I now supplement 4000 iu per day of vitamin D3 with k2 in drops. I started supplementing D3 2000 iu at diagnosis. If you don’t also supplement K2(which doesn’t affect blood clotting) you won’t be able to absorb the d and calcium well. My last level was 30 I believe which is at the low end. I have Hashimotos so D has to be higher- closer to 60 is recommended as well as higher levels for other minerals/ vitamins. The problem is with 3 different things going on currently it is hard to say if I’m absorbing everything. I have started levithyroxine which I hope is going to help my situation. North of the equator it is very difficult to get enough via the sun even if you are at a nude beach all summer and then there is the problem of skin cancer and sun poisoning for some of us.
For proper calcium absorption it is better to get your calcium from food and not more than 500mg if from supplements- calcium citrate absorbs more easily. You also need adequate mineral levels such as 1 part magnesium for every 2 parts calcium, zinc, potassium, phosphorous and more. I’m currently taking concentrace minerals as well.
Don’t supplement Vitamin D3(which is really a hormone not a vitamin) without Vitamin K2- K2 allows absorption of Calcium into your bones instead of your arteries and soft tissues:
VITAMIN K2
Vitamin D3 should never be taken alone. Always take a combination Vitamin D3/ Vitamin K2 liquid emulsion. This is because vitamin D3 improves calcium absorption across the GI tract and vitamin K2 is the cofactor needed to transfer calcium into your bones, and not your arteries.
It is important to understand that vitamin D is particularly important for calcium absorption. If you are a woman past middle age you really need to worry about osteoporosis. Low values of vitamin have been implicated in a number of other health problems like heart health (probably calcium again). There is more information from the VitaminD Council. Since vitamin D isn’t generally medicalized many doctors ignore it. If they do check you they will probably give you a very expensive prescription vitamin D when a more practice approach is to get more sun and just buy inexpensive vitamin D at Costco.
My understanding is that D3 (cholecalciferol) is directly absorbed/converted to effect serum 25(OH)D levels. Vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) converts inefficiently to serum 25(OH)D. Studies seem to show that D3 is better than D2. For some strange reason doctors routinely prescribe 50,000 IU once a week D2 to patients.
No. We prescribe 50,000 IU of D3 once weekly for 8 weeks, to “fill the low (or empty) tank”, to be followed by 1000 to 4000 IU per day as a maintenance dose.
Shortly after diagnosis, my vitamin D was 7ng/mL. I was placed on 2000IU D3, and I came up to 32ng/mL within four months. I’m still taking the vitamin D supplement, though I don’t have a recent vitamin D level (my next vitamin D check will be at my endo appointment in 6 months).
Vitamin D is one of the “utility infielders” of nutrition; it does a great number of things. It plays roles in calcium absorption (as Brian pointed out), carbohydrate metabolism, and other things as well.
As regards the issue of possible toxicity, I can’t resist pointing out that this is one more example of the fact that where physiology is concerned, black and white rules seldom apply. For most things, too much is just as bad as too little—more isn’t always better. Blood glucose is an obvious example that we all know about: too little is trouble, and so is too much. Same pattern holds true of Vitamin D and countless other things. Staying healthy isn’t all-or-nothing, ever: it’s always about balance.
Unless we’re talking about poorly-made, cheap hoverboards, in which case staying healthy is less about balance and more about non-exploding lithium batteries! (sorry, couldn’t resist!)
I do not know my original test numbers but most recent was 54. The good range is 30 - 96. I started taking 3000 iu (the only one I found at Costco) several years ago. I recall reading at the time that a body can tolerate quite a lot more than that each day. Check NIH.gov or one of the good medical sites for better details.
These are the reference ranges from the lab my doctor’s office uses: “Recommended Levels for Circulating 25-hydroxy Vitamin D: Vitamin D Status 25-OH Vitamin D Test Result Deficient <10ng/mL Insufficient 10-29ng/mL Sufficient 30-100ng/mL Potential Intoxication >100ng/mL.” I have been taking a 2000 IU daily since early 2013 when my level was 28-29 or so. Since then I’ve regularly been in the mid-30s to mid-40s. This feels fine for me.
Since your text was all smashed into one line it was sorta hard to read. So I’ll just mention that the ranges you listed appeared to be identical to the “OLD Interpretation prior to 7/1/13” section of the ranges in an earlier post of mine.
I quoted the pertinent part of my earlier post below for reference.
Lab reference ranges are not a good source for recommendations on optimal levels, they are “bins” that test results fall into. They are useful for diagnosis but should not be used as treatment guidelines. The VA results that @irrational_John included had both a reference range and a recommendation for diagnostics and/or treatment levels.
But there is no consensus on this. The AAFP has declined to recommend screening in family practice so instead the issue falls to specialties. Here is a chart from the Vitamin D Council (their site currently has problems) that compares some of the current recommendations on vitamin D levels
As you can see there is a wide disparate in what is considered sufficient. It seems that some of this has to do with the basis for recommending optimal levels. For “at risk” populations such as with diabetes or osteoporosis the recommendations seem to be to keep vitamin D at higher levels.
Agreed that there are disparate recommendations, though I wouldn’t say they are SO wide apart. As with most supplements, there is so little actual science that any “recommendations” are tentative and debatable. I personally try to stay away from most “nutrition in a pill” and eat real food, but in the case of Vitamin D that’s not the best way to acquire it so for the moment I take that supplement. If my levels stay at 30-40 naturally when I stop, I will be happy. (As a side note, The Vitamin D Council is a lobbying organization, so would not be my personal top choice to follow. It doesn’t surprise me that their recommended sufficient levels are the highest.)
@Dessito- Thank you for pointing out that the Vitamin D Council is a lobbying organization. Is it funded by vitamin manufacturers?
What are they lobbying for?
It would be nice if there were unbiased scientific studies (not only on Vitamin D).
(sorry, couldn’t resist!)