Vit D help needed!

yoga_girl

Vit D supplements

www.vitd

 

 

SophiaMarie

just got other test results - I am pretty high in cortisol.  So now I need to talk to my dr to see what he says is next.

keepthefaith

For what it's worth, I  emailed Nature Made and they said there is NO soy in the Vit D3 1000 UI tablets...

lala1

My vitamin D levels just came back at 40. Seems low to me but doc doesn't seem concerned. It was 27 in May so I upped my dose to 2000mg a day. Should I up it 3000 and try to get it higher?

yoga_girl

lala1

Wishing you all the best in finding the answers you seek

www.vitd

 

Anonymous

I've been playing around with the amount I want/need, versus what I'm told I need.  I have a far-too-long story about hormones, light, vitamin D, cancer, and migraines with aura (that can be triggered by hormones and light). 

I'll skip all that but explain that a chiro checked my vitamin D this summer and it was 15. He recommended 10,000/day, and I took it. Mind you - I also started Lipitor for high cholesterol soon after. But the visual disturbances that happen before my migraines STOPPED!  For the past 3 years they've been increasing exponentially (in severity) and the time between them has decreased exponentially (I had 1-3 episodes per day!).  Within about a month they were GONE!  I still have the horrible headache, but the visual aura is gone. 

I tried to decrease to 5,000 IU per day, and I began to have little shimmers that usually precede the full-blown visual disturbance, as well as mild cognitive confusion.  I went back up to 10,000 and this disappeared.  I had another blood test four months after taking 10,000/day and I was at 80.  Wow.  So I went back to look at an old blood test from 2 years ago, when the migraines were not as frequent, and even then my vitamin D was at 35.  Within their "normal" range of 30-100, but I question that range being correct for everyone. 

I've been doing research and some say it acts as a hormone.  I know it affects estrogen.  So did my 5 years of anti-hormonals when these started. There is a tie in here somewhere. 

So I'm trying to see if taking more would help my headache, and I've taken occasional 15,000 or 20,000 one day.  I was AMAZED.  On the 20,000 day, I had the best "normal" (no headache) day in a LONG time. But I'm afraid to take that much for long. 

So I'm still just playing around to see what's what.

SophiaMarie

well, I thought I'd pop in to say that 50,000 per week - in the form of 10,000 a day - of D3, is what finally did it. I'm now up to 48! My dr said I could now cut back to 2,000 per day. Finally

Husband11

Thanks for taking the time to follow up on this. So you started with D2, found it ineffective, and switched to D3 and got results. How long did it take to go from 25 to 48 with the 10,000 per day?

SophiaMarie

I've only been being tested every 6 months, so during that time it was enough to raise that much. I just talked to a friend of mine whose count was even lower than mine - she's taking the prescribed d2 and it's coming up for her just fine. For some reason my body would just not metabolize the d2.

lala1

My BS told me at my last visit that he strongly feels that if more people got their Vit D levels checked and got them up to around at least 40 or so that there would be a lot less cancer in this world. He really thinks low levels contribute to cancer. My levels were in the 20s when i was diagnosed and that's despite the fact I work outdoors. He said it's because we all now wear sunscreen and it keeps us from having good levels.

macb04

Hi Ladies,

Here is a study about this very topic. I have also read a study that shows some people are poor at converting Vitamin D2 to Vitamin D3. I will keep looking for that study, but meanwhile, this study shows that D2 isn't usually as effective at raising Serum Vitamin D levels..

The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

American Society for Nutrition

Comparison of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 supplementation in raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D status: a systematic review and meta-analysis1,2,3

Laura Tripkovic, Helen Lambert, [...], and Susan Lanham-New

Additional article information

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is a lack of clarity in the literature as to whether there is a definitive difference between the effects of vitamins D2and D3 in the raising of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D].

Objective: The objective of this article was to report a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have directly compared the effects of vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations in humans.

Design: The ISI Web of Knowledge (January 1966 to July 2011) database was searched electronically for all relevant studies in adults that directly compared vitamin D3 with vitamin D2. The Cochrane Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number register, and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for any unpublished trials.

Results: A meta-analysis of RCTs indicated that supplementation with vitamin D3 had a significant and positive effect in the raising of serum 25(OH)D concentrations compared with the effect of vitamin D2 (P = 0.001). When the frequency of dosage administration was compared, there was a significant response for vitamin D3 when given as a bolus dose (P = 0.0002) compared with administration of vitamin D2, but the effect was lost with daily supplementation.

Conclusions: This meta-analysis indicates that vitamin D3 is more efficacious at raising serum 25(OH)D concentrations than is vitamin D2, and thus vitamin D3 could potentially become the preferred choice for supplementation. However, additional research is required to examine the metabolic pathways involved in oral and intramuscular administration of vitamin D and the effects across age, sex, and ethnicity, which this review was unable to verify.

Happy New Year!

Marie

Shellsatthebeach

I better look into this topic.  I live in Massachusetts where sunlight is limited this time of year.  Last time I had my levels checked, it was in the negatives.  I'm making an appt. to get my levels checked again. 

macb04

Hi Good idea, Shellsatthebeach, I think this is one of the most important numbers to know.

Don't forget about Vitamin K2 as well. Vitamin K2 works with Vitamin D3 to transport Calcium into your bones.

Diaval

Unsure if this has been addressed. My daughter is a scientist and told me to take D3, not D2, along with some fat... D needs fat to be utilized. So I went to Amazon and ordered Live Wise drops that contain olive oil and some spearmint to make the taste tolerable. My D level jumped from 3 to 67 in a few months. I could never get higher than 27 taking D2 tablets. This is not meant as an advertisement... I do not work for Live Wise nor do I own stock although I wish I did!!!

macb04

Dlaval, you are totally right thst D3 is much more effective in raising blood levels compsred to D2. I have heard of women taking enormous doses of D2 for YEARS, and getting absolutely no improvement in Vitamin D blood levels. You are also right that Vitamin D3 need Fats for better absorption. D3 also ALWAYS needs Vitamin K2 intake to provide the correct balance and prevent Hypercalcemia.

bluepearl

Do NOT take large doses of Vitamin D.....it depletes magnesium, binds with it and makes it useless. Magnesium is essential for everyone but especially B.C. patients. Too much calcium is bad as well. You need magnesium to "control" it, otherwise, instead of settling in the bones where it should, it settles in your arteries, where it shouldn't. I take magnesium citrate as magnesium oxide is poorly absorbed....and causes loose bowels. 1,000 iu of vitamin D is enough. I am working towards 600 mg of magnesium as supplement per day. This mineral is easily depleted with poor diet and stress and many medications. It is so important for so many functions of your body (btw...breast calcifications are made of.....yes...calcium deposits) If you have poor kidney function, you should not take it except under strict supervision of a doctor. Toss your table salt and use good quality pink himalayan salt or celtic salt...even 1/4 tsp per quarts of water to sip on. They both contain the proper ration of electrolytes, including magnesium, and are not as harmful as table salt where everything is taken out of it. You also get natural iodine. The Miracle of Magnesium by Dr. Dean provides info but any search on Pubmed will support it.

Husband11

Natural exposure to the sun produces between 10,000 and 25,000 iu of vitamin d daily. Mayo clinic says if you take 60,000 iu daily for several months (no specification whether they mean d2 or d3), you will experience toxicity from hypercalcemia. They say that it is impossible to experience an overdose from the sun, as the production of D3 is self limiting (max 25,000 iu daily). This, and the experience of women on this board that have taken 10,000 iu of D3 daily for months and only experienced reasonable progression of their D3 blood levels gives me reasonable confidence that doses under 10,000 units are harmless. I personally take 4,000 to 5,000 iu of D3 daily because we live in a cold climate and get very little exposure to the sun.

pipers_dream

I've also been having trouble getting mine up despite the megadoses my doc has given me but I just read the other day that vit D supplements will do little for you without enough magnesium.

Lula73

Vitamin D is one of the essential building blocks when it comes to error free cell replication. As cancer cells are basically replicated cells that contain an error in DNA sequencing it stands to reason that ensuring proper levels of Vitamin D is a crucial factor in helping prevent cancer. D3 is easier for the body to use than D2. If you’re having to take a pill might as well take the one that’s easier for your body. Additionally, gels/liquids are easier for the body to absorb vs tablets/powder filled capsules. I take a softgel style D supplement made by Solgar.

Getting enough D from the sun is not easy considering the amount of skin needing to be exposed and the amount of time the exposure needs to be and all without sunscreen. Way before my BC diagnosis my primary care doc laughed when I asked to have D levels tested. I told him I’m super pale, burn extremely fast, wear sunscreen all the time (previous melanoma diagnosis) and even though i drive a lot for work the windshield has UV protection built in. I insisted and he did order the labs. He was shocked when the level came back at a 10. Been taking 10,000IU at least 5 days a week since then and levels are good. Energy level, alertness, nail & hair health all improved.

bluepearl

Please read up on the connections between magnesium and Vitamins D. Women who had good levels of magnesium lived longer and better after breast cancer than women who were low on magnesium.

bluepearl

Magnesium (Mg) and calcium (Ca) antagonizes each other in (re) absorption, cell cycle regulation, inflammation, and many other physiologic activities. However, few studies have investigated the association between magnesium and calcium intakes and breast cancer survival, and the interaction between calcium and magnesium intake. In a cohort of 1,170 women with primary, incident, and histologically confirmed breast cancer from Western New York State, we examined the relationship between intakes of these two minerals and survival. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Mean follow-up time was 87.4 months after breast cancer diagnosis; there were 170 deaths identified. After adjustment for known prognostic factors, and intakes of energy, total vitamin D and total calcium, higher dietary intake of magnesium was inversely associated with risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 0.50, 95% CI, 0.28-0.90 for highest vs. lowest tertile; ptrend = 0.02). Likewise, a marginal association was found for total Magnesium intake from foods and supplements combined (HR = 0.58, 95% CI, 0.31-1.08; p trend = 0.09). The inverse association of higher total magnesium intake with all-cause mortality was primarily presented among postmenopausal women and was stronger among women who had a high Ca:Mg intake ratio (>2.59). There were no clear associations for prognosis with intake of calcium. We found that magnesium intake alone may improve overall survival following breast cancer, and the association may be stronger among those with high Ca:Mg intake ratio.

bluepearl

Vitamin D and magnesium

Magnesium is an important mineral involved in over 300 different processes in the body, including the ability to make and use ATP, the body's main form of energy.

Of those 300 roles, magnesium aids in a handful of activities related to vitamin D production and use. In particular, it seems to modulate the sensitivity of our tissues to vitamin D.

Not only does magnesium play an important role in proper Vitamin D activity and function, but crucially, it also helps to maintain calcium balance.

At least half of the population fails to meet the Recommended Dietary Allowance for magnesium. This may be because soil levels of magnesium have fallen considerably in the past 50 years, making it harder to meet our needs.

Because magnesium is used in vitamin D metabolism, some researchers theorize that supplementing with high levels of vitamin D could cause an even greater magnesium deficiency in an already deficient population.

Interestingly, a relatively recent study demonstrated a strong correlation between magnesium and vitamin D deficiency.

This study showed that magnesium supplementation, taken along with vitamin D supplementation, was more effective at correcting a vitamin D deficiency than vitamin D supplementation alone.

Simply by increasing magnesium intake, we may decrease mortality related to vitamin D deficiency — without taking any extra vitamin D.

But beyond vitamin D's relationship to magnesium is magnesium's relationship to calcium. And in some ways, these two minerals have opposite effects.

For example, calcium stimulates muscle contraction while magnesium promotes muscle relaxation. Calcium boosts platelet activation and clotting, while magnesium inhibits them.

Contrary to popular belief, the individual level of either of these minerals may be less important than the balance between the two.

Too much calcium together with a magnesium deficiency could cause problems like increased calcium deposits in the arteries. Meanwhile, bumping up magnesium can prevent calcification of the arteries.

But what if you're low in magnesium and decide to supplement with vitamin D?

There could be many negative consequences, including — you guessed it — calcium deposits in the arteries.

PeggyG6020

If you take Vitamin D Drops, it much more effective than the pills. Mine would not go up, in spite of mega doses. I started the drops, and now it my Vit. D levels are great.

macb04

I agree with Bluepearl about how essential Magnesium is. I have also read Dr Dean's book on Magnesium as well.

I have read that as high as 80% of Americans are Magnesium Deficient and that there is a decline in the amount of Magnesium to be found in our nonorganic foods as well.

However I do not agree that Vitamin D3 1,000IU is sufficient, especially in those of us dealing with BC. I take 5,000IU plus Vitamin K2 every day, as well as a Magnesium Liquid Complex by Genestra. This regimen has brought my Vitamin D blood level up to 34 when I checked about a year ago. I am working on getting my levels higher, so I may go to 8,000IU per day during the winter time. I will just see what my blood levels show.

These declines are not limited to vegetable crops. A study by David Thomas published in Nutrition and Health examined average nutritional content of foods across food categories using the UK government's Composition of Food tables.

Thomas found consistent declines in magnesium content:

• Vegetables declined by 24% between 1940 and 1991.
• Fruit declined by 17%.
• Meat declined by 15%.
• Cheeses declined by 26%. 21

Government agencies and food industry organizations have questioned the reliability of these results, citing the possibility that changes in measurement techniques may account for the differences. But Dr. Joel Wallach of the Longevity Institute refutes this claim.

Were these differences the result of errors in measurement, explains Dr. Wallach, such errors would be present consistently across food types and categories. Yet when comparing USDA food tables between 1963 and 1998, Wallach reports that:

• Crops whose harvesting practices have not changed historically showed stable vitamin and mineral content over the years.
• By contrast, significant reductions in vitamin and mineral content were consistently present in crops that are produced by more intensive, industrialized farming practices

momica111

My naturopathic oncologist suggests my Vit D levels be between 60-80. My nutritionist says 80-100. I was taking vitacost brand capsules for years and could never get my D above the mid 50's. My nutritionist started me on liquid drops under the tongue (Rx Vitamins Liqui-D3) available on Amazon. Also taking vitamin K2 (Menaquinone-7) 90 mcg per day to help with assimilation of the D (douglas laboratories available on Pureformulas.com). After 5 months my D was in the low 80's. It's much better absorbed sub-lingually. I won't go back to capsules.

exercise_guru

I am not sure if anyone mentioned this but add K2 ( I think that is it) Vitamin D needs vitamin K. It makes a big difference.

Lula73

60-80 is what was recommended to me too. I did the prescription 50,000IU to get my levels up from 10. Then doc said just take OTC D about 1,000 a day to maintain....WRONG! Next level was 12. I did some research and went on the hunt fo D supplements that had high bioavailability & absorption and didn’t require more than 1 pill. Enter Solgar brand. I did the 3,000IU and levels came up to 30. Then I finally just switched to the Solgar brand 10,000IU (yes in just 1 pill!) everyday. That fixed it! Upon starting calcium supplementation I had to reduce it to 10,000IU 5 days a week because of the D in the calcium.