If every one had good Vit. D levels (say at least 60 ng/ml = 150 nmol/L), then the incidence of disease like cancer would be half of what it is as our immune systems would be much better. Pharmaceutical drug use would be cut in half. Optimum Vit. D levels (say 80-100 ng/ml = 200-250 nmol/L) would result in an even more healthier population.
But they don't want us to know that so they can keep us sicker and make more money on the healthcare and drug side. So they have come up with the scare tactic of Vit. D toxicity.
Having good or high Vit. D levels is probably the best supplementation (if don't get enough sunlight exposure which is most of us reading this) one can do for their health.
The book “The Vitamin D Solution” documented that life guards in summer had 25(OH)D levels of 100 to 150. I hit 130 ng/ML with Calcium smack dab in middle of range.
Does anyone know anyone suffering from “long covid” who hasn’t been vaccinated? I don’t. But I know lots of people with now serious, chronic health problems who were vaxed and boosted. The doctors who recommended and administered the shots are not going to admit they have caused great harm. Long covid is a very convenient lie, I think.
FYI, when vitanin-d was tested for over dose issues, nobody had issues until 300 ng/ml and those were quickly and easily reversed by reducing intake. Because of funding, they didn't get o look at optimal, but the limit was arbitrarily set a 100 ng/ml. Now doctors don't want to get near the limi, so they arbitrarily set 40 ug/ml as goal. 100 ug/ml is probably near optimal and a little higher, like 150 ug/ml is totally fine and worked well for me. (When I was above 100 ug/ml I never got sick, but since I dropped down to 80 ng/ml I have). Also the tests ignored vitamin K2 which reverses the hypercalccemia, so you actually might be able to safely go higher if you have equally high K2 levels.
As an internist and medical oncologist, the recommendations in the commentary should be tempered by noting this is a single time dose for those patients with Vitamin D (VD) levels < 20. Patients who are found to be VD deficient should have a repeat VD level 3 months after the this recommended dosing. If still VD deficient, the dose should be repeated. More than 50% of the women in my breast cancer practice were severely VD deficient and the majority of those same women were osteoporotic per bone density testing. Many older internists don't recommend obtaining VD levels for their patients - either women or men. However, our less than physically society preaches minimizing sun exposure by covering up and use of sun screens. Along with inactivity, these 2 prior actions contribute to both VD deficiency and early onset of osteoporosis. As in all things, patient's should seek a happy medium and work with well informed physician to optimize their personal health.
Some good info but ... I cannot "like" your comment. I take 10k IU daily; I arrived at this number by reading everything I could find and, over time, increasing my intake from 5k IU daily to 6k, then 8k, then 10k IU. (I test - private lab only - every 3 to 4 mths. Each test costs $40. The clinic charges $135 each and the order has to include "medical necessity".) My initial goal was 60 ng/mL, which I could only achieve w/ 8k IU. I increased my goal to 75-100 ng/mL and then to 90-100 ng/mL, where it is now. If it goes above 100, I decrease my intake a bit; if it drops below 95, I increase a little.
(continued) With 200 mcg of MK-7 K2 (morning) and 500 mg of Mg morning and evening. Vit D3 requires Mg; low Mg can present as low D3 ... w/ sufficient D3.
Excellent detailed info you have put out for everyone! What you take and the levels you maintain are very similar to myself. I also keep my levels at about 85 ng/mL (so slightly lower than yours) [multiply by 2.5 to get nmol/L for those of you with labs using that measurement]. K2 (MK-7 version which is the natural form) and Mg are important to take also. Mg is used in about 600 different reactions in the body directly or as co-factor and has many benefits for ones health. K2 will also help keep calcium in the bones where it belongs and not depositing in tissues and arteries (which leads to arterial calcification and thus hardening of the arteries - and you don't want that). Also, you are right that if you take Mg and K2, you will need less Vit. D3 supplementation as the 3 work better together for Vit D. Each persons body will respond a bit differently and that is why it is important to test and adjust as you go along until you hit the mark you want to be at as you have done.
Correction: I did not say, "... if you take Mg and K2, you will need less Vit. D3 supplementation ..." I have not read that in the literature nor have I heard it stated in the numerous videos available. Please revise your comment.
You are right. You didn't say that and I stand corrected. Its what happens when you comment quickly like I did, and sorry about that.
However, it is the case for most people that if they have good levels of Mg and K2, then the useable form of Vit. D in the body is more efficiently made. Then a lesser Vit. D3 supplementation amount is typically needed. This is commonly told to us by those who put out the excellent info on Vit. D3 supplementation (eg. Dr. Berg, Dr. Mercola, etc.). Actually its commonly known among a lot of people now. Also, that is why it is good to monitor your Vit. D levels to get the levels right and adjust according as you need to.
You can state your own thoughts and opinions. Readers can agree or disagree. But you may not attribute ANY of them to ME. "... sorry about that." does not correct your original statement.
Please see the research on the vitamin D compounds and the immune system cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/. This includes recommendations for how much vitamin D3 to supplement in order to attain this. The amount depends on body weight, with higher ratios of body weight for those suffering from obesity.
These are the recommendations of New Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa, as recently published in an article co-written by two other long-time vitamin D researchers, one also a professor of medicine and the other a professor of pediatrics: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/22/3969
People suffering from obesity needing more supplemental vitamin D3 as a ratio of bodyweight to attain at least 50 ng/mL circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D are detailed here: https://5nn.info/temp/250hd-obesity/. Obesity reduced the hydroxylation of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol in the liver to the circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D the immune system needs and the excess adipose tissue absorbs this circulating25-hydroxyvitamin D.
0.125 mg (5000 IU) vitamin D3 a day on average is sufficient for 70 kg 154 lb body weight without obesity.
Without proper vitamin D3 supplementation such as this, most people - at least in winter - have half or less (down to 1/10th) of the 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D they need to be healthy.
"5000 IUs a day" sounds like a lot, but it is 1/8000th of a gram = 1 gram every 22 years. Pharma grade vitamin D3 costs about USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. A credit card weighs 5 grams.
Good info on obesity and Vit D3. I'd add that the ONLY way to know blood serum level is by testing. The correlation between intake and blood serum level is poor. My dad, in his 90's, took 4,000 IU a day and had a blood serum level of 84 ng/mL. (His NP had never seen a number that high.) At 5,000 IU a day, I could not get above 60 ng/mL. So, over time, I increased my intake to 10,000 IU a day in order to reach my goal of 90 to 100 ng/mL.
That is quite true - each person responds a bit differently and some peoples systems are more efficient in getting their circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D higher.
It is possible to get hyperglycemia where calcium builds up where it shouldn't, but this is unlikely without regularly taking 30,000+ IU and without having magnesium and vitamin K2.
When over dose testing was done problems weren't seen till about 300 ng/ml and were immediately reversible by stopping supplementation.
I got up to about 150 ng/ml with no problems and I didn't get sick for several years. Since dropping down to about 80 ng/ml I've gotten sick because of majorly over doing things and getting run down.
If every one had good Vit. D levels (say at least 60 ng/ml = 150 nmol/L), then the incidence of disease like cancer would be half of what it is as our immune systems would be much better. Pharmaceutical drug use would be cut in half. Optimum Vit. D levels (say 80-100 ng/ml = 200-250 nmol/L) would result in an even more healthier population.
But they don't want us to know that so they can keep us sicker and make more money on the healthcare and drug side. So they have come up with the scare tactic of Vit. D toxicity.
Having good or high Vit. D levels is probably the best supplementation (if don't get enough sunlight exposure which is most of us reading this) one can do for their health.
The book “The Vitamin D Solution” documented that life guards in summer had 25(OH)D levels of 100 to 150. I hit 130 ng/ML with Calcium smack dab in middle of range.
Does anyone know anyone suffering from “long covid” who hasn’t been vaccinated? I don’t. But I know lots of people with now serious, chronic health problems who were vaxed and boosted. The doctors who recommended and administered the shots are not going to admit they have caused great harm. Long covid is a very convenient lie, I think.
FYI, when vitanin-d was tested for over dose issues, nobody had issues until 300 ng/ml and those were quickly and easily reversed by reducing intake. Because of funding, they didn't get o look at optimal, but the limit was arbitrarily set a 100 ng/ml. Now doctors don't want to get near the limi, so they arbitrarily set 40 ug/ml as goal. 100 ug/ml is probably near optimal and a little higher, like 150 ug/ml is totally fine and worked well for me. (When I was above 100 ug/ml I never got sick, but since I dropped down to 80 ng/ml I have). Also the tests ignored vitamin K2 which reverses the hypercalccemia, so you actually might be able to safely go higher if you have equally high K2 levels.
As an internist and medical oncologist, the recommendations in the commentary should be tempered by noting this is a single time dose for those patients with Vitamin D (VD) levels < 20. Patients who are found to be VD deficient should have a repeat VD level 3 months after the this recommended dosing. If still VD deficient, the dose should be repeated. More than 50% of the women in my breast cancer practice were severely VD deficient and the majority of those same women were osteoporotic per bone density testing. Many older internists don't recommend obtaining VD levels for their patients - either women or men. However, our less than physically society preaches minimizing sun exposure by covering up and use of sun screens. Along with inactivity, these 2 prior actions contribute to both VD deficiency and early onset of osteoporosis. As in all things, patient's should seek a happy medium and work with well informed physician to optimize their personal health.
I don’t think he is recommending 10,000 just one time since the post says it should be part of daily supplementation
Some good info but ... I cannot "like" your comment. I take 10k IU daily; I arrived at this number by reading everything I could find and, over time, increasing my intake from 5k IU daily to 6k, then 8k, then 10k IU. (I test - private lab only - every 3 to 4 mths. Each test costs $40. The clinic charges $135 each and the order has to include "medical necessity".) My initial goal was 60 ng/mL, which I could only achieve w/ 8k IU. I increased my goal to 75-100 ng/mL and then to 90-100 ng/mL, where it is now. If it goes above 100, I decrease my intake a bit; if it drops below 95, I increase a little.
(continued) With 200 mcg of MK-7 K2 (morning) and 500 mg of Mg morning and evening. Vit D3 requires Mg; low Mg can present as low D3 ... w/ sufficient D3.
Excellent detailed info you have put out for everyone! What you take and the levels you maintain are very similar to myself. I also keep my levels at about 85 ng/mL (so slightly lower than yours) [multiply by 2.5 to get nmol/L for those of you with labs using that measurement]. K2 (MK-7 version which is the natural form) and Mg are important to take also. Mg is used in about 600 different reactions in the body directly or as co-factor and has many benefits for ones health. K2 will also help keep calcium in the bones where it belongs and not depositing in tissues and arteries (which leads to arterial calcification and thus hardening of the arteries - and you don't want that). Also, you are right that if you take Mg and K2, you will need less Vit. D3 supplementation as the 3 work better together for Vit D. Each persons body will respond a bit differently and that is why it is important to test and adjust as you go along until you hit the mark you want to be at as you have done.
Correction: I did not say, "... if you take Mg and K2, you will need less Vit. D3 supplementation ..." I have not read that in the literature nor have I heard it stated in the numerous videos available. Please revise your comment.
You are right. You didn't say that and I stand corrected. Its what happens when you comment quickly like I did, and sorry about that.
However, it is the case for most people that if they have good levels of Mg and K2, then the useable form of Vit. D in the body is more efficiently made. Then a lesser Vit. D3 supplementation amount is typically needed. This is commonly told to us by those who put out the excellent info on Vit. D3 supplementation (eg. Dr. Berg, Dr. Mercola, etc.). Actually its commonly known among a lot of people now. Also, that is why it is good to monitor your Vit. D levels to get the levels right and adjust according as you need to.
You can state your own thoughts and opinions. Readers can agree or disagree. But you may not attribute ANY of them to ME. "... sorry about that." does not correct your original statement.
Please see the research on the vitamin D compounds and the immune system cited and discussed at: https://vitamindstopscovid.info/00-evi/. This includes recommendations for how much vitamin D3 to supplement in order to attain this. The amount depends on body weight, with higher ratios of body weight for those suffering from obesity.
These are the recommendations of New Jersey based Professor of Medicine, Sunil Wimalawansa, as recently published in an article co-written by two other long-time vitamin D researchers, one also a professor of medicine and the other a professor of pediatrics: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/16/22/3969
People suffering from obesity needing more supplemental vitamin D3 as a ratio of bodyweight to attain at least 50 ng/mL circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D are detailed here: https://5nn.info/temp/250hd-obesity/. Obesity reduced the hydroxylation of vitamin D3 cholecalciferol in the liver to the circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D the immune system needs and the excess adipose tissue absorbs this circulating25-hydroxyvitamin D.
0.125 mg (5000 IU) vitamin D3 a day on average is sufficient for 70 kg 154 lb body weight without obesity.
Without proper vitamin D3 supplementation such as this, most people - at least in winter - have half or less (down to 1/10th) of the 50 ng/mL 125 nmol/L circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D they need to be healthy.
"5000 IUs a day" sounds like a lot, but it is 1/8000th of a gram = 1 gram every 22 years. Pharma grade vitamin D3 costs about USD$2.50 a gram ex-factory. A credit card weighs 5 grams.
Good info on obesity and Vit D3. I'd add that the ONLY way to know blood serum level is by testing. The correlation between intake and blood serum level is poor. My dad, in his 90's, took 4,000 IU a day and had a blood serum level of 84 ng/mL. (His NP had never seen a number that high.) At 5,000 IU a day, I could not get above 60 ng/mL. So, over time, I increased my intake to 10,000 IU a day in order to reach my goal of 90 to 100 ng/mL.
That is quite true - each person responds a bit differently and some peoples systems are more efficient in getting their circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D higher.
Good info Robin!
Any possible problems from too much vitamin D?
It is possible to get hyperglycemia where calcium builds up where it shouldn't, but this is unlikely without regularly taking 30,000+ IU and without having magnesium and vitamin K2.
When over dose testing was done problems weren't seen till about 300 ng/ml and were immediately reversible by stopping supplementation.
I got up to about 150 ng/ml with no problems and I didn't get sick for several years. Since dropping down to about 80 ng/ml I've gotten sick because of majorly over doing things and getting run down.
Good points Christy and correct!
Stupid autocorrect changed hypercalcemia to hyperglycemia. Sorry. I always need to proofread before submitting.
See the Coimbra Protocol they work with very high dose vitamin D and take some precautions e.g. regular blood tests etc.
Unlikely
With newly diagnosed afib, my cardiologist said to stop taking vit K2.
??? Why is that advisable?