vitamin D levels and risk

Alzheimer's, cardiovascular, and other chronic diseases; biomarkers, lifestyle, supplements, drugs, and health care.
User avatar
Gilgamesh
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Northeast US mostly
Contact:

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Gilgamesh »

Welcomeaboard wrote:Supplements of vitamind3 will raise most people's number.
Right, and we need an intervention trial with supp's, not a correlation study, to conclude that supplementing is a good idea. ¿Entiendes?

OK, now back to work for a few days, for real.

GB
User avatar
Julie G
Mod
Mod
Posts: 9187
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Julie G »

Oh dear, I don't think I ever took 10,000 IU, Lilly. Maybe, 5,000 IU right after I saw Dr. Perlmutter? He IS a true believer in higher levels to stave off neurodegeneration. My son, however, was DXed with a deficiency and was on 10,000 IU for a short time. I'm down to 4,000 IU a day now. I walk outside everyday- not naked 8-) and work outside much of the warmer months. I'm guessing my level's around 70 ng/mL based on past tests/supplementation patterns. I have an order to test.

YES, it's always best to heed Mother Nature and get your vitamins the natural way- food, sun, etc.
User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Russ »

FWIW, Before I got my calcium score, I was using 5000 IU of D3 w blended K2 (from Purity Products). I grew concerned that indeed by supplementing, I might be actually causing soft tissue calcification. So I've switched to trying to get from food. Although I've cut out grassfed butter (for now), I've added in grassfed beef liver 2-3x/wk and fermented cod liver oil on other days. As noted elsewhere, I upped the K2 with the Super K blend from LEF to make sure I had a surplus. Have not retested levels yet.

I have also yet to fully digest implications, but seems to me that Chris Masterjohn makes a good point that 25OHD levels in blood may be a bad marker anyway…

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmast ... vitamin-d/

Maybe 25OHD status is indeed a sign of insufficient calcium?

Anyway, I agree with G that I have yet to see a study trying to differentiate supplementation vs getting from food, sunshine, and I think that could be an important issue.
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.
User avatar
Tincup
Mod
Mod
Posts: 3558
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:57 pm
Location: Front Range, CO

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Tincup »

William Davis MD of "Track your Plaque." had a post in 08 (I don't have link right now) where he said peoples' calcium reversal percentages were in the single digits till he added D3 to the protocol, then some jumped to 45-50%. In this link http://www.cureality.com/blog/post/2011 ... sease.html he suggests getting the 25OHD to 70 ng/ml plus adding 1,000/mcg day K2 as MK7 & MK4.
Because of his aortic valve issue, I suggested that, in addition to the 10,000 units of vitamin D required to increase his 25-hydroxy vitamin D level to 70 ng/ml, he also add vitamin K2, 1000 mcg per day, along with elimination of all calcium supplements. (I asked Don to use a K2 supplement that contained both forms, short-acting MK-4 and long-acting MK-7.)

One year later, another echocardiogram: aortic valve area 2.6 cm2--an incredible increase.

This is not supposed to happen. By conventional thinking, aortic valve stenosis can only get worse, never get better. But I've now witnessed this in approximately 10% of the people with aortic valve stenosis. The majority just stop getting worse, an occasional person gets worse, while a few, like Don, get better. - See more at: http://www.cureality.com/blog/post/2011 ... dtbOP.dpuf
Tincup
E3,E4
RedNailz
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 4:25 pm

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by RedNailz »

I'm curious to see what my D levels are now. Last January I was at 11 ng/mL without taking any supplements. The doctor gave me a prescription for 50,000 IU per week, for four weeks. I definitely felt better after that! I now take 5000 IU per day.

However, I just started listening to a Chris Kresser podcast about Vitamin D3, so we will see if I change my supplement level. And I have not considered the interaction with K2 until now.
4/4
User avatar
Gilgamesh
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Northeast US mostly
Contact:

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Gilgamesh »

I'm not simply saying we need to look at supplementation, we need to look at any intervention taht raises levels, including getting more sun. Why? Because the longish-term peer-reviewed (George: cool, thanks, but not published anywhere that's peer-reviewed, correct? Just a single, non-blinded case study??) studies I've seen are all merely correlative (which doesn't prove causation at all -- not even close, in the case of D).

GB
User avatar
Gilgamesh
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 1711
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 11:31 am
Location: Northeast US mostly
Contact:

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Gilgamesh »

No time to correct typos from the OCR (ConsumerLab doesn't allow text-copying), but this came across my desk. Worth considering, I'd say...

-----------
The IOM also notes that some studies have shown an increase in adverse events (including overall mortality, some cancers, cardiovascular disease, and fractures and falls) associated with serum 25-(OH)D levels starting at about 30 ng/mL to 48 ng/mL and higher (75 to 120 nmol/L). A population study following nearly a quarter million people in Denmark for three years found that vitamin D levels of 20 to 24 ng/mL were associated with the lowest risk of dying during the study 35 A high serum level (56 ng/mL) was associated with a 42% higher risk of dying during the study than people with a level of 20 ng/mL. An analysis of the vitamin D levels of more than 14,000 Americans aged 17 years and older found that mortality rates fell with increasing vitamin D levels until reaching 39 ng/mL (Kramer, PLOS One 2012). The lowest mortality rate was among those in the 30 to <40 ng/mL group, however, mortality rates were similar across the range of 20 to 40 ng/mL. A population study following nearly half a million people aged 45 years and older for 4.5 years in Israel found that people with vitamin D levels of 20 to 36 nglmL had the lowest risk of heart attack or death. Compared to people in this range, risk of heart attack and death was 91% higher among those with levels below 10 ng/mL, 26% higher among those with levels 10 to 20 ng/mL, and 13% higher when levels were above 36 ng/mL (Dror, J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013). It would seem prudent, based on the latest IOM recommendations and recent studies, to maintain blood levels of vitamin D above 20 ng/mL, but not much higher than 30 ng/mL.
-----------

From ConsumerLab.com
Welcomeaboard
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Welcomeaboard »

I would agree that it is worth considering, thanks.
User avatar
LillyBritches
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:35 pm

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by LillyBritches »

I remember this from last year, Gilga. I thought it interesting when I read it, because my mom, who is definitely now a member in the oldest of olds club, has always had what would be considered low D levels. They've always run about 30, 31. Mine, sans supplementation, don't run much higher.

So perhaps it's a mortality/morbidity thing. Higher D = great for staving off illness, but sucky for longevity.

*shrugs*
I'm just a oily slick in a windup world with a nervous tick.
User avatar
Russ
Senior Contributor
Senior Contributor
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 10:33 am

Re: vitamin D levels and risk

Post by Russ »

I have not yet had time to watch, but I think I know the key aspects of Chris Masterjohn's AHS talk from last month…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H7tbWVN ... m54X7KylkQ

I think he will say that the previously described issues with getting enough D, but not too much, is that if you get too much and not enough K2, and not with right balance of A, indeed it causes problems (e.g. calcium deposition in soft tissue like arteries). Guess I'm going to have to go watch to confirm, but I'll be surprised if that's not the point.
Russ
E3/4
Eat whole, real, flavorful food - fresh and in season... and mix it up once in a while.
Post Reply