Added link to results from Womens Health Initiative Calcium/Vitamin D supplementation arm which found no impact on the development of diabetes from supplementing Vitamin D at 400 IU and Calcium at 1000 IU a day.
From my reading on Vit D, it seems that most supplemental doses are much too low, especially for obese people. There are many researchers who think that the deficiency levels need updating, too. Some people who are tested and found to have lower levels need to take rather high doses in order to get their levels into a desirable range.
The Vit D Council says: At this time, we advise even healthy people (those without the diseases of vitamin D deficiency) to seek a knowledgeable physician and have your 25(OH)D level measured. If your levels are below 40 ng/mL you need enough sun, artificial light, oral vitamin D3 supplements, or some combination of the three, to maintain your 25(OH)D levels between 40–65 ng/mL year around.
Even after taking 2000-4000 units a day for nearly a year, my 25(OH)D level was only 44 ng/mL (I am normal weight). I can only imagine how low it must have been when I started. Before supplementing with vit D, I was also avoiding the sun a lot. I live in coastal So Cal, but even here, it is hard to get enough winter sun to make enough Vit D (not enough hours of the right wavelength). I now get as much midday sun exposure as I prudently can without burning.
So it could easily be that the study used a dose of Vit D that was much too low to be effective. Most people are also taking supplemental doses much too low and are not getting their levels tested. For many I suspect that doses in the many thousands are needed for a while to make up for the years of low Vit D levels.
Vit D toxicity fears are overblown and take a long, long time at very, very high doses to do irreversible damage. And levels are easy to monitor with blood tests.
From my reading on Vit D, it seems that most supplemental doses are much too low, especially for obese people. There are many researchers who think that the deficiency levels need updating, too. Some people who are tested and found to have lower levels need to take rather high doses in order to get their levels into a desirable range.
ReplyDeleteThe Vit D Council says:
At this time, we advise even healthy people (those without the diseases of vitamin D deficiency) to seek a knowledgeable physician and have your 25(OH)D level measured. If your levels are below 40 ng/mL you need enough sun, artificial light, oral vitamin D3 supplements, or some combination of the three, to maintain your 25(OH)D levels between 40–65 ng/mL year around.
Even after taking 2000-4000 units a day for nearly a year, my 25(OH)D level was only 44 ng/mL (I am normal weight). I can only imagine how low it must have been when I started. Before supplementing with vit D, I was also avoiding the sun a lot. I live in coastal So Cal, but even here, it is hard to get enough winter sun to make enough Vit D (not enough hours of the right wavelength). I now get as much midday sun exposure as I prudently can without burning.
So it could easily be that the study used a dose of Vit D that was much too low to be effective. Most people are also taking supplemental doses much too low and are not getting their levels tested. For many I suspect that doses in the many thousands are needed for a while to make up for the years of low Vit D levels.
Vit D toxicity fears are overblown and take a long, long time at very, very high doses to do irreversible damage. And levels are easy to monitor with blood tests.
I am currently taking 6000IU a day of Vit D, along with cutting carbs. I have been doing this for the last 7 months, I cut the carbs first.
ReplyDeleteIn the last year I have returned to normal my a1c, cholesterol,blood pressure. I have also lost a little over 50 lbs.
before I added the Vit D, I was extremely reactive Hypo, with the Vit D, I am now near normal with Blood sugars.
At least for me this has been a good combo, but I also am having the 25(OH)D level tested every three months.