success…[/quote]
From Wiki: Vitamin D3 is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with ultraviolet light (UVB) at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm.[16] These wavelengths are present in sunlight when the UV index is greater than three, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB).
Is your child breast or bottle fed? Have you told your Ped that you’re supplementing with Vit D? Are you aware of the tolerable Upper Limit for infants?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Does anyone know if SAD lights/lamps increase the body’s natural production of Vitamin D? In Wisconsin, we obviously get very little exposure to natural light from here until spring time. I want to put one in my 7 month olds crib and give him about 30 minutes of exposure first thing in the morning. I’m already giving him vitamin D3 however at night time and obviously want to be cautious with him and was curious if anyone knew the answer to this. I searched online but to no success…[/quote]
From Wiki: Vitamin D3 is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with ultraviolet light (UVB) at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm.[16] These wavelengths are present in sunlight when the UV index is greater than three, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB).
Is your child breast or bottle fed? Have you told your Ped that you’re supplementing with Vit D? Are you aware of the tolerable Upper Limit for infants?
Post did not post. He is purely fed breast milk, never any formula. I have been giving him a dose of d3 daily based off of his weight. He’s been receiving about 750 iu’s per day. I’ve read various upper limits from different sources. I’ve seen 400-1000 for infants up to 12 months old. Our ped does know that we are supplementing with Vit D, although he’s most likely under the impression that it’s only 400 ius and not 750 iu’s. Also, this is the light that I was planning to mount inside of his crib for about 30 minutes of exposure each morning before the day:
Any other thoughts Dr. P?
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Davinci.v2 wrote:
Does anyone know if SAD lights/lamps increase the body’s natural production of Vitamin D? In Wisconsin, we obviously get very little exposure to natural light from here until spring time. I want to put one in my 7 month olds crib and give him about 30 minutes of exposure first thing in the morning. I’m already giving him vitamin D3 however at night time and obviously want to be cautious with him and was curious if anyone knew the answer to this. I searched online but to no success…[/quote]
From Wiki: Vitamin D3 is made in the skin when 7-dehydrocholesterol reacts with ultraviolet light (UVB) at wavelengths between 270 and 300 nm, with peak synthesis occurring between 295 and 297 nm.[16] These wavelengths are present in sunlight when the UV index is greater than three, as well as in the light emitted by the UV lamps in tanning beds (which produce ultraviolet primarily in the UVA spectrum, but typically produce 4% to 10% of the total UV emissions as UVB).
Is your child breast or bottle fed? Have you told your Ped that you’re supplementing with Vit D? Are you aware of the tolerable Upper Limit for infants?
Post did not post. He is purely fed breast milk, never any formula. I have been giving him a dose of d3 daily based off of his weight. He’s been receiving about 750 iu’s per day. I’ve read various upper limits from different sources. I’ve seen 400-1000 for infants up to 12 months old. Our ped does know that we are supplementing with Vit D, although he’s most likely under the impression that it’s only 400 ius and not 750 iu’s. Also, this is the light that I was planning to mount inside of his crib for about 30 minutes of exposure each morning before the day:
Any other thoughts Dr. P? [/quote]
I’m not the good Doktor, but…
you need uvb to make vit D; I don’t see anything to indicate that product is making uvb.
Association of hypogonadism with vitamin D status: the European Male Ageing Study
http://www.eje-online.org/content/early/2011/10/27/EJE-11-0743.short?rss=1
Body weight and vitamin D blood levels
Posted on February 27, 2012 by John Cannell, MD
http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2012/02/27/body-weight-and-vitamin-d-blood-levels/
Who needs more vitamin D, a 250lb fit man who has 12 percent total body fat or a 250lb obese man who has 50 percent total body fat?
a) Obese man needs more
b) Muscle man needs more
c) Both need the same
We know vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin and another one of these ?common sense? theories that sounds good have led most of us to respond that the 250lb obese man needs more vitamin D because body fat acts as a ?sink,? collecting fat-soluble vitamins.
Leave it to Professor Robert Heaney?s group to see the light (although Professor Reinhold Vieth wrote the same thing several years ago in a textbook). The answer is ? they both need the same amount. Using mathematical models that are beyond my psychiatric training, Dr. Andjela Drincic and colleagues at Creighton University recently wrote a beautiful paper that definitively answered the question.
Drincic AT, Armas LA, Van Diest EE, Heaney RP. Volumetric Dilution, Rather Than Sequestration Best Explains the Low Vitamin D Status of Obesity. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 Jan 19. doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.404.
Therefore, muscle and fat may well act the same when it comes to storing vitamin D for future use. When you try to figure out how much vitamin D someone needs, forget the ?fat sink? theory, as sensible as it sounds, and keep in mind total body weight. However, also keep in mind the obese man may have lower levels to begin with, as obese persons may typically have lifestyles that are void of full body sun exposure.
Finally, I am comforted by the authors? calculation of vitamin D requirements. They cite data that show, if you want the average person to have a level of 40 ng/ml, that person needs 70-80 IU/kg/day. If you do the math, the 250 pound man would need 7-8,000 IU/day from all sources, while a 125 pound woman would need 3,500-4,000 IU/day from all sources. It is difficult to make a general recommendation with vitamin D for adults because you don?t want to get too complicated. That?s why our almost 10-year-old recommendation is simply 5,000 IU/day, which serves well for the majority of adults.
Vitamin D lack treatment options
That includes the particular elements. You need to talk to your personal dietician if there is vitamin D lack.
Natural light
This need to be for each sides of one’s skin. This is certainly satisfactory to generate vitamin D. This quantity may be acquired from spending time inside tanning bed. It is really advisable to refrain from lengthier exposure since this may perhaps lead to dangerous melanoma. Burning from the sun will be the outcome of more significant exposure to UV. It could likewise trigger premature getting older.
read more: http://www.thevitaminmag.com/health-benefits-of-vitamin-d/
Important level of vitamin D will be given through several foods. Chicken eggs, milk, liver, and certain greasy seafood are actually food products with this important vitamin. Margarine is a beneficial alternative of butter in the every day diet program. Cod liver fish oil comprises certain sum of vitamin D, however it includes a better amount of vit a. Lots of men and women have this specific delusion that extra amount of cod liver oil causes vitamin D overdose nevertheless it may be the retinol or vitamin A that causes bone complications.
[quote]ClintonAlsoon wrote:
Margarine is a beneficial alternative of butter in the every day diet program. [/quote]
Welcome to T-Nation.
First post = fail.
Read before copy and paste.
[quote]Alex Stoddard wrote:
[quote]ClintonAlsoon wrote:
Margarine is a beneficial alternative of butter in the every day diet program. [/quote]
Welcome to T-Nation.
First post = fail.
Read before copy and paste.[/quote]
haha, wow… anyways, I’ve been taking 4,000 IU/day of D3 for over a year. Just got bloodwork done and awaiting the results. Can’t wait.
Anyone find any good evidence of Vitamin D being used to effectively TREAT diseases?
I mean, with all of these diseases coming out of the woodwork to be that are “associated” with Low Vit D levels, it’s gotta make you think whether or not it is more likely that the deficiency is a symptom rather than the cause. People showing nutritional deficiencies while in a diseased state is hardly groundbreaking news, right?
Besides, if what we are measuring in our blood is an inactive form of the vitamin, what makes us think that by bumping our serum levels up to the top of the range will necessarily facilitate a greater degree of conversion to its active form?
[quote]anonym wrote:
Anyone find any good evidence of Vitamin D being used to effectively TREAT diseases?
I mean, with all of these diseases coming out of the woodwork to be that are “associated” with Low Vit D levels, it’s gotta make you think whether or not it is more likely that the deficiency is a symptom rather than the cause. People showing nutritional deficiencies while in a diseased state is hardly groundbreaking news, right?
Besides, if what we are measuring in our blood is an inactive form of the vitamin, what makes us think that by bumping our serum levels up to the top of the range will necessarily facilitate a greater degree of conversion to its active form?[/quote]
Good post. It seems all we ever see are “low levels are associated with”…
That said, I still think there’s merit to supplementing with it.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Good post. It seems all we ever see are “low levels are associated with”…
That said, I still think there’s merit to supplementing with it.[/quote]
Well, if we go by the “traditional” method of determining adequate Vit D status, is there any compelling reason to justify the liberal blood values when there is (seemingly) little benefit to going above 75nmol/L (30ng/mL)?
Going my more recent information, we know that activated macrophages have the enzyme (calcidiol 1a-hydroxylase) necessary to catalyze calcidiol → calcitriol… but, what does that mean (other than PTH is probably not the only thing we want to hang our hats on)? It plays a role in the immune system, no doubt, but that still doesn’t answer our chicken/egg question.
Vitamin D is being hailed as a root cause of a dozen ailments and a panacea for many more… as far as I can tell, it seems to be a lot of speculation riding on the hope that we have finally found our silver bullet against chronic disease.
But I’d still very much like to hear from the experts: are people sick due to Vit D deficiency, or are they Vit D deficient because they are sick?
AS far as 30ng, a recent study came out about the Masai having levels in the mid-upper 50s IIRC. Based upon what I’ve read this seems to be what to shoot for, possibly higher if battling HD or cancer.
So, got test results back. Again at our house we both use 4,000 IU/day.
Me: 65 ng/ml
Wife: 56
seems just the right amount supplementation wise. I would be interested in cutting my dose in half and seeing how that effects my blood levels.
[quote]anonym wrote:
Vitamin D is being hailed as a root cause of a dozen ailments and a panacea for many more… as far as I can tell, it seems to be a lot of speculation riding on the hope that we have finally found our silver bullet against chronic disease.
But I’d still very much like to hear from the experts: are people sick due to Vit D deficiency, or are they Vit D deficient because they are sick?[/quote]
I think they’re low on vitamin D because they are sick. They don’t eat as well, don’t get out in the sun and/or have worse kidneys than healthy people. I’m not the expert, but one of my teachers, an endocrinologist with a doctorate who specializes in osteoporosis I think, kind of is. If you’re in an obvious risk group (i.e. a black woman dressed in a burqa while living in Sweden), by all means, take it.
This is the plain language summary from a Cochrane review from 2011, looking at vitD supplementation and mortality:
[quote]Numerous observational studies and randomised trials have observed that optimal vitamin D status has a positive effect on our health and may reduce cancers and cardiovascular diseases. However, a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on vitamin D for prevention of mortality have reported variable results.
This systematic review analysed the influence of different forms of vitamin D on mortality. In the 50 trials that provided data for our analyses a total of 94,148 participants were randomly assigned to either vitamin D or no treatment or a placebo. All trials came from high-income countries. The mean age of participants was 74 years. The mean proportion of women was 79%. The median duration of vitamin D administration was two years. Our analyses suggested that vitamin D3 reduces mortality by about 6%, which corresponds to 200 participants that need to be treated over a median of two years to save one additional life. Another supplemental form of vitamin D, vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol), as well as the active forms of vitamin D (alfacalcidol and calcitriol) had no significant effect on mortality. We also found evidence of adverse effects including renal stone formation (seen for vitamin D3 combined with calcium) and elevated blood levels of calcium (seen for both alfacalcidol and calcitriol). In conclusion, we found evidence that vitamin D3 decreases mortality in predominantly elderly women who are mainly in institutions and dependent care.[/quote]
So if you’re a hospitalized elderly woman it might help.
I bought some to see if it made a difference. It didn’t. I’m not buying it again.
[quote]kakno wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
I bought some to see if it made a difference. It didn’t. I’m not buying it again.[/quote]
what do you mean by make a difference?
what are you expecting short-term?
considering the price of this supplement and at least the current research, it’s almost negligent for one’s health not to make sure blood levels are at least in the “good” range, let alone “optimal”