Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinDad86
Turns out my Vit D levels in my blood were at 128 when the normal high range is suspossed to be around 85 (sorry I forgot the units). .
|
I presume you are in the USA and the units are ng/ml and not nmol/l as used in the UK.
However 128ng/ml is extremetly high for the intake you claim to be taking.
If you look at typical responses to up to 10,000iu daily you find very few people getting above 128ng/ml.
If you are talking nmol/l then 128nmol/l is NOT a toxic amount I try to keep may 25(OH)D around 150nmol/l with 5000iu/daily from supplement and regularly sun (summer) and UVB winter full body non burning exposure.
I think you need to check the units as I'm sure you simply have a typically ignorant health professional.
It's equally ignorant to suggest the 8000iu ~ 10,000iu that your skin would naturally make given regular UVB exposure from sun or lamp is extremely high Humans evolved to live outdoors wearing little if any clothing so those are the amounts our DNA is set to create and use. We have to understand NATURAL in this context is what our human NATURE actually determines is appropriate.
I agree with the Vitamin K2 SEE
Osteoporosis and Atherosclerosis May be Linked: Vitamin K2
Personally I doubt anyone consuming a reasonably healthy diet actually requires calcium supplements once vitamin D status is over 80nmol/l ~ 32ng/ml although some may need to be above 40ng/ml 100nmol/l to maximise BMD.
I think it's generally a lack of magnesium that is required to counterbalance the actions of calcium that's generally missing although Vitamin K2 is often absent from modern diets (we don't make our own bone marrow stock sufficiently regularly nor eat
enough aged cheeses)