I do not have an irrational fear of vitamin D, and do take the supplement as it has not caused any adverse affect nor any discernible positive effect either, in myself. Since I live in a Northern Latitude, I know my D does go down in the Winter months.
It is because people have lower 25(OH)D levels in the winter that they are more vulnerable to infection. Know this it's your choice whether to enjoy the benefit of winter infections or not by either regulating the intake of Vitamin D3 to achieve a high and stable level throughout the year or not as the case may be.
Quote:
I have no dog in this fight. I am merely reporting an adverse affect to Supplemental D, and a positive effect of Supplemental D, in the same family. Also an adverse affect to strong Sun exposure that is not typical.
but you appear to blame the vitamin D and not the state of the skin. What is their about the skin that causes this unnatural response. That is the issue you are failing to address.
Quote:
It is merely a warning to those who supplement that adverse reactions can and do occur for whatever reason.
Independent studies conducted by leading scientists have not reported adverse events below intakes of 40,000iu/daily. The fact you report them suggests there is something peculiar to the experience of those you are reporting it would be regrettable if unsubstantiated scaremongering lead to a greater incidence of heart disease, cancer, MS and diabetes.
Quote:
I never proposed anything about what UVB does, or does not do. I stated quite clearly in the beginning that when the person was exposed to a greater than normal amount of sun, they developed pimples on their skin. They do not react negatively to normal amounts of Sun exposure. I do not know how much clearer I can be.
There are many many science based photoprotection strategies that reduce adverse reactions to UVB exposure.
I have listed some of them here. Natural ways to improve your skin's natural sunscreen potential (I should really update this post as there are several other strategies that have been shown to be effective.
Changing the type of fat you cook with to Coconut oil would be my first suggestion, together with increasing your omega 3 intake and reducing omega 6 to less than 4% of calories. It's the skin that is the problem not the vitamin D3.
Quote:
Ingesting 10,000 IU of a supplement has not been part of the human diet in the past, so there is not as if it as natural as eating food with natural D and the other compounds, such as bioflavonoids that accompany the D.
Diet never has been a major source of vitamin D. Perhaps the exception would be the Eskimos hunt Deer and Reindeer that feed in winter on vitamin D rich lichen .
It is reasonable to suppose eating meat with a high vitamin D status would eek out the vitamin D stored in summer.
Eskimos tradionally fermented, in grass-lined holes, whole fish, fish heads, walrus, sea lion and whale flippers, beaver tails, seal oil, birds, etc for an extended period of time. Several of these are likely to be good sources of Vitamin D3 that would help them survive the long winter.
Human stores of D3 would not deplete so fast in peoples not consuming grain, fructose or pro inflammatory industrially made omega 6 vegetable/seed oils. Possibly the main reason for modern Vitamin D3 depletion is glass. Picture windows, conservatories, large expanses of glass allow people to bask in UVB depleted UVA rich sunshine indoors. UVA degrades D3 so sitting inside your car on a sunny day you are exposing your skin to UVA and that degrades any Vitamin D near the surface of the skin. Our ancient ancestors didn't have so many ways of destroying their vitamin D status they we now have.
Snails, sea slugs, lemmings, musk ox, and insects also eat lichen, as do Eskimo groups themselves in the Arctic.
It is possible birds eating lichen grazing snails also have higher vitamin D status. People eating those birds would thus benefit.
Muktuk Inuit/Eskimo meal of frozen whale skin and blubber also contains vitamin d.
So while the Eskimos have sources of Vitamin D3 to get them through the winter readers here should be aware that up till quite recently humans derive most of their vitamin D requirement from sun exposure. 20~30 minutes full body, prone, non burning sun exposure produces 10,000 ~20 000iu of vitamin D3 and it is to mimic that natural source of D3 sensible people will use a biologically identical form to achieve the same 25(0H)D at which human breast milk is replete with vitamin D3 as naturally occurs in those societies where outdoor living near naked is regularly practiced. This is the natural primitive vitamin D status that is associated with least disease incidence and offers the best chance of preventing the proliferation of cancer cells.
This is set out quite clearly in the recent paper
25-Hydroxyvitamin D(3) is an agonistic vitamin D receptor ligand.
And I do urge people to read it and try to understand how important it is.
Quote:
When taking vitamin D supplements their skin developed Red Blotches. When they stopped taking it they went away. A lesser reaction was noticed when drinking fortified Milk. This reaction resolved itself when they stopped drinking fortified Milk, just as the study indicates.
The amount of vitamin D in milk is so trivial as to be totally disregarded. There have been numerous studies using hundreds of thousands of people that show quite clearly that using less than 400iu of vitamin D produces NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. for vitamin D3 to be effective it needs taking in the amounts the human body naturally generates. A minimum of 5000iu should be used by people who lead a reasonably outdoorsy lifestyle. If you are predominately indoors then 10,000iu/daily is required initially for about 2~3 months to raise levels above 55ng 137.5nmol/l and a 25(OH)D test after that initial period will indicate if it necessary to continue or if it's possible to reduce the intake to 5000iu/daily.
Quote:
Now you may not like that this happened, but it does not change the fact that it did happen. I do not care either way, as I am not married to any particular dogma concerning the subject. I am just reporting what happened.
You are detailing a placebo or nocebo reaction.
We are all well aware of that by now and there is no need to repeat yourself.
Those who are concerned about real rather than reactions that occur in rare individuals who have become so maladapted to their environment they report adverse reactions to inert substances must take account of the Anti-proliferative effects of 25OHD3 these do not occur at 100nmol/l 40ng/ml but do occur in breast/prostate cancer cells at higher levels.
If you want to prevent the proliferation of cancer cells then your best bet is to attain and maintain the 25(OH)D levels equivalent to those people living near naked outdoors naturally attain and maintain.
25(OH)D levels between 65ng/ml and 90ng/ml will enable sufficient 25(OH)D3 to be available to produce this effect. Intake of around 10,000iu/daily will be required. Start with amounts around 1000iu for each 25lbs you weigh.
Remember these are the amounts you skin would naturally generate if you lay naked in the midday sun for 20~30 minutes.
But if you go the sun route do get 25(OH)D checked. As we have seen from Dan's example some people skin is so damaged by years of unhealthy eating it doesn't respond naturally to UVB as it should and a change of diet may be required.
I just can't tell you how many times in my work people report allergies or reactions to this or that. To the professional, it seems absurd. No one is allergic to that! they exclaim. I have met women how have profound negative effect to very low doses of female bio-identical hormones.
I have come to the conclusion that the metabolism is a mysterious thing regardless of what we think we know. For instance, the human body manufacturs a small amount of xylitol. Yet I know of someone who reacts to xylitol.
Lets look at it this way. The woman has a liver issue of undefined etiology. She processes things differently and obviously with some difficulty. When livers are stressed sometimes they can process a small amount of something but not more of it without problems.
Now we can talk about bio-identical if you want. I do not think that there is such a thing, being the homeopath that I am in nature it is incomprehensible to me that a substance made in a laboratory is identical to something made in the body. It may hold the same chemiocal structure but it will not hold the same vibratory pattern. Consider structured water and Dr. Emoto's work when to contemplate what I am trying to say.
Autioimmune disease is when the body reacts to its own biological functions. She may have an autoimmune issue around vitamin d. I don't think it would not be the first time someone reacted to hormonal substances that their own body produced or possibly substances that those hormones trigger into action. Just think of all the cox 2 issuses there are. Hormones are involved in the formation of these inflamatory substances and the reaction to cox 2 or the other cox's could occur due to a hormonal influence in the production of the cox. Almost every metabolic act in the body is directly related to hormones and there are a ton of hormones that are rarely discussed.
__________________ "The nurse should be cheerful, orderly, punctual, patient, full of faith, - receptive to Truth and Love" Mary Baker Eddy
Visit www.HealthSalon.org
No one is denying that the reports of reactions to what are regarded as inert substances do occur.
Placebo and nocebo effects are real and must not be ignored.
We know that Vitamin D3 is an effective agent.
Although it is inert itself once your body has performed the initial hydroxylation, it works in the body on some 2000+ gene actions.
So you take Vitamin D3 your 25(OH)D levels rise and your body can now use Caclidiol.
It is these downstream changes, from a vitamin D deficient to a slightly more replete state, that some people misunderstand as allergic reactions.
One of the first things that happens when you increase 25(OH)D levels is your body can now absorb more calcium from your diet.
We can measure the calcium consumed and the calcium excreted and see that while Vitamin D deficient people only absorb 20% of what they consume people with higher 25(OH)D levels excrete less so their bodies absorb more calcium.
Among other things Calcium is used in the body to tense muscle fibers and to excite brain neurones.
These actions are counterbalanced by magensium.
So magnesium relaxes muscle fibers and calms brain neurones.
So someone who has just raised their vitamin D status may feel tense and may experience muscle cramps.
But it is NOT THE VITAMIN D that is the cause of the cramps or the tension, it's the fact they are MAGNESIUM DEFICIENT.
Because their calcium deficiency has been to some extent corrected the fact they were also magnesium deficient is being revealed.
Because magnesium is water soluble it leaches out of soils and much of our food is grown in soilless mediums anyway and doesn't contain sufficient magnesium.
Also modern fast maturing varieties of grains and veg don't have the same magnesium status that these foods contained 50yrs ago. I think the modern milling process also contributes to lower magnesium availability.
The way to deal with these muscle cramps and tense headaches is NOT to blame the vitamin D but to try to understand what is happening and deal with that issue.
In order to have optimum bone mineral density (strong bones) you have to maintain a 25(OH)D above 42ng/ml.
Calcium absorption from diet is maximal at 32ng/ml.
Vitamin D enables better absorption of both calcium and magnesium but while calcium is pretty much available in most diets, cheese, milk, veggies fish etc magnesium is in short supply and many of the sources we thought were good are now less good than we previously thought.
Taking extra magnesium with your vitamin d is a good idea.
Calcium is better absorbed and better utilized from foods.
I have explained how Vitamin D is active in our immune system.
It signals to skin cells to create anti microbial peptides to fight pathogens when they are detected.
Increase your vitamin D status and you have an increased capacity to deal with the nasties that are attacking your body.
But what happens to the debris?
One of the roles of our skin is to dispose of toxic waste matter.
More dead pathogens, greater ability to detoxify the system of heavy metals means more waste processing is required and this is why there could be a skin reaction.
Our skin is supposed to be permeable.
Stuff is supposed to be able to get through the cells membranes when required.
Much of the plasticity and permeability of cells membranes is affected by the long chain omega 3 fatty acids DHA and EPA.
Naturally our diets would have contained roughtly equal amounts of omega 3 and omega 6.
The ratio would have been 1<>1 most US adults have ratios around 1 omega 3 to 16~20 omega 6's.
Most UK adults have ratios in the region of 8~10 omega 6<>1 omega 3
When you have levels above 4omega 6 <> 1 omega 3 the surplus Omega 6 actively displaces the omega 3.
In order to get omega 3 into the cell structue you must reduce the omega 6 intake or however much omega 3 you consume it will always be overwhelmed by the Omega 6.
In the short term you must improve your omega 3 plasma levels as you have to keep omega 3 available but changing all the cells in your body is a long term job and even a couple of years of avoiding all omega 6 industrially processed vegetable oils will only see the job half done.
But back to the red blotchy skin and pimples.
Is it a good idea, having improved your vitamin D status, having activated the immune system, detoxified the nasty heavy metals and killed of the pathogens, to keep all that crap in the body or should we allow the skin to function as nature intended and get rid of it through the skin?
The use of adequate amounts of omega 3 and also coconut oil, will improve the ability of the skin to deal with these waste products without inflammation.
Jumping to the conclusion that the skin rash reported above is an allergic reaction to vitamin D is not justified.
IMO it is a natural consequence of raising the ability of the body to dispose of toxic substances through a skin that hasn't a proper ratio of omega 3 <> omega 6.
Sort the omega 3 omega 6 ratio and you will reduce the acne while improving Vitamin D3 levels to the natural level that allows human breast milk to flow replete with D3 and at which least incidence of chronic illness occurs, provides a sufficient vitamin D to control in appropriate allergic reactions and deal with inappropriate inflammatory responses on the skin surface.
58ng/ml 145nmol/l is the level at which human breasts produce optimum amounts of vitamin D3 in breast milk.
Above 60ng/ml is the level at which we can see calcidiol starting to impact on cancer cell proliferation. Below 40ng/ml there is no measurable difference.
It costs just �1 a month to keep an effective 25(OH)D status.
The following user thanked Ted_Hutchinson for the above post:
My view is that there is probably no problem with vitamin A directly from foods.
I think there may be a problem with Vitamin A from synthetic sources.
I'm not happy with Cod liver oils that claim a specific standard vitamin A content. Nowadays they can deconstruct fish oil take out all the natural vitamin a, replace it with a synthetic standard amount and put a definite Vitamin a content claim on the label. So if you are buying CLO and it give the vitamin a content as a range such as 650-1500 IU we can see that this is to cope with a natural seasonal variation.
Where we see standard fixed amount Vitamin A (from Cod Liver Oil) 1250 IU we must wonder why a natural product that would be expected to show a seasonal variation in Vitamin A content doesn't?
Mind you that example is a poor one because they do state (from Cod Liver Oil) so it isn't synthetic, but some others may be and that's were the problem may arise.
I make sure I take some vitamin a every day but just a little.
Dr Cannell of the Vitamin D Council approved the content of Biotechs Vitamin D3 PLUS.
You can see how much of the ingredients are on the label (remember that's 2 capsules in a serving) How the Ingredients in Vitamin D3 Plus Work Together in the Body
Vitamin D does not act alone in the body. We all know it needs calcium in order to make our bones strong but what else does vitamin D need to work properly?
Magnesium - The numerous enzymes that metabolize vitamin D all need magnesium to work properly. Magnesium deficiencies are common, mainly because the foods that contain magnesium (green vegetables, nuts, and whole grains) are not consumed as often as they should be.
Vitamin K - A small number of very important proteins, called Vitamin K dependent proteins, need vitamin K to bind calcium. Vitamin K promotes deposition of calcium in bone but inhibits its deposition in other organs. While the mechanism by which vitamin K may promote mineralization of bone, while inhibiting mineralization (calcification) of vessels, is not entirely clear, it appears that Vitamin K is crucial for this effect. Like magnesium, the best source of Vitamin K is green leafy vegetables, which many of us
consume less frequently than we should.
Zinc - The Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) sits upon your genes like a glove, waiting for Vitamin D to tell your genes what to do. At the base of the fingers of the glove is a zinc molecule. Thus, it seems likely that Vitamin D cannot function properly in those who are zinc deficient. Zinc deficiencies may be quite common, especially for those who eat little meat. (One serving of six oysters contain eight times the RDA.)
Boron - While little is known about Boron, other than it is common in green vegetables fruit and nuts, a number of studies found Boron to be important for the actions of Vitamin D on the cell wall. Studies show many Americans get little Boron, again because green vegetables, fruit, nuts, and whole grains are not consumed as often as they should be.
Vitamin A - Vitamin D requires Vitamin A to bind to the Vitamin D receptor. As most people have all the Vitamin A they need, this product contains the same amount of Vitamin A as one egg.
Our goal with all these five co-factors was the same, to supply not all you need, but enough to give Vitamin D a boost. The key to health remains a healthy diet, one rich in colorful vegetables and fruits, whole grains, meat, poultry, and cold-water fatty fish, a diet that is varied, containing many different foods, and one that contains only occasional "empty calories."
I don't use Vitamin d3plus (it's too expensive) but I have checked I am getting the suggested vitamins and minerals listed above that help vitamin d function better.
The following user thanked Ted_Hutchinson for the above post:
We must have healthy liver and kidneys to process VitD properly. Then to avoid nearly all allergies, the adrenals must not have any weakness. In my mind, this is nearly impossible to have such strong adrenals. There is far too much stress in our lives.
So, I think there must be some requirement for complementary substances to help process VitD. My choice is nettle leaf. The adrenals require more VitC than any other part of the body; so when there is stress, more VitC is needed. Nettle provides so many things for the whole body. Amla is another choice. This should help with allergies. These two herbs can also help with the liver and kidneys.
I'll jump in here and comment. Don't have much time these days to spend here but there's lots of good discussion. I'm an engineer but have been reading about health for 30+ years. Not that I'm an expert but I have been interested for a long time.
I think the woman with the skin splotches may be in rather bad condition to begin with, since her liver is doing strange things. Adding a large dose of D when she may be at very low levels is bound to cause a shock to the system, esp the liver, which has to store it and may in fact need it. And if the person has been taking vit A and it is stored in the liver, the D may cause some reaction because they work together. Cannell was saying how delicate the balance of A to D is, and they should both be converted by the body, i.e. no Vit A but instead from the carotenoid precursors. Same with not eating cod liver oil because of the potential imbalance.
So if the woman was full of heavy metals, the liver was struggling to keep up and/or full of Vit A, the D may have triggered the excretion of some junk via the skin, a major function as Ted says. But it is really hard to say without knowing more about the woman and her history and condition. I wouldn't just write it off as being sensitive to D. There has to be underlying issues and D was probably the catalyst for some kind of excretion. There are too many studies showing the benefits of D and I've never seen any that cautioned about skin reactions. I haven't read them all of course but some have commented that even large doses of 100,000 units have not shown any negative reaction, dispelling the toxicity myth (when D3 is used at least).
I haven't read them all of course but some have commented that even large doses of 100,000 units have not shown any negative reaction, dispelling the toxicity myth (when D3 is used at least).
The paper I've linked to shows clearly that high and stable 25(OH)D levels are ideal and we should try to avoid sudden changes in status. As we know human skin creates 10,000~20,000iu of vitamin D given full body, non burning,sun exposure it seems sensible to stick to supplement amount below 10,000iu/daily as these are amounts our DNA evolved to deal with naturally.
Using 50,000iu once a week to average 7000iu/daily is a reasonable compromise but I'm not convinced anything longer than monthly supplementation won't increase the tendency to produce swings in status that create imbalances in the immune regulation system.
I do have some more information, as I have seen my brother and his wife over the Holidays.
Both were tested for D levels and both were low. My Brother does have some autoimmune problems, but they are not too bad at this point in time. This is what he was attempting to address using the D supplements. He has the Psoriasis on his shin, like I do, but also had cracked skin on the hands and feet, aggravated by his work in machining.
The D is resolving all of these, according to him. They both take Fish Oil and actually are quite health conscious, more than I was aware of. She was drinking a Trader Joe's nasty looking green drink made of Ginger, Green and Blue Algae, Chlorella, Spirolena, etc, many other natural ingredients that I do not remember.
The liver function the doctor mentioned, was interpreted by him as a good thing. He said something to the effect that she had enzymes that most people do not have, that result in the fast metabolism of toxins. He acted as if he was familiar with this anomaly.
She is actually more healthy than normal, and has two healthy children. She does have red hair and very fair skin, so that could account for the pimples from prolonged sun exposure. She looks a few years younger than her actual age, or so everyone says. Everyone looks young to me nowadays. My daughter has a similar Sun reaction, but as the skin tans, it goes away.
This paper explains why it is important to keep a good omega 3<> omega 6 What is important is the amount of OMEGA 3 in those fish oil capsules in relation to the omega 6 input from diet. Most USA adults have WAY too much omega 6 and anything above 4.5% of calories negates the impact of the omega 3.
So they need to ditch industrial vegetable oils such as corn, soybean, safflower and sunflower oil, and everything that contains them. This includes most processed foods, especially mayonnaise, grocery store salad dressings, and fried foods.
When omega 6 has been reduced to a ratio is below 4<>1 you can expect the skin's inflammatory status to be reduced and the propensity to overreact will reduce and the permeability will be such that it will be better able flush toxins out of the body.
Here is a source of a test they may care to use to encourage them to keep on track. Omega-6:Omega-3 Ratio test UK source of similar test
In the mean time using around 2g of OMEGA 3 daily (not just 2 fish oil capsules I mean the sum total of the EPA + DHA numbers, so choose the most concentrated source you can afford) will improve matters in the short term. Be aware that rebuilding each cell in your body to the original specification our DNA evolved to function best with takes time. Expect 2yrs to achieve a 50% conversion and probably 5 yrs before the job is done.
Only when 25(OH)D levels are around 60ng/ml 150nmol/l is the active hormone Calcidiol present in sufficient numbers to operate both independently and working synergistically in collaboration with Calcitriol to operate the protein switches to enable our bodies to operate in the way our DNA evolved to function. We have a system to stop the proliferation of cancer cells but it depends on the amount of Vitamin D3 available and below 40ng/ml 100nmol/l we are aware there is no measurable effect. At higher levels you can see it working.
Your choice.
Linear Mode
