Once absorbed into the body there is no difference between the way Vitamin D from sun or supplements are used.
There are possibly advantages to getting vitamin from UVB exposure as the conversion of 7 dehydrocholesterol on skin surface may have advantages as there are cells on the skin that can create the active hormone so are able to initiate the production of antimicrobial peptides that fight infection locally. But there are also advantages to having some vitamin d absorption through the cut as it can affect gut microbia.Gutmicrobiota, probiotics, and vitamin D: interrelated exposures influencing allergy, asthma, and obesity? So ideally get sunshine exposure when you can and also take EFFECTIVE amounts of vitamin d3 as well. Only when 25(OH)D is AT or ABOVE 125nmol/l does it work most effectively at fighting inflammation and infection. So anyone with levels below that threshold will experience more pain, more infections, and more disability than is necessary.
The main route by which UV exposure damages DNA in cells that leads to cancer is by oxidation from iron released from blood when skin becomes inflammed. So the key is to prevent sunburn.
Sorry Ted but you are out of date. Omega 3 fish oils have been proven to do nothing at all and levels of Vit D3 above 125nmol/l can cause an increase in calcium which can have negative consequences.
Omega 3 and 6 is no longer being touted as the great anti-inflammatory fix-it for arthritis, Alzheimer’s, MS, heart disease etc etc. I wish the experts would make up their minds. All those fishy burps for nothing!
And with Vit D3 it is not a case of more is better. It is a potent hormone and does need to be monitored by regular blood tests. Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that because it is “natural” it is all OK.
And to quote from your own link
"“The most common types (of kidney stone) in the US are calcium oxalate stones”
and
“Vitamin D, in doses producing desirable serum levels of 25(OH)D (40-60 ng/ml or 100-150nmol/L) does not adversely affect any of the components of this system”
In other words, as long as you don’t exceed the recommended allowable levels you should not develop kidney stones from excess calcification.
And I repeat for clarity and for people’s safety on this vital issue:
"One potential risk of taking vitamin D supplements is that vitamin D increases the absorption of calcium by your intestines, resulting in elevated blood calcium levels. Because your kidneys are responsible for filtering through your blood, elevated levels of calcium in your blood also increase the amount of calcium in your urine. If your calcium levels get too high, the calcium can come out of solution, resulting in the formation of hard deposits known as kidney stones. Kidney stones can get lodged in the ducts of the kidneys, causing intense pain and trouble urinating.
Maximum Therapeutic Dose
One way to prevent kidney stones as a result of vitamin D intake is to avoid taking large doses of vitamin D. The “tolerable upper limit” of a vitamin is the maximum recommended dose that will not cause any side effects. For vitamin D, the tolerable upper limit for adults is 100 mcg or 4,000 IU per day, according to the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine. However, doses of 250 mcg or less daily are also unlikely to cause any symptoms of high calcium levels, such as kidney stones.
Vit D3 supplementation is complex and shouldn’t be undertaken without medical supervison. My suggestion is to discuss it with your neuros, get your base blood levels done, have regular blood tests done and be guided by your neuro about the correct dose to take.
“Sorry Ted but you are out of date. Omega 3 fish oils have been proven to do nothing at all and levels of Vit D3 above 125nmol/l can cause an increase in calcium which can have negative consequences”.
You have to understand that the funding of most medical research comes from the pharmaceutical industry that has a vested interest in debunking the benefits of natural (unpatentable substances)Most of the research on omega 3 has been done without regard to omega 6 levels.
If you understand how in order to balance the ratio of omega 3 to omega 6 you will obtain the benefits that naturally were available to humans as our DNA was evolving.
There is no evidence increasing vitamin D status FORCES the body to absorb excess calcium. Vitamin D ENABLES CALCIUM absorption but it does not force you to take excessive amounts of calcium from supplements. Taking vitamin D does not make your run to Holland and Barrett and buy up calcium supplements nor does it force you to consume huge amounts of calcium rich foods. Most people don’t get the current RDA for calcium and so a little calcium supplementation may be sensible but many people not only consume adequate calcium from their diet and water but also take excessive amounts of calcium in the multivit/mins or calcium supplements.
It’s quite easy to avoid taking more than the RDA for calcium. Don’t blame vitamin D for forcing you to do so it really doesn’t.
You may learn a bit more about the role of Vitamin K in calciuim metabolism here
Omega 3 and 6 is no longer being touted as the great anti-inflammatory fix-it for arthritis, Alzheimer’s, MS, heart disease etc etc. I wish the experts would make up their minds. All those fishy burps for nothing!
Only when we get GOOD research which actually takes the time to reduce omega 6 intake while increasing omega 3 levels will we get this sorted. You can get an omega 3 ratio test that will tell you what the ratio is but until they test all trial participants before the research starts everyone will be on a different starting point depending on whether they eat pastured meats or intensively indoor grain fed meat.
Vit D3 it is not a case of more is better. It is a potent hormone and does need to be monitored by regular blood tests. Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking that because it is “natural” it is all OK.
Surely the mistake is thinking that human DNA is fundamentally flawed in creating 10,000iu at the first chance of full body non burning UVB exposure? Does anyone here really think that evolution made a mistake by providing vitamin D replete breast milk to babies naturally when 25(OH)D is at 125nmol/L? Now we know Traditionally living populations in East Africa have a mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration of 115 nmol/l. who really thinks that the levels suggested by health professionals are evidence based?
“The most common types (of kidney stone) in the US are calcium oxalate stones”
Which is why you need to blame the OXALATE not the calcium. It’s quite easy to reduce oxalate levels. No one is going to force rhubarb down your throat.
In other words, as long as you don’t exceed the recommended allowable levels you should not develop kidney stones from excess calcification.
But you will only get problems with calcium if you don’t have sufficient natural calcium channel blockers MAGNESIUM. We need to keep magnesium levels optimum. Most of us do get sufficient calcium but most only get 50% the daily amount of magnesium so that (combined with the lack of Vitamin K2) is the root cause of the problem. Blaming vitamin d is simply misguided.
D3 supplementation is complex and shouldn’t be undertaken without medical supervison.
So I presume you ring up the doc when it’s sunny and ask permission to lay in the sunshine with your shirt off?
It really is ludicrous that anyone should not believe that human DNA survived without the benefits of modern doctors and we need to consult them to maintain a NATURAL 25(OH)D status.
suggestion is to discuss it with your neuros, get your base blood levels done, have regular blood tests done and be guided by your neuro about the correct dose to take.
I suggest you take responsibility for your own health and make the time to learn how your body should operate NATURALLY. I do think you need to discuss this issue with your health professionals as it’s about time they caught up with the latest research.
They don’t seem to have sussed out that most people now can get access to current research and are now aware how they have been putting the health of patients at risk by not applying common sense and the latest medical research.
It is a total disgrace and shame on health professionals that we’ve known for 60 years that MS is related to Vitamin D status and yet most MS patients remain vitamin D deficient. You certainly do need to discuss this issue with your neuro’s and ensure they know you’ll sue for negligence if they don’t put your best interests first.
I’m a believer in vitamin D3 supplementation (the evidence is convincing), but I’m now an avid supporter of not being naive enough to think that the body can tolerate high doses every day and of getting regular blood tests to make sure levels are not getting too high.
The advice on the internet about the toxic level of D3 is extremely mixed: ranging from 250nmol/l to 500nmol/l and perhaps higher, depending on the site. I have been feeling ill for several months so, if we assume that my levels have been building over those months, I am living evidence that quite a lot less than 345nmol/l is toxic for me. Thankfully, my calcium levels are OK (my family tends to suffer from low calcium which may have protected me on this occasion), but I cannot say what would have happened should I not have got my blood test done and my D3 levels had continued to rise.
Another concern I have is that various articles state that the body can easily absorb 10,000iu of supplements a day and that toxicity really only happens when one takes huge amounts of D3 a day. This added to my complacency in not getting tested and is clearly not true in my case because I was taking less than that! I would therefore urge anyone who hasn’t had their D3 levels tested recently to do it asap. I would also urge them to be wary of any level above 200nmol/l. There is no need for it to be so high and it may actually be making your symptoms worse.
As far as the UTI thing goes, I don’t know the science behind it, but I did not had a UTI in many years until my D3 levels apparently went too high and I had two. That could be a coincidence of course, but it is enough for me to give the D3/UTI link sufficient credibility to look into the findings from Australia. There’s a lot of good research done there too, so I would be very surprised if it wasn’t robust.
A word on Omega oils: NICE are currently reviewing the UK guidelines for MS. I believe that they are going to remove the recommendation for people with MS to take omega oils because there is no evidence that they work. Personally, I will continue to take them because they are good for other things, but I have no expectation that they are doing anything for my MS.
It’s the doctors promoting low fat diets who are responsible for the increase in skin cancers.
Re Karen’s post
We really do have to understand the body makes 10,000iu ~20,000iu whenever given the chance of UVB exposure, for a reason.
It doesn’t seem sensible to me to believe amounts of vitamin D equivalent to those produced and absorbed naturally are too high.
I’m not suggesting that people shouldn’t get regularly 25(OH)D checked. I think everyone should twice yearly so they can adjust intake to maintain levels at or just above 125nmol/l.
There is no evidence increasing vitamin D status FORCES the body to absorb excess calcium. Vitamin D ENABLES CALCIUM absorption but it does not force you to take excessive amounts of calcium from supplements. Taking vitamin D does not make your run to Holland and Barrett and buy up calcium supplements nor does it force you to consume huge amounts of calcium rich foods. Most people don’t get the current RDA for calcium and so a little calcium supplementation may be sensible but many people not only consume adequate calcium from their diet and water but also take excessive amounts of calcium in the multivit/mins or calcium supplements.
I [/quote]
Ted,
The way the body metabolises Vit D from UVB rays (sunlight) is VERY different from the way we metabolise it from supplementation. There is plenty of medical evidence to show that increasing Vit D levels beyond a SAFE level forces the body to absorb excess calcium. Hypercalcuria (high calcium in the urine) is one of the early signs of Vit D toxicity and can pre-dispose one to kidney stones and therefore to UTIs. And yes, Vit D toxicity can definitely cause hypercalcemia (high blood calcium).
“Taking vitamin D does not make your run to Holland and Barrett and buy up calcium supplements nor does it force you to consume huge amounts of calcium rich foods.”
Don’t insult me by by being patronising. Calcium absorption is incredibly complicated and involves the kidneys, the parathyroid hormone, Vit D and a host of other things to maintain homeostasis. Too much Vit D upsets the balance and suppresses PTH thus increasing the action of calcium loading through the gut and into the blood stream. So if the Vit D level was excessive calcium serum levels rise. Because PTH is located in the kidney the first response is for the kidney to try and deal with an excess of calcium by flushing it away resulting in calcium in the urine.
You may not agree with this but none the less they are the facts. Of course the human body evolved to safely absorb Vit D from sunlight. But it didn’t evolve to safely absorb it from tablets which is why we need to do it with care.
Oh and by the way, be wary of using Mercola.com as a source. He is one of the most discredited quacks on the internet and has been subject to numerous FDA warnings for his incorrect and misleading information.
1 - Please, please, please, if you quote from other posts, don’t use that pale blue font as a substitute for doing the job properly. You make it very hard for most of us to follow the thread of your argument. The “feature detectors” that are part of the human visual system respond much better to luminance contrast than to colour contrast.
2 - If you must quote from American sources, please have the kindness to convert their numeric system into units that can be readily understood in this country. We can all understand the difference between 1000iu and 5000iu (for example) so that we all know where Karen was coming from in her original post.
Personally, I am very glad that she did post what she did - I was considering a D3 supplement, but now I will put it off until I see my Neurologist in a few weeks time.
Well l hope your neurologist is better informed then the one l saw. He poo-poo’d vitd3 - actually said that there was no way of testing and that a normal diet was all you needed.
Anyone wanting a vitd3 test - it can be done via a kit from a nhs lab in Birmingham - just google it. lts just a finger-prick test - so very easy. l am still taking 10.000ius daily - and have still not got anyway close to the 225nmols optimum level. l do take magnesium - as well as this is recommended.
But many thanks to Rizzo/Ted for all your important info. And yes l do agree that we do have to take responsibility of our own health/welfare and be our own experts - as we have been let down for so long by so called health experts.
l am still following the ‘Barry Groves’ eating regime - the Hunter/Gatherer high fat low carbs. And the occasional session on a sun-bed - which certainly makes me feel ‘glowing’ with health.
125nmol/L is the optimal level. 225nmol/L is the upward allowable safe limit, meaning more than that and you have moved into the unsafe levels. Try and keep it aropund 125-150nmol/L
And using a sunbed is the WORST way to boost your Vit D intake. Vit D is synthesised from the UVB rays and these are the most carcinogenic rays. In a typical sunbed the UV concentration can be as high a UV Index of 36 and given the maximum UV Index for Australia is only 12 gives you some indication of how extreme these are. To get 10,000iu in the sun at an UV Index of 12 (which would be very rare in the UK) you would only need about 10 minutes exposure. So at 36 UV Index you would want to be in the sunbed for an absolute maximum of 3 minutes. They are actually illegal here because of the increased skin cancer risk…
Do be careful, Francis. You won’t feel so glowing when you have melanomas
A word on Omega oils: NICE are currently reviewing the UK guidelines for MS. I believe that they are going to remove the recommendation for people with MS to take omega oils because there is no evidence that they work. Personally, I will continue to take them because they are good for other things, but I have no expectation that they are doing anything for my MS.
Interesting to note Karen. I changed my cod liver oil supplements to evening primrose oil by recommendation of my gp and after a few months noticed my skin and hair became smooth and shiney, so even if it does nothing for the rest of the body worth while in my case. I did read somewhere that oils shouldnt be taken with normal pills because it coats them thus stopping them from working properly. So my advice would be to take supplements if you see good after a while, but only after at least an hour of taking normal prescribed pills, thus avoiding this coating issue.
Hi Bren. Interesting point re oils taken with normal pills. When googling about Vit D3 supplements a while back I did read one link that said you shouldn’t take statin at same time as Vit D capsule as the statin won’t work properly.
It is good to share… there’s so much that can go wrong!
Thanks Karen, I’ve never taken vit d3, but sometimes I think I should. So, although I’m sorry your levels are too high can I say thank you for highlighting this, since I imagine that if I did decide to take vitd3 , I would probably just buy some and take them. This post has highlighted some potential dangers of doing so. Hope you get your levels sorted out soon! Cheryl:-)
I actually raised this issue about a month ago and explained the importance of everyone having their vitamin d levels checked if they are on supplements. I explained that my level had gone up to 370 and that the consultant has now reduced my dosage and he explained about the complications of having too high a level of vitamin d in our system and about toxicity and calcification. I was actually shot down a little on the post and told that you couldn’t get toxicity at this level and that it doesn’t cause calcification etc etc. Interesting that when Karen raises the post and the exact same thing I said it gets a different response. It was only wobbly boy previously that agreed with the information I was saying - which was actually from my neurologist who is well heard of and has an excellent reputation
Thank you everyone for your replies. Karina - I wish I’d seen your post: I might have gone to see my GP earlier! Bren - I’d never thought of the potential issue with oil capsules. Thanks for the info Kx
Two points Karina:
1 - The response to any post is, first and foremost, a matter of how many people read it. Back in the days of the old forum, I posed a question about Copaxone and had only about three responses. Someone brought the same thing up about two weeks later and had a whole lot.
2 - There is a big difference between the posts that you have added to a thread, and the one that karen (rizzo) started. She has offered a reasoned argument in favour of large doses of D3 for some time. She now finds that this may not have been a good thing - and is willing to start a thread saying that she has probably got it wrong. The real importance of this is that a lot of people on this forum have a very high respect for her views, and will pay serious attention to what she says.
Just in case anyone is getting the wrong idea, I am still in favour of large doses of D3 just, please everyone, make sure you are keeping on top of what that is doing to the levels in your system - only take what you need to keep your levels about 150nmol/l. Don’t assume that everything is fine because you are taking the same as (or less than) everyone else: get it checked.
Kx