Life Extension Foundation has just finished analysing 13,000 vit D tests carried out on its members over the past 12 months.

https://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/...Members_01.htm

William Faloon has to be one super person to know because he writes some of the best, obviously from-the-heart editorials that I've ever seen anywhere. I'm a member and he makes me proud that I am...he's one sharp guy.

By the way, I should be included in illustration #3 in the higher catagory of vitamin D average.

Liverock,

We just renewed our LEF membership this past month. I don't care for some of the more sensational aspects of LEF but I'm thankful for much of their cutting edge research.

My family's blood tests weren't processed through LEF but they're all over the 60 ng/mL mark. It is surprising that so many people who presumably use supplements are lacking in D. That appears to be rather common according to other recent studies as well. That's an important point for patients and physicians to know and address.

Thanks for sharing the link.

__________________
You're officially invited to visit my natural health blog: www.healthyfellow.com

I am having the world's most mild case of the common cold right now. Just sinus drainage and nothing else. I have also been taking 4000 IU of Vit D3 the past month also.

Nice paper here from the Taylor, Wagner, Hollis team showing the need for adequate intakes for pregnant and nursing mothers.
Circulating 25-Hydroxyvitamin D Levels in Fully Breastfed Infants on Oral Vitamin D Supplementation
This paper is full text free online and repeats some of the detail from other published work this team has done (that you have to pay for or have a library subscription) 58.8ng/ml just under 150nmol/l was the level at which their mothers had vitamin d replete breast milk and at latitude 32n it took around 6400iu/daily to achieve it.

New paper today on the relationship between testosterone and vitamin d status.
As 25(OH)D goes up so does testosterone.

For those who still aren't convinced
A critical review of Vitamin D and Cancer A report of the IARC Working Group William B Grant

How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill's criteria for causality

Shining light on the vitamin D Holick

Thanks for the heads up on the vit D/testosterone study, a lot of people have been speculating on this connection but there have been no studies till now.

As most of the subjects of the study are coronary cases, it would probably be true to speculate that they are middle aged or elderly and therefore have a few prostate cancer cells, or might even have been diagnosed with PC.

High T is a known agonist in PC cases and the mainstream treatment is drastically lowering T levels to prevent the increase in cancerous cells.

How does this line up with the successful studies of Vit D in PC cases?

Is there some other physiological action going on with Vit D besides increased T, which counterbalances the possible increase in PC cells due to increased T?

A Multicountry Ecologic Study of Risk and Risk Reduction Factors for Prostate Cancer Mortality This has a major section on Vitamin D and prostate cancer.

From How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill's criteria for causality
Prostate cancer mortality rates have a different geographical variation in the United States from that of the preceding 12 types of cancer.
It has high mortality rates across the entire northern United States and low rates in all southern states. Prostate cancer is also unusual for vitamin D-sensitive cancers in that prediagnostic serum 25(OH) D has generally been found uncorrelated with incidence of prostate cancer;70 however, it has also been found associated with increased risk29,71 and decreased risk.29,72
However, early life UVB is protective,73 as is UVB around the time of cancer discovery,74 suggesting that vitamin D may inhibit metastasis.
Ecologic studies have consistently found an inverse correlation of prostate cancer with latitude.75
Grant hypothesized that the geographic variation of prostate cancer mortality rates in the United States is related to a viral risk that is more common in winter and that higher serum 25(OH)D levels in winter reduce the risk of such infections.76,77
An ecologic study determining that prostate cancer is diagnosed more often in winter supports this hypothesis.78
Stat3 is involved in prostate cancer metastasis.79
Grant showed that vitamin D can block Stat3, which might explain why vitamin D is beneficial once prostate cancer is discovered.80

Hey, is taking 4000-8000IU of D3 sufficient?

With vitamin D3 it is NOT the amount you take that matters but the 25(OH)D3 level you attain and maintain.
A lot depends on where you live (above latitude 40 virtually no Vit D from sunshine in winter) and how your pro inflammatory status is.(how much wheat, omega 6 oil, fructose and sugar, you consume) and it depends on your weight.
So there is no way anyone can say online this is the right amount for you.

Dr Davis has been using 25(OH)D3 testing with all his heart patients at latitude 42 to check their levels and he finds women require 5000iu and men 6000iu generally BUT he finds a great variation and he cannot predict how much any particular individual requires. It could be below 2000 or above 10,000iu/d.

We know 10,000iu/daily is safe where ever you live.

We also know from Hollis's work that from one month old 100iu for each 2.5lbs achieves a reasonable level. To get mothers to provide sufficient vitamin D3 in their breast milk (58.8ng/ml) at latitude 32 takes 6400iu/D.

If you have been taking in the region of 5000iu/daily for around 2~3 months it would be worth having a 25(OH)D postal test and seeing if your level is between 60~80ng/ml.
If it is BELOW 60ng/ml (around the level at which least chronic illness is found) then increase the amount of D3 daily by 1000iu for each 10ng/ml you need to raise your level to get to above 60ng/ml

If you are ABOVE 80ng/ml don't panic (toxicity (that's adverse events not death) only has been recorded above 150ng/ml and it takes roughly 40,000iu/daily for many months to get above 150ng/ml but there is no advantage (that I am aware of) in staying above 80ng/ml unless you have a cancer diagnosis and you are aiming to take advantage of the higher anti proliferative action of CALCIDIOL (yes I do mean calcidiol, at higher concentrations it works in combination with Calcitriol)

So if you haven't a cancer diagnosis and your test shows you are above 80ng/ml then reduce daily vitamin D3 by 1000iu for each 10ng/ml you need to get under the 80ng/ml level. (Living outdoors near naked people naturally attain 60~80ng/ml so this is the primitive levels our DNA evolved to work best with)

If you read the article at the original link in this thread you will see that MOST people who are tested have levels FAR LOWER than that needed to provide breast milk with sufficient vitamin D3 and far less than required to prevent MS, CANCER, HEART DISEASE and DIABETES.
The annual cost of effective strength 10,000iu D3 is so trivial it beggars belief that people are so parsimonious with it. 5000iu $5 discount code WAB666

Newbies to Vitamin D supplementing should start with the 10,000iu/d for 2~3months, then after getting tested and confirming they are above 60ng/ml, move down to a combination of 5's or 10's to average around the 1000iu/daily for each 25lbs they weigh, unless they have an inflammatory condition that means they are using more anti inflammatory agents than average in which case they may have to use more.

Only regular 25(OH)D3 testing can show you how much your body requires.

On checking the 'Vitamin D increases Testosterone Study' the authors have added the following rider. Looks like more research is needed before any conclusions with regard to Vit D and T effects on the population as a whole can be drawn.

But they will say that won't they?
those who have a reasonable amount of common sense will start from the NATURAL 25(OH)D levels that human bodies NATURALLY attain and maintain given regular full body sun exposure.

It is more reasonable to assume that the levels associated with least chronic illness are safe than to assume the levels at which we are aware most chronic illness occurs are safe.

Similarly 58.8ng/ml is the level at which optimum vitamin D is expressed in breast milk, it takes 6400iu/daily at latitude 32 for this to happen given modern cultural norms, whereas above 10,000iu would have been obtained from full body sun exposure now we wear clothes/spend a lot of time under glass consuming foods that induce vitamin D insufficiency we need to adjust our intake with supplements to achieve the levels NATURE would have provided.

Here is an example of what happens in real life.

Vitamin D deficiency is correlated with about 100 diseases.
Increasing vitamin D has been has been shown to reduce the probability of either getting or of reducing the affects of about a dozen diseases so far.

I have a lot of research to share with everyone at: https://www.henrylahore.com/VitD.html.
It covers Diseases ,Sunshine & UVB , Toxicity, Blood Tests, Books, Life Extension Mag, How much D3, Cod Liver, and D2 problems
I also have 800 MB of information in 360 files on vitamin D.
I anticipate making a vitamin D wiki in the next month where we can all share information

Nice site. Plenty of stuff I recognize there.
I wish I was as well organized as you obviously are.

Ted, do you think sunlight is a better source of D than supplementing? I'm just wondering if they've found or may yet find that sun is better. A lot of people still avoid the sun and I wonder if it's a bad idea to rely on supplementing alone so that they don't have to bother going out in the sun. Though I know it's hard for people who work in offices. A lot of cultures know about sun 'bathing'. I have an Ethopian friend who says they give their babies morning sun every day.

Of course I know we're at the stage now where everyone is low on D and needs to supplement to get the levels up. But--

Once you get your D levels up do you think just getting sun in the summer will carry you through the winter? Or do you think you'd still have to supplement in the winter, or maybe late winter when the levels are getting low?

I know it's fine for close-to-the-equator cultures like Ethiopia to rely on the sun though I guess the northern cultures such as Scandanavia have used cod liver oil--or traditionally was even their far north exposure in summer sufficient since all cultures used to be out in the sun every day?

YES and NO.
Sorry to make such as simple question complicated BUT, it all depends.
Individual response to UVB exposure from sunlight is as varied as our response to Vitamin D3 supplements. Unless you get a 25(OH)D test there is no way I or you can know if what you are doing is working for you.
The only really safe option is to do both.
Take a basic supplement to cover your daily needs, say 5000iu AND get regular short full body prone non-burning, midday sun exposures.
We know that the higher your vitamin D status the faster your skin will tan and the less vitamin D it will make so there is no question of toxicity of you are just using sunshine or using a small (relative to the amount made by the skin and under 10,000iu/D) amount of vitamin d from supplement.

I don't know what the ozone pollution from traffic and air flight is like where you sunbathe. If you live in a town then you will definitely get less than in the country.

Nor do I know how much UVA is being reflected from the hard surfaces where you life. But I do know that UVA degrades vitamin D by turning it into supra sterols that the body doesn't use.

I also don't know what you are doing when you sunbathe. Are you laying naked in the sun or are you running a marathon or cycling your butt off. Laying down naked will expose more skin than standing up, while vigorous exercise while sunning that makes you sweat will bring the vitamin d to the skin surface and it may get degraded by UVA or rubbed showered off before it's absorbed into the body.

And if you are busy running/cycling you may also be drinking HFCS sweetened energy drinks that induce vitamin D insufficiency.

There is still at lot to be learnt. [url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20308557}This paper suggests there is more to sun exposure than just Vitamin D3[/url]

Indeed, I think it is unwise to put all your eggs in one basket.


Particularly those poor soles who spend all day working by a big sunny window. Who can work out what happens when you expose someone to long periods of just UVA light.
What happens to the VITAMIN D stored in fat near the surface of the skin when it's baked all day under UVA?

Now there's an excellent idea. We could start a new fashion but how soon would it be before the health professionals had you in court for child abuse. Sad isn't it that not only is the sight of a naked child regarded at an enticement to pedophilia but a few minutes full sun exposure may have health workers claiming you aren't fit parents as you expose your child to unnecessary dangers.
I doubt it. You'd need a spreadsheet to work it out. factor in we need to use at least 4000iu/daily minimum. Generally it has a half life of about 3 weeks. Imagine you had to spend $4000 daily how much money would you need to get through the winter if you had to store the money in a bank AND the bank reduced your capital by 50% EVERY 21DAYS.
WHY RISK IT? When a pot of 200 x 5000iu capsules costs only $10.20 what is the point of risking cancer, diabetes, heart disease. There simply isn't any risk involved in taking such a small amount of D3. Therefore it's a win win situation. Take the supplement in winter and use both supplement and sun in summer. Get tested every so often to be sure your level is 60~80ng/ml and keep a pot of 50,000iu in store to use if you think there is flu about and you are developing symptoms.

There is still an awful lot of vitamin D deficiency in the Middle East. Just because it's a sunny country doesn't guarantee the people go outside and it's culturally acceptable to expose your skin.
But cod liver oil then isn't necessarily what cod liver oil is today. They can mess with the Vitamin A content and Vit A in excess can block Vitamin D receptors.

There are far too many systems in our bodies that rely on having Vitamin D3 available that anyone who fails to ensure their 25(OH)D level is above 50ng/ml (the level at which most people have some stored D3) is like someone who thinks it absolutely fine not to have any saving at all, and to spend each week exactly what they earn each week.
If you don't have some spare cash in an instant access saving account you have to go into debt to deal with a crisis and then if you are not careful or things get worse there is trouble.

Your body cannot go into debt for vitamin D, if the stores run out damage occurs, that has to be repaired. The more often that happens the more likely you are to end up with chronic disease.