Do vitamin d3 Cholecalciferol supplements only work if you go out in the sun?

or, if you take a vitamin d3 supplement, and don't go out in the sun that day...you still get a benefit from that supplement?

You will absolutely get benefit without going in the sun. Some studies on D3 have been done on nursing home patients who never see the light of day.

__________________

You do NOT need to get sunlight for Vit D3 to work! That's why people who
know of it's benefits, take it all Winter long when they can't get D3 from Sun.
You probably should get a Vit D3 test from your Doctor to check your D3 levels presently.
Then go from there as to how much you still need.

__________________
May you always have..Love to Share, Health to Spare, and Friends that Care!

Yes, D3 is readily absorbed in tablet form. No worries there.
Studies have shown that even the synthetic D is successfully absorbed - though about 20% less efficient than D3.

As we know, the human body is programmed to genetically manufacture vitamin D from sunlight. Speaking personally, given that the 'sun factor' is such a pivotal part of the human make-up, I would be most surprised if exposure to the sun does not have some other beneficial effects that we have yet to discover.

I believe that everyone should take a vitamin D supplement, 400 - 1,000 i.u. daily, dependent on health and location.

I'd also recommend everyone takes a daily 15-30 minute walk in the sun; early morning, late afternoon - avoiding the midday sun.

Hardly a week goes by these days without some study showing vitamin D to be helpful to this or that condition.

BUT those in oil based capsules taken with food are better than solid tablets. Remember vitamin D is FAT SOLUBLE so you need your bile producing gall bladder in action to get maximum absorption of oral vitamin D3.
But at the end of the month what actually happens? Speeding up the metabolism of Vitamin D so you get steeper declines in status is counterproductive and leads to period of imbalance in 1.25 calcitrol production.

AGREED. There is more to UV exposure than just the production of vitamin D3. MIDDAY full body non burning sun exposure when UVB is present should be a part of a healthy lifestyle.

But look at what happens in people taking such trivial amounts?
If we want people to get out of vitamin D insufficiency and attain and maintain 25(OH)D levels that enable the body to store vitamin d3 so it is always readily available then we must aim for 50ng/ml. and to get MOST people above 50ng/ml requires 5000iu/daily and maybe as much as 10,000iu/daily.

Well I don't really know where to start here.
First of all we need UVB to make vitamin D3. So when is the ratio of UVB (Vitamin D producing) highest and UVA (vitamin D degrading) lowest?
The time when you get the most vitamin D production is MIDDAY and less so between 10am ~ 3pm, so early morning and late afternoon are the least effective times to make vitamin D.
Now remember where the sun is in the sky at midday.
How much of your skin surface is exposed when walking. Have a look at your midday shadow.
Not very big is it?
Now consider laying down, how much of your skin is directly exposed to UVB Considerably more.
A 15-30 minute lay near naked in the midday sun will contribute a signficant amount to your D3 intake, maybe up to 10,000iu. You skin has that potential because we evolved living outdoors near naked. It was the adaptation to pale skin that increased vitamin D production and enabled survival outside the tropics.

Indeed but if we are going to benefit from that research we need to become better educated and apply basic common sense.
If we know the impact of 5000iu/daily/D3 it's pretty pointless recommending amounts less than that

Now we understand UVA degrades vitamin D is it sensible to advise people to go out when UVA is highest in relation to UVB.

Indeed, vitamin D is fat soluble, so D supplements need to be taken with a meal containing a reasonable amount of fat content. Worth reminding people of that.

Yes, I advocate 400 - 1,000 i.u. daily depending on health (i.e. someone who has, or is at risk of osteoporosis, has a much greater need than a fit, active twenty something) and location (i.e. someone in ,say, Scotland has a greater need than someone in ,say, Florida).

Re the mega D theory; 5,000 - 10,000 i.u. daily. Well, that's one school of thought. I wouldn't go that far. And I think it's fair to say most naturopaths / dieticians / nutritionists wouldn't (and don't) go that far either.

And these numerous 'breakthrough' studies of recent times have used levels of vitamin D far less than those figures - and got results.

Excessive levels of vitamin D in supplement form can be toxic. As far as I'm aware nobody has ever suffered vitamin D toxicity from sunlight, fair enough.

As for going on in the midday sun. Given that 'we' have very cleverly trashed the ozone layer!, the sun is too fierce at midday, and UV rays too strong. Excessive UV exposure can damage and age the skin, and damage the eyes too it should be added. (Always wear sunglasses!!!)

That simply isn't born out by the facts.
While there is a trend for lower vitamin D status the further north you live such is the extent of low level ozone pollution and urban living that there is a GLOBAL vitamin D deficiency crisis. Fructose induces vitamin D insufficiency so everywhere you find high fructose corn syrup added to foods you will find higher Vitamin D deficiency rates. It is dangerously misguided to assume that because people live in a sunny country they will inevitably have a reasonable vitamin D level.
Now can you explain why Vitamin D deficiency is endemic in Middle Eastern sportsmen.
knowing that vitamin D is fat soluble and sweat contains fat should give you a clue. But it goes some way to explaining why not everyone in Florida is Vitamin D replete.

No it isn't a school of thought nor is it a personal opinion it is a fact of life. You may think you are smarter than your DNA but the fact is your skin makes 10~20,000iu/daily if you spend time laying naked outdoors midday but it's your opinion less than one tenth of that is sufficient to lift people out of deficiency and keep them there.
There isn't one shred of evidence to support that misguided opinion.

Well God help you and those poor people rely on dieticians/nutritionalists advice. If there isn't any scientific evidence to support their current practice it's about time someone sued them for negligence. They are asking for trouble.
We know what happens in practice.
You may choose to life in a world of make believe but in practice people using over the counter vitamin D3 capsule require in the region of 1000iu/daily D3 for each 25lbs they weigh to reliably attain and maintain a 25(OH)D status around 50ng/ml and keep it there. 50ng/ml is the lowest level that allows your body to store significant amounts of D3 and it's only when you have a stored reserve of D3 that you can even out fluctuations in vitamin d status. It's like having cash in an instant access savings account enables you to manage your finances more comfortably.

Indeed but think how much better the results would have been had they used effective amounts of vitamin D3 over a longer time frame?

indeed but no one is suggesting the 40,000iu/daily over more than six months that could possibly raise status to over 200ng/ml. Remember the higher your vitamin D status gets the more your body wastes.
So if people don't get Vit d toxicity from 10~20,000iu from sunlight why on earth do you think it's so important to mention it here. Why on earth would any sane person think that less than 10,000iu daily of a biologically identical form of vitamin D taken orally could possible have adverse consequences. It simply doesn't happen in practice and you have to question the mentality of people promoting that myth.
CODSWALLOP
HERE IS THE OZONE HOLE
Why on earth would anyone think that people in the UK need or USA need to worry about that.
Rising ozone pollution 'threatens crop yields' The same low level ozone that comes from urban pollution to reduce the yields of soya beans has the same effect on human health, it blocks UVB penetration and so your skin is unable to make the natural amount of vitamin d3 that previous generations would have obtained in earlier years.

This is what happens in real life and bearing in mind the urban women actually received more UV exposure (but less UVB) you also need to understand what UVA does to newly made vitamin D3. Can you work out why Is there a rural/urban gradient in the prevalence of eczema?

Increased UVA exposures and decreased cutaneous Vitamin D(3) levels may be responsible for the increasing incidence of melanoma.
By telling people to go into the sun early morning and late afternoon you are increasing their risk of cancer.

Spot on and well stated.

__________________
Let Food Be Your Medicine And Medicine Be Your Food.(Hippocrates)

Re 5,000 - 10,000 iu vitamin D daily/ sunbathing naked or nearly naked at midday: What you are presenting is not fact, it's opinion - an opinion you are perfectly entitled to express, but it's opinion nevertheless. Opinion that few people in the naturopathic world and even fewer in the allopathic world agree with.

Cancer is a disease of the immune system. If your immune system is up to par you won't get cancer. That is fundamentally why some people get cancer and some don't.
If someone's immune system is below par that doesn't mean that they will get cancer, just that they are susceptible to doing so. The general concensus of opinion is that sunbathing when the sun is at it's fiercest i.e midday, puts a person at greater risk and that it's advisable to take the sun at other times when the sun is less fierce. Most people would agree with that, I agree with that, you don't. That's fine. Each to their own.

Vitamin D is a vital part of immuno health and it is a key weapon in the battle against cancer. It's part of the solution, but not 'the' solution.

The reason why many people in the Arab world are D deficient is because of the Arab garb. They aren't getting enough D in their diet, aren't supplementing and are covered head to toe.

People need to take the sun, they need to take vitamin D supplements, yes, of course they do, but they need to do it sensibly and appropiately.


Linus Pauling came up with something similar with mega doses of vitamin C.
Vitamin C is water soluble, so a different kettle of fish to vitamin D, there are numerous mega C treatments for various ailments. I once took 25g of C for a tooth abcess infection - worked a treat - fine, but I wouldn't want to take 25g daily!

High levels of supplemented D (never mind mega D) are not advisable for people with high blood calcium or phosphorous levels; heart problems or kidney disease... Excessive amounts of vitamin D in supplement form are toxic.

"One of the main functions of vitamin D is to enable the body to absorb calcium and phosphorous, and because of this, exceess amounts of the vitamin can be harmful, leading to over-calcification of the bones and teeth, formation of calculus stones in the kidneys and hardening of the arteries due to calcium deposits"...And the same can cause interactions with various drugs e.g. lipitor...statins..calcium channel blockers...digoxin.

I'm fully aware that the natural health pool of knowledge is ever expanding. Given the recent studies I'd fully expect Government RDA's and health commentators recommendations to increase. In fact, I'm sure they will. Just the other day an Oxford university expert recommended 2,000 iu daily as a preventative measure for those genetically predisposed to certain diseases. Though the vast majority of sources recommend an upper limit of 1,000 iu daily.

Just as a light side note...I took vit D supplements one year because of the long dark winters up here. I started calling it "Instant April". I never used the entire bottle and I still have it but I have "Instant April" written on it. It's old and I don't use it anymore but I still keep it with the pills in it. I keep it because I wrote a song called "Instant April". It's about a ficticious spell...dropping a tablet into a river and causing April-like weather to occur in the fall. I can post the lyrics on another thread if anyone wants me to.

Dr Davis of the Heartscanblog draws his patients from at a latitude similar to where you live. He ALWAYS 25(OH)D tests ALL his patients.
He says Such is the state of current global vitamin D deficiency as a result of urban pollution and lifestyles, that MOST people everywhere require in total 1000iu/daily for each 25lbs they weigh throughout the year.

Mercola has a good article today on the topic Pay attention to everything he says then order some fresh Effective strength and form of Vitamin D3 and take them through to April then get a Postal 25(OH)D test
when you get the result you will then be in a position to adjust your weekly intake so that you increase the daily amount by 1000iu/daily for each 10ng/ml you are below 60ng/ml OR REDUCE intake by 1000iu/daily for each 10ng/ml you are above 80ng/ml. Using the 5000iu capsules you add the total amount your body requires daily to maintain 60ng/ml and then work out if you need to take more than two capsules on some days of the week or have a couple of days without any D3.

As your skin is able to regulate the amount of vitamin D it produces according to your body's need you can safely take up to 10,000iu/daily and still get regular sun exposure. I find providing I get 30mins full body sun exposure whenever possible and UVB from sunlamps each week in winter I can maintain 60ng/ml on 5000iu/daily.

Vitamin D is used to repair/restore organ function in those with inflammatory conditions, everyone therefore with an inflammatory condition will use MORE vitamin D than healthy people. That's why a single recommended daily intake will never suit most people. Obesity is an inflammatory condition. If you are overweight your body NEEDS more vitamin D because it USES more vitamin D than normal weight people.

You are totally wrong.
It is a fact that can be shown from experience and scientific research.
It is what happens in the real world.
Vitamin D3 regulates IMMUNE FUNCTION.
Indeed it depends on the challenges they are individually faced with. Ensuring your Vitamin D status is adequate, one that allows a stored reserve of vitamin D, 60ng/ml 150nmol/l ensures a reasonable reserve of stored vitamin D3, below 40ng/ml there is no stored vitamin D it's all being used just to meet daily needs.
It's like having money in an instant access savings account. If trouble occurs you can instantly solve that financial crisis. Same with vitamin D3 no reserves means no cash available, if you meet trouble there has inevitably to be a compromise somewhere to deal with the emergency.
NO it is not fine.
Even the most dedicated dedicated Manchester United fan would not suggest that only Sir Alex Ferguson should referee Manchester United games.
Nor should we expect BANKERS to the the sole determinant of what is an acceptable level of bonuses.
We know what happens in practice.
Health professionals meet in secret behind closed doors to determine what current RDA's should be. They limit the time and access to make presentions to the deciding committee, they ensure that most of the experts in that particular area of research are excluded from that committee. The amounts they decide on will be the lowest they can get away with that are also best suited to their personal financial/career benefit.

You have to be totally naive to think that the consensus of medical opinion reflects the latest findings on medical research. It generally takes 30yrs for new understanding to percolate through the system.
It is no good relying on health professionals understanding of Vitamin D while most of them rely on using prescription Vitamin D2 ergocalciferol, the plant form, that actually speeds up the catabolism of vitamin D and therefore makes matters worse.

No one is saying it's the whole answer, but Vitamin D affects almost 3000 different genes and directly controls 200 different genes functions. If you deprive your body of the means of switching ON/OFF different actions things go wrong and that precipitates a whole cascade of different disorders which health professional make their living out of. Therefore keeping every short of the essential controlling mechanism is the way to keep people dependent on your services.

but it isn't as simple as that. Look at some images of Terhan women and compare them with Ghazvin women who live relatively near.
Then read
The effects of air pollution on vitamin D status in healthy women: A cross sectional study. and you see the level of atmospheric pollution makes a lot significant difference.

Indeed which is precisely why the sun exposure should be taken when there is the highest ratio of UVB to UVA available. That way you get MOST of the vitamin D producing element and least of the vitamin D degrading effect that occurs in urban environments and MOST of our readers will live in towns or downwind of towns or under flight paths or near busy roads. It's SUNBURN that is linked to melanoma incidence and the reasons that modern skin is prone to burn now more than in the past is to do with nutritional factors that I've dealt with an another thread here.

I have never suggested taking more vitamin D than your body would naturally create under unpolluted skies given the chance. We live in the real world and can do little to change the environment back to where is was even 50yrs ago so we have to change our advice in the light of the fact that globally Vitamin D status is declining year on year.

Indeed that is why I do not recommend people take more than 40,000iu daily for extended periods. It takes ages for 25(OH)D levels to get above 200ng/ml above with level adverse events may be recorded.
Because we know changing from current deficiency status to the natural level of vitamin D homoeostasis quadruples the amount of calcium your body absorbs it's of course important to reduce supplemental calcium intakes as your vitamin D level rises. Most people don't get sufficient magnesium. Magnesium counterbalances calcium. It's usually magnesium deficiency that causes calcium problems not correcting vitamin D status which just reveals the problem.

Everyone here is sufficiently intelligent to work out that given Serum 25(OH)D can be expected to rise by about 1 ng/mL (2.5 nmol/L) for every 100 IU of additional vitamin D3 each day. the most that can be expected from 1000iu/daily = 10ng/ml 25nmol/l
We also know what current levels are and what typical responses to different daily intakes are.

Take an EFFECTIVE amount of vitamin D then after 3~9months
GET YOURSELF TESTED
and you will know who is speaking the truth here.

I take my Vit D3 in gel caplet form because I think dry pills of any kind do not digest as well in one's system.
I take D3 After my first meal of the day - 2 at 5000iu each, Winter & Summer
Every day!

Ted I think you are right on. And some additional benefits of sunlight are the IR radiation. This form penetrates the body and deep heats, helping purify the blood if you get a good sweat going. The sweating is a great way to get rid of heavy metals and who knows what other toxins are present. There is a good book Sauna Therapy about using IR. It's much better than steam or dry heat, which uses conduction and does not penetrate.

Knightofalbion portrays the irrational and even deceptive, manipulative fears of the medical establishment that 10,000 units of D is somehow a "mega" dose. If it is so much, why are the pills so small? Just because they use a big number does not mean it is a lot. How many mg is 10,000 IU? I've forgotton but it is not much. And it is fact that you manufacture 10,000 units in < 30 minutes of full sun exposure with light skin. 10,000 is not a large amount but has been pushed as such for many years, so the doctors and their dietician groupies and most everyone else believe it is toxic. This is because it is so effective, and if everyone had high levels, they would lose a LOT of business. It is simply a business strategy. Historically, vit D was initially used in true large amounts with great results for asthma and allergies. But they went higher and higher until people died from too high calcium, plugging the kidneys. But they were using 500,000- 1 million IU for extended times. So the pendulum swung the other way. Also I've been seeing recommended doses of 2000 iu minimum, even by establishment physicians. Most give a 50,000 unit dose of D2 every week or two, because that's the ONLY prescription available, to get levels up. So to suggest that 5000 is a megadose is really fear mongering. And there is no evidence of toxicity at levels < 20,000 for LONG TERM use. This toxicity is higher calcium levels.

All that said, there could be problems if somebody takes a calcium supplement with vitamin D. This is almost like a drug interaction issue. I'd like to see the evidence that taking calcium helps anything (evidence based medicine). There was a study showing higher brain placques taking calcium and D. Keep in mind most people are low in magnesium, necessary for proper calcium metabolism. One should get their minerals from food. I think there is no benefit taking calcium alone- everyone I know with osteoporosis (not that many) take Calcium but still have it. That approach is like eating sugar if you have low blood sugar.

Lastly, there are doses of B vitamans etc that are 5000% RDA and up. Yet people pop those like candy. Why not be worried about that? 4000 units of D is only 1000% RDA or 500% for elderly.

And I wouldn't be afraid of sun so much- you get the D in your skin, which helps against skin cancer. You want moderate sun- don't burn. All things in moderation still holds.

Hello RC, nice to meet you.

My spiritual philosophy seeks the good of all - man, beast or insect. Believe me there is nothing I would like more than a health revelation that would alleviate pain and generally help the lot of my fellow man.
It is all well and good, but the fact of the matter is that the great majority agree with the conventional position and disagree with yours.
True, Government RDA's are light and will inevitably rise. And yes, I may well revise my position in the light of proven experience, yes, I probably will, but up until then I'm siding with conventional wisdom until the picture is clearer.
Ask yourself how we have arrived at the present state of thinking re - D toxicity? It is through first hand experience of thousands of doctors treating millions of patients over a period of decades. That for me, does not give blanket approval for that theory anymore than your logic does for yours. It says to me that everyone is different.
I have no problem with mega D treatment for recognised illnesses (SAD for example) as long as it is done in conjunction with a qualified professional.
It is the daily dose I urge caution on.
B and C are water soluble, A,D and E are fat soluble. I've taken mega C once, no problem, but I wouldn't want to do it daily! I used to take 50mg of B daily (in a MV) no problem. When I took 100 mg one time, my nerves went haywire and I had to drink loads of water to flush it out!
I agree with what you said - moderation!
What irks me is certain people who shout the mega D theory from the rooftops, but make no mention of the numerous possible negative interactions/side effects, nor that for certain people mega D would be harmful.
It's definitely not suitable for anyone with kidney disease or liver disease for example.
High levels of D will actually demineralize bone if sufficient calcium is not present.
If sufficient calcium, phosphorous and magnesium are not present in adequate amounts it will enhance the uptake of toxic metals - lead, cadmium, aluminium, strontium.
Wisdom says wait till the picture is clearer.

__________________
https://holy-lance.blogspot.com