[quote]kakno 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”
[/quote]
Nothing.
Sure. But does the research show more than correlation?
I searched pubmed for “vitamin d supplementation” and set limits to meta-analysis, review, RCT, humans, male, adults 19-44 years old. I went back to 2003 and I found no proof at all that vitamin D supplementation does young men any good.
There’s correlation, yes, but by that logic vitamin D supplementation makes exactly as much sense as spray tanning. People who are tan and have high vitamin D aren’t as sick as those who aren’t tan and have low vitamin D.
I think in the end aiming for what would be “natural” for us is a good idea… then again, there are tribes that live in other parts of the world without as much sun/UV exposure as well
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
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]
ive been using 6k iu and my levels came back at 53 ng/ml. whats the ultimate goal? ive seen anywhere from 60-70 recommended.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
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]
ive been using 6k iu and my levels came back at 53 ng/ml. whats the ultimate goal? ive seen anywhere from 60-70 recommended.[/quote]
depends who you ask. Dr Oz says 50, Mercola seems to think 50-60 IIRC upwards of 60-80 if dealing with disease like cancer or CVD
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
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]
ive been using 6k iu and my levels came back at 53 ng/ml. whats the ultimate goal? ive seen anywhere from 60-70 recommended.[/quote]
depends who you ask. Dr Oz says 50, Mercola seems to think 50-60 IIRC upwards of 60-80 if dealing with disease like cancer or CVD[/quote]
damn. i swear i saw 70 as the goal for normal people on a paleo site somewhere. i upped it to 10k the past week. guess ill go back down to 6k if 50-60 is sufficient.
[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]
I consistently take 20,000 IU’s daily except in summertime when I’m outdoors a lot.
Mind you and FWIW, I live near the 5th cloudiest city in the USA and in a climate where you practically get no sunlight on your skin for at least 6 months a year.[/quote]
I take between 10,000 and 12,000 per day. I spend most of my day sitting in a basement studio with no windows. Vitamin D has helped with down moods due to such conditions.
20,000! Wow , hefty dose there. Have you had our bl checked? Def want to be careful with a consistent dose that high. As long as the bl are in that 50-100 range, even 50-75. AFib risk starts rising above 100.
[quote]tork94 wrote:
I had taken 50000 every 3 days for several months, and then down to 14000/day and am now at the TOP of the safe limit on blood tests.
going down to 6000iu/day to maintain.[/quote]
Yes that’s why it is important to have the blood levels checked. I was taking 3,000 Iiu of a cheap chewable form of D3 and my levels were below 20ng/ml. Switched to a higher quality multi that contains 2,000 and levels rose to 40+ . So it depends on form and each person.
If he is taking 20,000 or even 50,000 to keep his levels at he optimal range then it’s not a problem. If he is taking 5,000 and his levels are above 75 then it can be a problem. It doesn’t matter how much you are taking, but how much you are absorbing and what your body is doing with it. The issue isn’t with toxicity, but AFib which the AHA says rises with levels above 100. Not good.
There was a guy on these forums who experienced this several years ago I think, and at the time wasn’t sure if it was related or not but new research shows it does. Once again it is all about balance. That is why I cringe when I see people advocating mega dosing anything whether it be vitamin c or fish oil, or vitamin d.
This thread is awesome and I wanted to bump it. fantastic amounts of information. I never new about Vit D as such a vital vitamin until I stumbled across this thread. Should be a sticky
I do not remember where/when Dan John said this, probably somewhere on his site, but something about world class Olympic athletes scoring vit D levels under 30. Implying that maybe we really do not need the higher amounts.
^ I believe the general discussion about vitamin D concerns its benifits for overall wellbeing and longevity. I doubt your vitamin D levels will have a large impact on sports performance unless you are greatly deficient.
The way I have come to understand it is the RDA limit was set due to what they thought your liver could safely process in 24 hours. So even though you may need and can use 20,000 iu’s a day from the sun, in pill form the liver can only process 800 to 1000 iu’s? …because it’s fat soluble?