MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Vitamin D
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
Well no. Its within the range isnt it? But new recommendations will be >40 as I understand it.
hardasnails1973
New Member
can cause alot of your issue that you are dealing with ..especially your testosterone, thyroid levels and rt3.
hardasnails1973
New Member
majoritry people in the southern states where sun exposure is abundant are still low.
I have had several clients that spend 4-5 hours per day out in the sun in the summer and still deficient.
First is to identify. All of my clients in UK where deficient.
I have had several clients that spend 4-5 hours per day out in the sun in the summer and still deficient.
First is to identify. All of my clients in UK where deficient.
I'm from Scandinavia and have some CFS issues. Few years ago I went on a sunny hollyday for a week in Spain. When I got back I noticed that my fatigue was gone...I figure that I got several thousand IUs of vitamin D each day through the sun during that week and that had cured me. Eventually the fatigue returned after a month or two. As it is now I take 2000-4000 IU each day, not during summer-time though.
I'm from Scandinavia too. I noticed the same effect, a greatly enhanced sense of well-being after a 2-week vacation to California in october 2006. The sun was shining almost non-stop and I was outside for the better part of the trip. I felt good, or I might even say close to great (to the point of having spontaneous bursts of laughter when I was lifting weights), for a few weeks afterwards and then gradually slunk back to my miserable baseline. I haven't experienced such a dramatic improvement after any subsequent vacation trip.
Last summer I spent almost every day outside in the sun, lounging on the beach, playing basketball etc, and it was the sunniest & hottest summer on record in my country; in effect, a 2.5-month "vacation". I also took 5000 ius of vitamin D on the couple of cloudy days. When I had my D-25 levels tested in august, they were 145. Still, I never felt anywhere near as good as I did in 2006, but that is probably because other hormonal parameters have worsened since then.
One undeniable benefit I've noticed from having high serum levels of vit D is I never get sick anymore. I mean with viruses, the common cold etc.
guys, come on,. its just the effect of the holiday
you get rest, you engage in fun activities, you change the atmosphere, see new things, are not worrying about the usual stuff... thats the exact reason why vacations exist !
its obvious you get better mood on a good holiday than when you'te sitting in your boring office, sticking in traffic every day going back and forthg and need to worry about the usual stufff (well, maybe some guys have an every day life much better than just desctribed, LOL)
i dont really like how on this (great) board every single detail is attributed to medical parameters and obvious psychological things are (sometimes) ignored
anyway, for referrence, see my post on the previous page (i think thats this thread)
my vit d3 was 15 or so, i raised it to 119 within 3 months (yes, i overdosed "a little" ,exact number should be on porevious page) and it didnt really do shit for me
EDIT: if one has a stressful life in sunny California and goes for a two weeks relaxing holiday to cold Scandinavia, he'll get much better mood and probably an energy-boost as well, I guarantee you this, it has nothing to do with Vitamin d3
Last edited:
Would be great if we could achieve that wellbeing we both felt after those holidays again.
Nah mate, my problems have been much more pathological. I'd love, however, if a few vaccations per year with sun and piña coladas would do the trick.
2yung4this
New Member
Currently I am seeing Dr Robert Recker, he is leading expert in america, possible the world on osteoporosis, bone metabolism and health. my Vit D level is actually 37 on the same scale as the other fellow. He is actually working with the health agencies to raise the daily requirement of vit d to 1000ius a day, and to get the american blood level ranges changed to a higher range.
on the USA scale any level under 25 is actually considered rickets and can cause pliability on the bone. it also his belief that osteoporosis from old age doesnt have to exist, that if women would just have adequate calcium and higher levels of vit d growing up, the natural decline in bone mass wouldn't be as strong.
He gave me a one time mega dose of 50,000uis ov vit D and now I will be taking 5000ius every day for 2 weeks, then a recheck
on the USA scale any level under 25 is actually considered rickets and can cause pliability on the bone. it also his belief that osteoporosis from old age doesnt have to exist, that if women would just have adequate calcium and higher levels of vit d growing up, the natural decline in bone mass wouldn't be as strong.
He gave me a one time mega dose of 50,000uis ov vit D and now I will be taking 5000ius every day for 2 weeks, then a recheck
Extra Vitamin D and Calcium Aren’t Needed, Report Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html
November 29, 2010
By GINA KOLATA
The very high levels of vitamin D that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories — and can be achieved only by taking supplements — are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says. It also concludes that calcium supplements are not needed. http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/DRIVitDCalcium.aspx
The group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine, the committee says in a report that is to be released on Tuesday.
“For most people, taking extra calcium and vitamin D supplements is not indicated,” said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, a member of the panel and an osteoporosis expert at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute.
Dr. J. Christopher Gallagher, director of the bone metabolism unit at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb., agreed, adding, “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.”
Over the past few years, the idea that nearly everyone needs extra calcium and vitamin D — especially vitamin D — has swept the nation.
With calcium, adolescent girls may be the only group that is getting too little, the panel found. Older women, on the other hand, may take too much, putting themselves at risk for kidney stones. And there is evidence that excess calcium can increase the risk of heart disease, the group wrote.
As for vitamin D, some prominent doctors have said that most people need supplements or they will be at increased risk for a wide variety of illnesses, including heart disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases.
And these days more and more people know their vitamin D levels because they are being tested for it as part of routine physical exams.
“The number of vitamin D tests has exploded,” said Dennis Black, a reviewer of the report who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
At the same time, vitamin D sales have soared, growing faster than those of any supplement, according to The Nutrition Business Journal. Sales rose 82 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching $430 million. “Everyone was hoping vitamin D would be kind of a panacea,” Dr. Black said. The report, he added, might quell the craze.
“I think this will have an impact on a lot of primary care providers,” he said.
The 14-member expert committee was convened by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit scientific body, at the request of the United States and Canadian governments. It was asked to examine the available data — nearly 1,000 publications — to determine how much vitamin D and calcium people were getting, how much was needed for optimal health and how much was too much.
The two nutrients work together for bone health.
Bone health, though, is only one of the benefits that have been attributed to vitamin D, and there is not enough good evidence to support most other claims, the committee said.
Some labs have started reporting levels of less than 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood as a deficiency. With that as a standard, 80 percent of the population would be deemed deficient of vitamin D, Dr. Rosen said. Most people need to take supplements to reach levels above 30 nanograms per milliliter, he added.
But, the committee concluded, a level of 20 to 30 nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range.
Vitamin D is being added to more and more foods, said Paul R. Thomas of the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health. Not only is it in orange juice and milk, but more is being added to breakfast cereals, and it now can be found in very high doses in supplement pills. Most vitamin D pills, he said, used to contain no more than 1,000 international units of it. Now it is easy to find pills, even in places like Wal-Mart, with 5,000 international units. The committee, though, said people need only 600 international units a day.
To assess the amounts of vitamin D and calcium people are getting, the panel looked at national data on diets. Most people, they concluded, get enough calcium from the foods they eat, about 1,000 milligrams a day for most adults (1,200 for women ages 51 to 70).
Vitamin D is more complicated, the group said. In general, most people are not getting enough vitamin D from their diets, but they have enough of the vitamin in their blood, probably because they are also making it naturally after being out in the sun and storing it in their bodies.
The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and other groups applauded the report. It is “a very balanced set of recommendations,” said Dr. Sundeep Khosla, a Mayo Clinicendocrinologist and the society’s president.
But Andrew Shao, an executive vice president at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group, said the panel was being overly cautious, especially in its recommendations about vitamin D. He said there was no convincing evidence that people were being harmed by taking supplements, and he said higher levels of vitamin D, in particular, could be beneficial.
Such claims “are not supported by the available evidence,” the committee wrote. They were based on studies that observed populations and concluded that people with lower levels of the vitamin had more of various diseases. Such studies have been misleading and most scientists agree that they cannot determine cause and effect.
It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels — 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher — were needed.
After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was “inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality.”
Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote.
That is what surprised Dr. Black. “We thought that probably higher is better,” he said.
He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: “I think this report will make people more cautious.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/health/30vitamin.html
November 29, 2010
By GINA KOLATA
The very high levels of vitamin D that are often recommended by doctors and testing laboratories — and can be achieved only by taking supplements — are unnecessary and could be harmful, an expert committee says. It also concludes that calcium supplements are not needed. http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/DRIVitDCalcium.aspx
The group said most people have adequate amounts of vitamin D in their blood supplied by their diets and natural sources like sunshine, the committee says in a report that is to be released on Tuesday.
“For most people, taking extra calcium and vitamin D supplements is not indicated,” said Dr. Clifford J. Rosen, a member of the panel and an osteoporosis expert at the Maine Medical Center Research Institute.
Dr. J. Christopher Gallagher, director of the bone metabolism unit at the Creighton University School of Medicine in Omaha, Neb., agreed, adding, “The onus is on the people who propose extra calcium and vitamin D to show it is safe before they push it on people.”
Over the past few years, the idea that nearly everyone needs extra calcium and vitamin D — especially vitamin D — has swept the nation.
With calcium, adolescent girls may be the only group that is getting too little, the panel found. Older women, on the other hand, may take too much, putting themselves at risk for kidney stones. And there is evidence that excess calcium can increase the risk of heart disease, the group wrote.
As for vitamin D, some prominent doctors have said that most people need supplements or they will be at increased risk for a wide variety of illnesses, including heart disease, cancer and autoimmune diseases.
And these days more and more people know their vitamin D levels because they are being tested for it as part of routine physical exams.
“The number of vitamin D tests has exploded,” said Dennis Black, a reviewer of the report who is a professor of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco.
At the same time, vitamin D sales have soared, growing faster than those of any supplement, according to The Nutrition Business Journal. Sales rose 82 percent from 2008 to 2009, reaching $430 million. “Everyone was hoping vitamin D would be kind of a panacea,” Dr. Black said. The report, he added, might quell the craze.
“I think this will have an impact on a lot of primary care providers,” he said.
The 14-member expert committee was convened by the Institute of Medicine, an independent nonprofit scientific body, at the request of the United States and Canadian governments. It was asked to examine the available data — nearly 1,000 publications — to determine how much vitamin D and calcium people were getting, how much was needed for optimal health and how much was too much.
The two nutrients work together for bone health.
Bone health, though, is only one of the benefits that have been attributed to vitamin D, and there is not enough good evidence to support most other claims, the committee said.
Some labs have started reporting levels of less than 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood as a deficiency. With that as a standard, 80 percent of the population would be deemed deficient of vitamin D, Dr. Rosen said. Most people need to take supplements to reach levels above 30 nanograms per milliliter, he added.
But, the committee concluded, a level of 20 to 30 nanograms is all that is needed for bone health, and nearly everyone is in that range.
Vitamin D is being added to more and more foods, said Paul R. Thomas of the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health. Not only is it in orange juice and milk, but more is being added to breakfast cereals, and it now can be found in very high doses in supplement pills. Most vitamin D pills, he said, used to contain no more than 1,000 international units of it. Now it is easy to find pills, even in places like Wal-Mart, with 5,000 international units. The committee, though, said people need only 600 international units a day.
To assess the amounts of vitamin D and calcium people are getting, the panel looked at national data on diets. Most people, they concluded, get enough calcium from the foods they eat, about 1,000 milligrams a day for most adults (1,200 for women ages 51 to 70).
Vitamin D is more complicated, the group said. In general, most people are not getting enough vitamin D from their diets, but they have enough of the vitamin in their blood, probably because they are also making it naturally after being out in the sun and storing it in their bodies.
The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research and other groups applauded the report. It is “a very balanced set of recommendations,” said Dr. Sundeep Khosla, a Mayo Clinicendocrinologist and the society’s president.
But Andrew Shao, an executive vice president at the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a trade group, said the panel was being overly cautious, especially in its recommendations about vitamin D. He said there was no convincing evidence that people were being harmed by taking supplements, and he said higher levels of vitamin D, in particular, could be beneficial.
Such claims “are not supported by the available evidence,” the committee wrote. They were based on studies that observed populations and concluded that people with lower levels of the vitamin had more of various diseases. Such studies have been misleading and most scientists agree that they cannot determine cause and effect.
It is not clear how or why the claims for high vitamin D levels started, medical experts say. First there were two studies, which turned out to be incorrect, that said people needed 30 nanograms of vitamin D per milliliter of blood, the upper end of what the committee says is a normal range. They were followed by articles and claims and books saying much higher levels — 40 to 50 nanograms or even higher — were needed.
After reviewing the data, the committee concluded that the evidence for the benefits of high levels of vitamin D was “inconsistent and/or conflicting and did not demonstrate causality.”
Evidence also suggests that high levels of vitamin D can increase the risks for fractures and the overall death rate and can raise the risk for other diseases. While those studies are not conclusive, any risk looms large when there is no demonstrable benefit. Those hints of risk are “challenging the concept that ‘more is better,’ ” the committee wrote.
That is what surprised Dr. Black. “We thought that probably higher is better,” he said.
He has changed his mind, and expects others will too: “I think this report will make people more cautious.”
cvictorg
New Member
SO - Who's right?? Do we need Vit D supplementation or not??
HeadDoc
Psychologist
I don't think that the Times article clarified the data. They did have an opinion though!
Jeton
New Member
i generally aim for the "ULN" (upper limit of normal) n call it a day. for my husband, that meant adding 400 IUs of vitamin D on top of his fortified OJ...
saru
New Member
http://www.uvadvantage.org/portals/0/pres/ is a wonderful presentation on Vitamin D. It is not only a great presentation on Vitamin D by the person who recently identified its full benefits. But it is simply a super presentation, his horrible sense of graphic design not withstanding. A pleasure to watch.
PS: For some reason, Google Chrome doesn't handle the two-panel display format used for the play back. I had no problem with IE.
PPS: The presentation has nothing about TRT
PS: For some reason, Google Chrome doesn't handle the two-panel display format used for the play back. I had no problem with IE.
PPS: The presentation has nothing about TRT
Last edited:
Ross AC, Manson JE, Abrams SA, et al. The 2011 Report on Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine: What Clinicians Need to Know. J Clin Endocrinol Metab:jc.2010-704.
This article summarizes the new 2011 report on dietary requirements for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). An IOM Committee charged with determining the population needs for these nutrients in North America conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence for both skeletal and extraskeletal outcomes.
The Committee concluded that available scientific evidence supports a key role of calcium and vitamin D in skeletal health, consistent with a cause-and-effect relationship and providing a sound basis for determination of intake requirements. For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements. Randomized clinical trial evidence for extraskeletal outcomes was limited and generally uninformative.
Based on bone health, Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs; covering requirements of > 97.5% of the population) for calcium range from 700 to 1300 mg/d for life-stage groups at least 1 yr of age. For vitamin D, RDAs of 600 IU/d for ages 1–70 yr and 800 IU/d for ages 71 yr and older, corresponding to a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/liter), meet the requirements of at least 97.5% of the population.
RDAs for vitamin D were derived based on conditions of minimal sun exposure due to wide variability in vitamin D synthesis from ultraviolet light and the risks of skin cancer. Higher values were not consistently associated with greater benefit, and for some outcomes U-shaped associations were observed, with risks at both low and high levels.
The Committee concluded that the prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in North America has been overestimated. Urgent research and clinical priorities were identified, including reassessment of laboratory ranges for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, to avoid problems of both undertreatment and overtreatment.
This article summarizes the new 2011 report on dietary requirements for calcium and vitamin D from the Institute of Medicine (IOM). An IOM Committee charged with determining the population needs for these nutrients in North America conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence for both skeletal and extraskeletal outcomes.
The Committee concluded that available scientific evidence supports a key role of calcium and vitamin D in skeletal health, consistent with a cause-and-effect relationship and providing a sound basis for determination of intake requirements. For extraskeletal outcomes, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disorders, the evidence was inconsistent, inconclusive as to causality, and insufficient to inform nutritional requirements. Randomized clinical trial evidence for extraskeletal outcomes was limited and generally uninformative.
Based on bone health, Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs; covering requirements of > 97.5% of the population) for calcium range from 700 to 1300 mg/d for life-stage groups at least 1 yr of age. For vitamin D, RDAs of 600 IU/d for ages 1–70 yr and 800 IU/d for ages 71 yr and older, corresponding to a serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level of at least 20 ng/ml (50 nmol/liter), meet the requirements of at least 97.5% of the population.
RDAs for vitamin D were derived based on conditions of minimal sun exposure due to wide variability in vitamin D synthesis from ultraviolet light and the risks of skin cancer. Higher values were not consistently associated with greater benefit, and for some outcomes U-shaped associations were observed, with risks at both low and high levels.
The Committee concluded that the prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in North America has been overestimated. Urgent research and clinical priorities were identified, including reassessment of laboratory ranges for 25-hydroxyvitamin D, to avoid problems of both undertreatment and overtreatment.
Last edited:
I was taking 5000IU of D3(now Foods Vitamin) per day and my blood level was 40 ng/ml in June 2010. I then upped the dose to 10,000IU/day and my blood level was 61ng/ml in Oct/2010.
The video mentioned earlier, YouTube - Vitamin D and Prevention of Chronic Diseases, said that each 100iu of Vit D3 increase your blood level by 1ng/dl. It didn't do that for me. It looks like each 250IU increased my blood level 1ng/dl. Maybe there is a diminishing effect at higher levels of IU/day.
The video mentioned earlier, YouTube - Vitamin D and Prevention of Chronic Diseases, said that each 100iu of Vit D3 increase your blood level by 1ng/dl. It didn't do that for me. It looks like each 250IU increased my blood level 1ng/dl. Maybe there is a diminishing effect at higher levels of IU/day.
Similar threads
