Vitamin D Deficiency

The issue of Vitamin D is still an area that is being researched; there is no clear consensus and the “evidence” cited is often conflicting, and to note Tim’s comments above, I wouldn’t necessarily take it at face value alone. It is worth noting that Vitamin D sourced directly from the sun is believed by many doctors to be better than supplemented Vitamin D found in foods and multivitamins – there’s no replacement for the real thing! As for the issue of a deficiency in people with diabetes, some people believe that is true, but I don’t believe there is solid evidence of that. Vitamin D is one of the most over-supplemented vitamins in existence, being added not only to dairy products, but also foods ranging from soup to pasta to rice. Furthermore, I have reported before that some (not necessarily the mainstream) organizations, such as the California-based Autoimmunity Research Foundation, posit just the opposite: that excessive amounts of vitamin D actually leads to an increase in a host of different autoimmune diseases, including type 1 diabetes mellitus.

That is subject to some dispute as well, but exactly how much vitamin D children and adults should be getting (and what form of the vitamin is better, or even if there is a difference in the source), and defining when they are deficient, is also under widespread debate. Doctors use many different definitions, and many are waiting for “official” guidance on the subject expected in an Institute of Medicine report on vitamin D which is due out sometime in 2010. The institute is a government advisory group that sets dietary standards.

Until then, you may wish to rely on your own doctors’ recommendations, but if you are concerned about it, by all means, seek a second opinion. Also, don’t hesitate to ask about potential conflicts-of-interests from your doctor; surprisingly many do, in fact, receive honoraria and other consulting fees from companies that stand to profit from their recommendations (including vitamin D supplements).

Thanks for the wealth of information. I know that he deficiency is not the cause of my diabetes, as I’ve been type1 for more than 26 years and only recently have seen a decline in Vitamin D levels. However, I was wondering if the opposite could be true, if type 1 caused the deficiency, as it seems that lately I’ve been having absorption issues in oher areas as well.

Scott, do you have any links to articles, etc. highlighting this debate, I’d be interested to read them. Most of the research that I have found in the area is pretty strongly in favor of Vitamin D supplementation and strongly supports the links between Vit D and disease states. Also, the research is fairly clear on what levels appear to be appropriate. This recommendation, in particular, comes from basic science research in the absorption patterns of Vitamin D.

Its not that I don’t trust what you’ve said, but I haven’t seen evidence to support any of your claims.

Kiwirox, absorption issues may very well be the cause. We know, for example, that in conditions like Crohn’s, malabsorption of fats can lead to low vitamin D. I think the cause is less clear in diabetes, and it is likely that the low levels are simply coincident, not necessarily related to each other directly. Many, many people with and without diabetes have low vitamin D, but more of us are taking suppliments because our providers test us for it. Also, there is emerging evidence that supplimentation may help prevent heart disease and other inflammatory diseases of which diabetics are at increased risk.

I also came across a nice write up on Vitamin D in chronic disease from the Harvard School of Public Health if you’re interested in more information: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/questions/vitamin-d-and-chronic-disease/index.html

I’ve seen very little counter evidence to the whole vit D thing. I frankly don’t think there is lots of profit to be made from vit D given that it is already available in high doses from costco so cheap. This is not like cholesterol medication which is perhaps corrupt to the core.

In my case, my endo does want his patients in the “normal” range and supports vit D supplementation if you can’t arrange to live in the Carribean.

A nurse I work with told me that a lot of people are VD deficient. And especially during the winter it is really common, just because we are indoors so much. If your doctor is worried about it then do what he says, but the impression I got was that it is not something to stress over, especially now during the winter.

I’m on Vit D3 nad Vit D2 (the 50,000 mega dose).When i was checked,my level was 7!! I was very tired all the time and achy.I hope your levels are better.Mine too awile to go up.I am not at level 54 but they want me to atleast 80 :slight_smile:

Do you take 50,000 IUs/day? That seems very high. I thought I was pretty high with 8,000 IUus/day.

Its 50,000 unit capsules of vit d 2 and i take liquid form of vitd 3.I had a severe defiancy and the supplement has helped soooo much! My level is still on the lower side but its getting there :slight_smile:

I hope you are under close doctors care on this level of vit D. There is some thought that taking 50,000 IUs/day may reach toxic levels over the long term (http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec01/ch004/ch004k.html#sec01-ch004-ch004k-BABBBEAE). You need to have your doctor monitor check your serum vit D levels and make sure you don’t go too high.

Hi BSC,thanks for the concern.I actually only take the 50,000 once a week and i take the liquid 6,000 IUs everyday.It has taken awhile for my levels to go up.Its crazy! I will probbaly be on the 50,000 for another couple of weeks. They are monitering it about every 3 months. thanks :slight_smile:

Wearing sunblock, which the dermatologists and oncologists tell us to do, stops your body from making Vit D, according to my endo. So saving your skin means losing your Vit D production. My daughter, who is outside without sunscreen a fair amount through the normal course of her day, was only slightly deficient last time she was checked.

The amounts you are taking don’t seem adequate to me. Generally Celiacs require DOUBLE the amount others require. 1000iu per 25lbs is the standard requirement from one month old. 100iu/daily per 2.5lbs weight. But celiacs have more inflammation to deal with and generally require more anti inflammatory agent.

It would be worth your while having a 25(OH)D test (they are available by post online) to make sure your level is above 55ng and preferably around 60~70ng/ml. The levels generally recommended by doctors are those that just prevent rickets, To preserve bone mineral density levels have to be above 42ng/ml. To have a store of D3 available to fight inflammation or pathogens requires levels above 50ng/ml 125nmol/l.
To enable human breast milk to flow replete with D3 and allow babies to enjoy the complete natural food requires at level above 58.8ng/ml 148nmol/l and it’s around this level we find least disease (diabetes incidence) This level is probably double that your doctor suggests.

No need for an appointment. Grassrootshealth are a charity that send them out by post. There are other online sources if you search.
However the frequency of Vitamin D3 deficiency is such that EVERYONE should take the supplements at an effective amount (1000iu per 25lbs weight) for 3 months BEFORE having a test.
Then when you get your result you will be better able to work out how much MORE vitamin D you require based on 1000iu for each extra 10ng/ml you need to raise to reach 60ng/ml.
Then retest in six months to ensure what you are doing is working out right.
Vitamin d is stable under both heat and cold. You can freeze it (that’s how the eskimo’s survived the winter on frozen vitamin D rich foods buried in underground pits) You can also bake it in bread, cakes cookies etc. What degrades vitamin D3 is light particularly UVA. So laying in the conservatory in sunlight coming through glass changes the vitamin d near the surface of your skin to supra sterols the body doesn’t use. You need to be outside in full sunlight to get UVB and make vitamin d3 in skin.

Script vita d is generally D2 ergocalciferol.
The evidence is that over the counter or online D3 works better and lasts longer.

It’s not as if 50,000iu D3 is expensive or difficult to find online.
Search for
BIO-TECH D3-50 Cholecalciferol 100 Caps - Free Shipping
and you’ll find plenty of sources.
50,000iu D2 is the equivalent of 15000iu D3 so you will almost certainly find that using d3 one X 50,000iu is probably more effective than your current capsules.
Ideally 1000iu for each 25lbs is all you require but people do vary
Grassrootshealth have a graph in their banner showing the different responses to different D3 daily intakes.

Those who are worried by the information provided by Autoimmunity research foundation need to read this blog and perhaps
Clearing Up Confusion on Vitamin D – Why I Don’t Recommend the Marshall Protocol Dr. Mercola
as well as reading Mark London’s response to this idea.

Bear in mind reputable scientists (unlike Marshall who has a history of fraud) using similar computer modelling have shown that rather than blocking the action of the vitamin d receptor as Marshall suggests, in practice it works in synergy with calcitriol. More recent research has shown that curcumin is also a vitamin d receptor ligand. The idea that anyone can profit from recommending vitamin D is somewhat absurd as the best source of vitamin D3 is sunlight. True prescription D2 is expensive and hence profitable but over the counter stuff is cheap as chips.
A years supply of 360 x 5000iu sets you back only $15 so no one needs to think they are being ripped off.
Supplement companies are not going to be bribing doctors because the profit margins are so slim and folks can go to any online discount provider and find reputable brands at low prices.

Vitamin D and Diabetes-Can We Prevent it? this you tube video explains the science behind the claim that higher vitamin d levels prevent Type 1 incidence.
One of the uses for vitamin D3 in the body is as an anti inflammatory agent. It follows that anyone with any inflammatory condition will use more vitamin D3 than someone without a chronic inflammatory situation to deal with. Celiacs for instance generally require double the amount of vitamin d to raise status 10ng/ml than do normal folk who generally only need 1000iu per 10ng/ml rise.
The safety of vitamin d is such that anyone can take 10,000iu daily where ever they live and also get vitamin d from sunlight without any fear of toxicity. However most people require around 1000iu for each 25lbs they weigh, so starting with that amount for 2~3 months then getting a postal 25(OH)D test and seeing if that’s worked out OK and brought your levels up to around 60ng/ml. If after 3months at 1000iu/d3/daily per 25lbs you weigh you are still under 60ng/ml then take more or get more regular full body sunshine (it should be warmer then) and retest after six months to see if your still below.
There are some Vitamin D3 capsules where the carrier oil is MCT (medium chain triglyceride) this is odourless and for people with absorption issues it’s possible to puncture the capsule and massage the Vit d 3 oil into the skin (preferably somewhere the sun doesn’t shine on) or you could chew the capsule, hold the MCT oil in your mouth swoosh it under your tongue and allow the D3 and oil to be absorbed in your mouth and under your tongue. MCT is easily absorbed and quickly metabolised.

Vitamin D shows promise but research still lagging
By Julie Deardorff, Chicago Tribune reporter
March 10, 2010, 10:50 a.m. EST

As far as Dr. Joseph Mercola is concerned, vitamin D is the magic bullet we’ve all been looking for. A lack of this wonder nutrient, the controversial natural health advocate said, can set the stage for no fewer than 33 disorders, including autism, cancer, diabetes and infertility.

“Vitamin D appears to reduce your risk of dying from virtually ANY disease,” he wrote on his popular Web site. His recommendation? Get more sun, relax in a tanning bed or try supplements such as “Sunshine Mist,” a vitamin D spray he sells.

Long ignored and feared in high doses, vitamin D is being hailed as the answer to nearly every health issue under the sun. The excitement stems from a flurry of preliminary studies finding links between vitamin D deficiencies and various illnesses, and this summer the federal Institute of Medicine plans to announce revised recommendations regarding dietary intake of vitamin D and calcium that almost certainly will be higher.

Despite the scientific attention being paid to vitamin D, experts caution that claims of wide-ranging health benefits are not yet supported by clinical evidence.

Though D is thought to hold tremendous promise, we’ve been down this garden path before: Hopes for the powers of vitamin E, beta carotene, antioxidant vitamins, selenium and other nutrients collapsed under the weight of rigorous, randomized clinical trials.

“It’s premature to go out and make a big deal out of vitamin D supplementation when we don’t have the evidence,” said endocrinologist Anastassios Pittas, co-director of the Diabetes Center at Tufts University Medical Center in Boston. “We’ve been burned before on nutrition-based interventions,” he said.

Yet already, bread, pasta, orange juice and soy foods are being fortified with vitamin D, and sales of vitamin D supplements grew 116.5 percent, from $108 million to $234 million, from 2007 to 2008, according to Nutrition Business Journal estimates.

The body naturally makes the vitamin when the sun’s ultraviolet rays hit the skin, but fear of health risks and modern lifestyles have limited sun exposure for many.

Mercola, a non-practicing osteopathic physician who owns a clinic in Hoffman Estates, is one of the nutrient’s most public and ardent supporters, with an evangelical style that can grate on the nerves of more cautious physicians.

Unlike most doctors, Mercola recommends universal baseline testing and widespread high-dose supplementation. “I’ve been preaching about this for a long time,” said Mercola, who started his campaign 10 years ago. “Eventually the evidence comes out.”

Mercola said children should get almost six times the amount of vitamin D recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, while adults and pregnant women should be receiving 5,000 International Units, or IUs, per day.

Most leading vitamin D researchers recommend no more than 1,000 to 2,000 IUs a day, citing insufficient evidence for higher doses. The federal guidelines, which are widely considered to be woefully inadequate, range from 200 to 600 IUs, depending on age.

“Dr. Mercola popularizes and promotes vitamin D in a very passionate way,” said Dr. Gregory Plotnikoff, a senior consultant at the Center for Healthcare Innovation in Minneapolis who is conducting vitamin D trials. Mercola’s high dosing recommendations “may be correct, but we need supportive data,” he said.

Still, Plotnikoff and other researchers have high hopes for the vitamin, saying it could prove to be the single most cost-effective medical intervention in the U.S. today.

Best known for preventing rickets in children — the reason it is added to milk — vitamin D shines most in the role of absorbing calcium, which we need to form bones. A deficiency of vitamin D can contribute to osteoporosis by reducing calcium absorption.

Unlike vitamin E and others, vitamin D is a potent steroid hormone that has receptors in most, if not all, cells of the body. Mounting evidence suggests the so-called sunshine vitamin may also influence conditions unrelated to the skeleton, including cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, autoimmune disorders and mortality, said Dr. Michael Hollick, director of the Vitamin D, Skin and Bone Research Laboratory at Boston University School of Medicine.

“Vitamin D is as important for every cell in the body as thyroid hormone, estrogen and testosterone,” said Plotnikoff. “These hormones turn on and off genes in our DNA. At least 1,000 key genes are under at least partial control by vitamin D. This was never the case for vitamin C, E and others.”

Though observational studies have found a link between low vitamin D levels and an increased risk of disease, such an association doesn’t prove a deficiency caused the problem. Low levels of D could also be a consequence of the illness.

The results of studies can also be skewed by the people participating (vitamin D trial subjects are disproportionately white) or if the research does not account for sunlight exposure or consumption of D in foods. The doses studied are sometimes too low, experts said.

When Pittas and his colleagues systematically reviewed studies on vitamin D’s effect on Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease, for example, they found “no clinically significant effects at the dosages given,” according to the research published last week in the Annals of Internal Medicine. They called the vitamin a “promising but unproven” new factor in cardiometabolic disease management.

“There’s a potentially large problem with leaping from observational studies to making decisions about interventions,” said Dr. Ethan Balk, associate director of the Center for Clinical Evidence Synthesis at Tufts Medical Center, a co-author of the Annals study.

“Advocates take the studies and say, ‘If we can move someone’s vitamin D from low to high, the risk would go down.’ While that might be the case, there may be another explanation,” said Balk.

In some ways, it’s much easier to study drugs than nutrients because “everyone starts a pharmaceutical study at the same point, namely … zero,” said Plotnikoff. “In contrast, everyone starts a nutritional study with baseline measurements all over the map. Everyone is given the same dose as if one size fits all. This is a huge mistake.”

Drug effects, meanwhile, tend to be immediate, focused and measureable, while vitamins may have long-term, subtle effects.

Proponents also may oversell the study findings. Mercola’s Web site, for example, recently headlined an item on a new study this way: “Vitamin D fights Crohn’s disease.” But the lead researcher, Dr. John White of the Research Institute of McGill University Health Center in Montreal, said the data came from a lab study that “will have to be borne out in the clinic, which may be tricky.”

“Data is coming, but there’s a good reason to be skeptical — people have been on this bandwagon before,” said White, an endocrinologist. “When it gets into the clinic, it often doesn’t work out quite as well.”

The debate over optimal amounts of vitamin D and how to get it, meanwhile, is ongoing and likely will not be settled by the new National Institutes of Health guidelines.

But one thing is clear: Vitamin D levels are lower than they were 20 years ago. Most Americans, especially those with dark skin, are likely deficient — the result, some say, of widespread campaigns for sunscreen use and sun avoidance, as well as smog and cloud cover, living indoors and rising national trends of inactivity and obesity.

Cardiologist Diane Wallis is one doctor who will continue to test her patients’ vitamin D levels, even though it’s an unproven treatment in her field. “We’re at the threshold,” said Wallis, of Midwest Heart Specialists in Downers Grove, who 10 years ago began seeing female patients with chest pain but no obvious signs of heart trouble. When she tested them, they all had one thing in common: low vitamin D levels. “When I started it we’d just gotten off the whole vitamin E fiasco and people thought I was crazy,” she said. “Anything that had the word ‘vitamin’ led to derision. But no one is making fun of it anymore.”

jdeardorff@tribune.com

Copyright © 2010, Chicago Tribune

i just had my first appt with my endo since diagnosis. she said that i’m WAY low. Not too surprising considering that we see next to no sunlight during the winter in upstate ny… she has me taking 1 capsule weekly of 50,000 units of vitamin D for 8 weeks. After that she’s going to see hwere i’m at and tell me where to go from there

The prescribed form of Vitamin D is sold as DRISDOL Vitamin D2 ERGOCALCIFEROL. There are several types but are usually blue/blue green oval capsules. Although a lot more expensive than D3 Cholecalciferol because they are not in the form HUMAN bodies use they have to be converted to D3 and not everybody can do that and even when they can it’s less effective.
So if you are taking 50,000iu of PRESCRIBED RX vitamin D (even if you think it is vitamin D3 you are taking you are mistaken). There is no licensed Vitamin D3 STAND ALONE supplement available for prescription) You are taking D2 ERGOCALCIFEROL.
50,000iu/D2 ERGOCALCIFEROL = 15,000IU/D3/CHOLECALCIFEROL.
You will get on much better if you pay for your own 50,000iu/D3.
Look online for
BIO-TECH D3-50 Cholecalciferol 100 Caps - Free Shipping
and you will find several companies suppling this at discount prices.
Personally I cannot see any benefit from 25(OH)D levels above 100ng/ml for most people levels between 50~80ng/ml will be fine. If I had a cancer diagnosis then I’d probably move up a tad higher to perhaps 90~100ng/ml. But I think that 10,000iu/daily plus regular sun exposure would achieve that without having to take 50,000iu/daily. I think there must be a lot of waste going on in where people are finding they need to take such a high amount.
Vitamin D3 is best absorbed when taken with the largest meal of the day.