Quote:
Originally Posted by majbsb
Ted et al,
When do you think levels get too toxic?
|
Depends on Vitamin A, Vitamin K, magnesium and boron levels.If you also have a good source of vitamin A + Magnesium and you control your calcium intake to just food sources (no calcium supplements) then I'd not be worried by readings up to 200ng/ml. However I'm not aware of any evidence of any potential benefit over 100ng/ml. So I think that people getting very high readings on 25(OH)D tests are probably wasting money.
Quote:
When do you think levels are replete for optimum "magical" effects?
|
I think 40ng/ml is probably the lowest level I'd be satisfied with in situations where people are supplementing daily. I think it's likely that daily needs are met around 40ng/ml however there is no vitamin D stored in tissue so no immediate reserves (only the circulating vitamin D) While that should be fine, who knows when you're going to meet with an accident, get hospitalized and out of contact with sun/vitamin D supplements while also in a situation where antibiotic resistant infections C difficile/mrsa etc abound.
I think it's wise to keep a stored reserve of D3 in tissue so there is always something available. At 50ng/ml most people will have some stores and it's around this level that the anti inflammatory effects of D3 are maximised.
Around 60ng/ml we find human milk is vitamin D replete and body stores in EVERYONE are reasonable. Who is to say that human milk should not be a complete VITAMIN D REPLETE, food for human babies?
There's not a lot of reason for higher levels though I've seen research saying that at 100ng/ml (a level that Israeli life guards outdoors wearing little clothing in sunny climate) regularly attain/maintain) calcidiol (the form that circulates and is mostly regarded as the inactive form becomes able to work in it's own right and may directly assist the active from Calcitriol (the active hormonal form) For this reason some people suggest that it MAY be worth trying to stay around that level if you had a cancer diagnosis. I don't know if your cancer doctors would agree but I wouldn't ask or tell them I'd get to 100ng/ml before I asked the doctor to investigate the symptoms of possible cancer.
Quote:
I'm about to undertake this. I live in the tropics and bask in the sun. I also take 5,000 IU daily as a soft get with Medium Chain Triglycerides. I suspect I'm way above 60 ng/ml.
|
I'm almost always surprised and perplexed by the reading some people report. I suppose the ones whose results are boring and predictable don't bother to query them with me, so I mainly get to hear about the oddballs.
Overweight will bring your levels down so If you're obese or diabetic then I'll bet you'll be lower. If you are under stress at work/home or if you are taking corticosteroid medicines then I'll bet you're lowish.
But if none of those apply then it may depend on where you live. Say you were a muslim wearing Nijab it won't make a lot of difference where you live you'll be deficient. But City living (high pollution blocking UVB + higher stress + reflected UVA) reduces vitamin D.
You could be taking a statin, the molecule 7-dehydrocholesterol is in the same metabolic pathway as cholesterol so if you reduce the production of one you inevitably reduce potential for the other.
So I'm not going to put any money on the outcome. But I think it's probably worth taking a 25(OH)d test, You'll not need to do it regularly if it's about where you want to be and things don't change but you could easily be wasting money on the 5000iu/d but it's no big deal. I certainly wouldn't be worrying about toxicity but I think it's interesting to know if your a high/low responder. If you're spending all day in the air conditioning because it's too hot outside and then when you do go outside you sweat like a pig and wash all the vitamin D you make off your skin, then you could well be far too low.