For me, the supplements were noticeable and life changing and I can tell when I have fallen off taking them for a while. But I don't approach anywhere near this dose. Seems like a case of miscommunication.
For me, the supplements were noticeable and life changing and I can tell when I have fallen off taking them for a while. But I don't approach anywhere near this dose. Seems like a case of miscommunication.
"We call public health authorities to consider designating as the RDA ... around 8000 IU for adults"
Edit: nevermind, it was posted 2 times already [1, 2].
There are loads of nutrients that technically compete for absorption, but generally it isn’t a concern unless you are taking a huge dose of one. Even then, it’s not like little dog is completely blocked. I’d have to look at the studies the above comment is referencing to determine how much of a concern it actually would be.
Even if taking both together was 30% less effective than taking them apart, in the context that getting people to take a single pill daily with regard to timing is hard enough, it’s still a overall win. That said, I would agree such a situation should be reflected on the label.
Let’s say it is 30%, there’s no way potential buyers, when they see ‘1000 IUs Vitamin D’ for example, will realize it actually means ‘700 IUs’.
So I don’t see how your comment makes sense.
No need to discuss absorption. Furthermore, the idea "taking D and K at the exact same time reduces the absorption of D" is unsubstantiated in medical research
Magnesium is very important cofactor for metabolism of Vitamin D (and many other things, it’s a cofactor involved with hundreds of enzymes and such), which people are also generally low on.
I think there may be another big cofactor or two, but they escape my offhand recollection.
Is the article that talks about the miscalculation
(That is, if the original calculations are wrong, but the result usually works out, it might not be caught.)
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%281...
The one piece of evidence that these are all referring back to is a small study done in men in high latitudes in winter, when skin production of Vitamin D is decreased. It consisted of a small number of patients who were randomized to receive different amounts of Vitamin D, so only a small number actually got 10,000 units a day, the highest dose. And this was over a period of just 5 months. You can read the article here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12499343/
Note that the highest dose in this study was 10,000 units a day, which I would agree can be safe for some people over a short period of time. But it was not necessary in this study to attain goal Vitamin D levels, and over time that dose can definitely cause problems.
Also, where is the 50,000 to 100,000 unit evidence coming from? I'm not sure actually, since there are no human studies looking at that dose. This may be a "theoretical" dose based on studies in other animals, or a false extrapolation based on human studies.
> Moreover, the highest cumulative dose (657,000,000 UI) leading to toxicity was obtained after 36 months of treatment with cholecalciferol 600,000 UI/day
> 1mg will instantly kill you.
Figured people can Google, all I bring is awareness this is widely overblown, having taken myself, for therapeutic purposes, upwards of 100k IU per day for months without doctor supervision (but doing it correctly, with a very low calcium diet). People take vit D megadoses for autoimmunity, with significant success, but I'm not discussing this here.
As with anything fat-soluble it's wise to take it as part of a meal that includes plenty of fat.
The problem with most studies is, surely in part because of this unfounded fear, they are underdosed. I don't have anything on hand, but I know there are clinics supervising megadose vitamin D protocols all over the world, but mostly in Germany and Latin America, that I'm aware of.
I have been diagnosed with some autoimmunity issues and would love to try this. How did you identify that vitamin d might help with yours?
When I had my first major flare-up, I tested at 7ng/dl (near bottom half of the severe deficiency range). That's what lead me to pay attention to this subject.
You mean for compensating for the low vit D levels due to constant inflammation seen in autoimmunity? or to decrease autoimmunity? I have autoimmune diseases and my vit D goes down to about 7 ng/mL without supplementation, so I'm curious.
Per your question, the latter, the theory is autoimmunity is exacerbated in a certain genetic makeup, and to compensate for it by megadosing.
> Two patients, a Caucasian 90-year old man and a 95-year old woman, were monitored from 1 h up to 3 months after intake for clinical as well as biochemical signs of vitamin D intoxication. Blood vitamin D3 concentrations showed a prompt increase with the highest peak area already hours after the dose, followed by a rapid decrease to undetectable levels after day 14. Peak blood 25(OH)D3 concentrations were observed 8 days after intake (527 and 422 nmol/L, respectively (ref: 50–200 nmol/L)). Remarkably, plasma calcium levels increased only slightly up to 2.68 and 2.73 mmol/L, respectively (ref: 2.20–2.65 mmol/L) between 1 and 14 days after intake, whereas phosphate and creatinine levels remained within the reference range. No adverse clinical symptoms were noted.
The miscommunication seems to be in her care team: symptoms associated with high vitamin D occurred, she was known to be on a high supplemental dose, but it was months of progressively worsening symptoms before anyone put 2 and 2 together.
Vitamin D seems less of the issue here than sharing and/or appropriately considering medical records
Also, I have anemia of unknown etiology.
Not recommended for everyone, but supplementation should be calibrated with regular blood tests. This should be the standard of maintaining homeostasis.
In the US, you can go into any major pharmacy chain like CVS or Walgreens and purchase Vitamin D over the counter in 5,000 unit pills, with the bottle instructions saying to take once daily. I periodically check the Vitamin D supplements available and will find them with 10,000 units per pill, again with instructions to take once daily.
Many of the patients from the US who come to me are taking Vitamin D - and 5,000 units a day is a common dose. Most of them are told to take this by their physician, and others are on the dose because they just went to the pharmacy and picked up a bottle, which happened to contain 5,000 units.
Just a quick google search produced these 10,000 unit pills available at Walgreens, made by a common vitamin company. Note that the instructions are to take once daily, and there is no mention of watching calcium levels: https://www.walgreens.com/store/c/nature's-bounty-d3-10,000-...
At one point in time, I discovered I had been taking 5000 IU/day instead of 1000 IU/day for about 180 days because of the bottles being identical except for the dosage printed in Flyspeck Times Roman 4pt. Fortunately, I alerted my doctor and a followup blood test confirmed I was still in normal range. Scary to think how that could have been a much more serious problem if I were more sensitive.
https://vitamindforall.org/letter.html
I take 5000 UI D3 daily from October to March and blood test are fine. I wouldn't take it during sunny times if you spend decent amount of time outside.
That is simply not true. Doctors do recommend 2000-4000 IU for healthy patients all the time.
Yes, and I'm saying that this does in fact happen.
My wife has a different doctor who does regular vitamin testing, she was prescribed 5000iu and a year and a half later her tests barely read "normal", still being on the borderline.
This presumably has a lot to do with latitude though - there aren't many months in the UK where I regularly walk around with arms and legs uncovered.
Believe it.
When one of the most trusted vitamin companys (Nature’s Made) sells a 5000 IU single pill dosage that can be found at any drug or grocery store in the US - it nots surprising that people buy and believe 5000 is ok.
https://www.naturemade.com/products/nature-made-extra-streng...
If 4000 IU is the max dosage anyone should take, it shouldn’t be allowed for a compnay to sell a 5000 unit dosage.
It is impossible, at my latitude, to obtain adequate exposure to sunlight. I tried that.
My doctor said "hmmmm your vitamin d is 9... maybe that explains the all-appendage tendonitis and muscle soreness" and recommended supplementation. I really like being able to spend 10¢ per day on D3 and K2 from Amazon instead of paying for 200,000 IU injections every month or two.
Super-high dosages are used in loading protocols before switching to a smaller maintenance dosage.
I have been taking between a 1,000 to 2000 units daily and just this year made it to 31.
My doctor looked at my labs on-line and sent message telling me to boost my intake to 2,000. I was crushed having finally made the goal of being low on the chart. I started immediately and had my appointment a few weeks later. During the appointment she asked how much I was taking I responded 2,000 since she told me to a few weeks earlier. Her response was that I should double that.
I decided that she had already told me to double it a few weeks earlier so I didn't boost my intake to 4,000 like she prescribed. I will see next year what my level is.
I'm doing better than I have in a long time but I also gave professional systems administration.
Do you notice a physical difference. I do notice a different but I also radically changed many aspects of my life.
5,000 IU is probably a bit much to give without rechecking the vitamin D level at least once a year or so, but at least to me it's not obviously medical malpractice. If there is medical error here, it's ignoring calcium levels higher than 11 mg/dl for months and the fact that the patient had to refer herself to an endocrinologist because her PCP did nothing about it.
Overall, I really don't like this article. The author is generalizing based on outlier cases. She even admits this: "Of course, there is a selection bias in who comes to me. There are people out there doing just fine on 5000 units of Vitamin D daily. I only see the ones who develop high calcium levels." She uses "hormone" as a sort of scare word, kind of how "chemical" is used in other contexts. Sure, there are some hormones that can be very harmful, but there is nothing inherently wrong about taking hormone supplements, even for an extended period of time, just like there is nothing inherently wrong about consuming "chemicals."
I strongly disagree about restricting over the counter vitamin D. Tylenol and ibuprofen lead to thousands of hospital admissions and hundreds of deaths per year, and yet we freely give them over the counter. If vitamin D doesn't meet the threshold for OTC, then basically nothing does.
Parts 1 and 3 of the series are better. I agree that the evidence on vitamin D for most things other bone growth in children and osteoporosis is weak.
[1] https://www.ccjm.org/content/89/3/154 ("Increasing and maintaining the 25(OH)D level consistently above 30 ng/mL may require at least 1,500–2,000 IU/day")
[2] https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/96/7/1911/2833671 ("We suggest that all adults who are vitamin D deficient be treated with 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 once a week for 8 wk or its equivalent of 6000 IU of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 daily to achieve a blood level of 25(OH)D above 30 ng/ml, followed by maintenance therapy of 1500–2000 IU/d")
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2912737/ ("Regardless of initial vitamin D therapy, and assuming no change in lifestyle or diet, a maintenance/prevention daily dose of 800 to 2000 IU or more will be needed to avoid recurrent deficiency")
Some people need higher doses of Vitamin D because they have problems with Vitamin D metabolism. Those people are outliers as well.
And there are people who can take 5,000 units of Vitamin D over a prolonged period and still have normal calcium levels. The key here is that they are checking calcium and Vitamin D levels.
For most people who need Vitamin D, a dose of 1,000 to 2,000 units daily is more than enough. None of your articles contradict that, and actually that is the dose they are recommending.
I guess your argument is that a medication that requires a provider to order follow up labs shouldn't be OTC. My counter is that there are probably at least one to two orders of magnitude more people hospitalized for NSAID induced renal injury annually than there are people hospitalized for vitamin D induced hypercalcemia. Maybe those people could be saved from renal injury if their PCP followed their creatinine, but if we set the bar at that level than virtually no medication would qualify for OTC. This is an era where patients expect more autonomy, including the ability to self direct treatment with lower risk medications. You're absolutely right that vitamin D shouldn't be billed as zero risk, but it's certainly low risk.
As to vitamin D being a hormone, I think that's neither here nor there, especially if the question is whether vitamin D should be available OTC. I think patients tend to mentally translate "hormone" to steroid sex hormones or HGH, since those are the ones that they read and hear about in the media. Those have a lower therapeutic index and broader constellation of side effects than vitamin D does. So even though it is completely accurate to call vitamin D a hormone, it's a term that is overloaded with so much baggage that I don't think it's useful for communicating with laypeople.
Anyway, I disagree with those points, but I do think parts 1 and 3 of your article series were quite good. I have to admit that I didn't realize some labs set the upper limit of normal for 25(OH) that high, so part 2 was a learning point for me as well.
What qualified as deficient also changed during this time too. The recommendation doesn’t surprise me and the vitamin stuff has always seemed like they didn’t really know what they were talking about imo.
*Of course, there is a selection bias in who comes to me. There are people out there doing just fine on 5000 units of Vitamin D daily. I only see the ones who develop high calcium levels. But I see enough of them to know that this is not an exceptionally rare occurrence. I have been to lectures in which physicians have claimed that Vitamin D toxicity almost never occurs. In my experience, this is false. I have seen many cases of Vitamin D toxicity in people who were taking the recommended dose from an over-the-counter bottle.*
I am also doing 4000IU in the half-autumn/winter/half-spring time and none during summer and doing blood work to test the levels and I am keeping it in 40ng/ml and from the article:
*...her blood Vitamin D level had risen to 79 ng/ml. This level is within what many labs call the normal range, between 30 and 100 ng/ml, but levels above 70 are almost always a result of high dose supplementation, and I have seen toxicity with levels between 70 and 100 ng/ml. (A better “normal range” based on what I have seen would probably be between 30 and 60.) Vitamin D builds up over time, so the longer someone is on a high dose, the more likely she is to develop toxicity.*
Lady in the article was taking 5000IU daily for 5 years.
It is not if you take it during winter months.
But they said it doesn't matter because the body breaks down what it doesn't need. Still, 5000x sounds worryingly high.
Of course different vitamin!
Vit D is fat soluble and will stay in the body a long time. Short term big bursts if you're deficient are probably fine, but more than 2000 IU a day for years makes me nervous.
for comparison, Vit C is water soluble and you can slam Emergen-C 2000 mg packets without issue as long as you're hydrated and have working kidneys -- you'll pee it out.
Questions you should ask:
1. OK, so fat soluble vitamins aren't excreted in the urine. But are there other processes by which the vitamin is consumed? Because if so, you could quickly run short on the vitamin whether or not it's fat soluble. If deficiency of the vitamin is known to be widespread, that's probably a sign that there is some form of consumption process like this.
2. What is the mechanism of toxicity? This matters because if the mechanism of toxicity is different than the normal mechanism of action, the dose you need to reach toxicity could be orders of magnitude higher than the dose you need to reach physiologic activity.
Regarding point 1: Vitamin D is inactivated inside mitochondria.
Regarding point 2: It's hard to get vitamin D toxicity because active vitamin D (calcitriol) is created "on demand" by cellular processes by tapping a much larger reserve of inert substance (calcifediol). Vitamin D supplements increase the amount of inert substance, not the amount of active substance.
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%281...
(I started taking a number of years back when I had low Vitamin D based on bloodwork.)