Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Nutrition & Supplements
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Dec-22-23, 04:59
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,436
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default How Much Vitamin D Do You Need to Stay Healthy?

Contrary to many threads on this forum about Vit D, recommended levels for general health, and specific benefits for a whole range of diseases, a new long review of the evidence.

How Much Vitamin D Do You Need to Stay Healthy?
Most people naturally have good vitamin D levels. Overhyped claims that the compound helps to fight diseases from cancer to depression arenít borne out by recent research

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-stay-healthy/?

I personally have been given this new advice by an osteoporosis specialist. High levels of Vit D, my goal range 50-99, has been correlated with increased fracture risk. Details of these new studies and more in the latest issue of Scientific American.

Other experts still advise higher levels. Vitamin D fans will not be happy, Dr Holick is called out for his books and hype.
Make of it what you will!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Dec-22-23, 06:46
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,311
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Contrary to many threads on this forum about Vit D, recommended levels for general health, and specific benefits for a whole range of diseases, a new long review of the evidence.

How Much Vitamin D Do You Need to Stay Healthy?
Most people naturally have good vitamin D levels. Overhyped claims that the compound helps to fight diseases from cancer to depression arenít borne out by recent research

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-stay-healthy/?

I personally have been given this new advice by an osteoporosis specialist. High levels of Vit D, my goal range 50-99, has been correlated with increased fracture risk. Details of these new studies and more in the latest issue of Scientific American.

Other experts still advise higher levels. Vitamin D fans will not be happy, Dr Holick is called out for his books and hype.
Make of it what you will!


I wish I knew what to make of it. Iíve been taking high dose vitamin d for years.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Dec-22-23, 10:34
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Hmmm... certainly food for thought! I will cut back on it. I've been taking 5000 iu daily for years now. My doctor thought my D3 was too low at 20-something.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Dec-22-23, 22:26
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,044
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
ďShe doesn't dissuade people from taking supplements of up to 2,000 IU per day, but she doesn't recommend higher levels because some studies have found that excess vitamin D can increase the risk of dangerous fallsóresearchers speculate that intermittent high doses affect the central nervous system, which could impair balance.Ē

Being a skeptic since I was a young lad, Iím finding you canít have it both ways in the article. Itís true as the author points out earlier in the article that RCTs are the only way to assess causation, but sheís also confirming the above quote is purely speculative regarding the possibility vitamin D impacts the CNS and results in falls due to balance issues. Vitamin D is essential, and Iím not concerned that supplementing with it is potentially risky. Iím not concerned that it doesnít have a positive impact on CVD or cancer. I never thought it did. As for muscle preservation and bone strength, I firmly believe that it is a combination of lifestyle behaviors that prevent or correct osteoporosis and improve oneís lean mass influences on metabolic health. Itís really a cascade of behaviors of which vitamin D levels play a role rather than being a primary contributor to a miraculous correction.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-23, 04:38
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,436
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
Hmmm... certainly food for thought! I will cut back on it. I've been taking 5000 iu daily for years now. My doctor thought my D3 was too low at 20-something.
. My OP doctor has all her "ladies" on a Vit D supplement, 800-1000 of D3, and she likes to see a level above 30. In the same breath if you are taking 4 or 5,000 of D, she will cut back on that, with the caveat if you are very obese, you do need a higher dose. She is not a fan of any other supplements, even calcium! it's OK to take a dose like 600, but over 1500 there are two meta-analyses showing the calcium correlated with increased CV events. Iím with her on the calcium, until recently hadnít watched how much I get in food and, only now, top up the difference.
https://youtu.be/X4N4NHgQyYM?si=F7UBqxV5CMjmNXcQ

Dr JoAnn Manson's work was featured in a Harvard Health article back in 2019, which I ignored at the time. https://www.health.harvard.edu/stay...-bones-not-help

This new advice is different from my GP, oncologist and the REMS doctor I saw Wednesday. That office took a new blood draw for Vit D. Last April mine was 73.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-23, 04:55
Kristine's Avatar
Kristine Kristine is offline
Forum Moderator
Posts: 25,656
 
Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/145/145 Female 5'7"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Southern Ontario, Canada
Default

Quote:
A 2010 study calculated that between April and October, someone in Boston with 25 percent of their skin exposed would need between three and eight minutes of sunlight per day to get enough. Of course, in the winter it might be challenging to find even this amount of sun at some latitudes.

"Challenging" isn't the word. Try "miserable."

I was under the impression that once the sun is below about a 45į angle in the sky - basically much of late fall/winter in the North - you can't produce a useful amount of vitamin D. People I know who ski can get a burn, but that takes all day. A rule of thumb I heard (probably here somewhere) is that once your shadow (or the shadow of a tall thing like a lamp post) is longer than it is tall, there won't be much vitamin D production.

I can easily see how people today don't get enough sunlight in winter. Do they not have tall buildings in Boston? Toronto, for example, is a wind tunnel. A cold-baby like me living in downtown TO would probably go straight from their condo to the subway station connected to the building, walk through the Path to work, do their shopping there after work, go back the same way, and rarely even go outdoors. Suburbs are just as bad: kids in my neighborhood get chauffeured to school and back, even though the school is almost immediately behind our townhouse complex. It's probably worse in the US where walking anywhere is dangerous.

Throw the SAD on top of that, and you're in trouble.
Quote:
It's natural to have a winter dip, he says, but that is worrisome only if you're already running low on vitamin D.

I think they're underestimating how many people can fall into this category.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-23, 07:25
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,311
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kristine
"

I can easily see how people today don't get enough sunlight in winter. Do they not have tall buildings in Boston? Toronto, for example, is a wind tunnel. A cold-baby like me living in downtown TO would probably go straight from their condo to the subway station connected to the building, walk through the Path to work, do their shopping there after work, go back the same way, and rarely even go outdoors. Suburbs are just as bad: kids in my neighborhood get chauffeured to school and back, even though the school is almost immediately behind our townhouse complex. It's probably worse in the US where walking anywhere is dangerous.

Throw the SAD on top of that, and you're in trouble.

I think they're underestimating how many people can fall into this category.


Boston definitely has its share of wind tunnels. I walk every day here in Vermont but only my face is exposed to the sun in much of the fall and winter, and if itís cold enough I wear a balaclava so only my eyes and a bit of my forehead are exposed to the sun.

The studies cited in the article, gold standard or not, do not prove that Vitamin D doesnít help prevent disease. They only prove that under the conditions of the study, no improvement was noted. We would need to see the studies cited to evaluate the conclusions. Without the data available there is no way for us, reading this article, to make that evaluation. What kind of vitamin D was given? was 2000iu sufficient to show a change? where did the people live? how old were they? what happened after 5 years? What were they eating?

In other words, the jury is still out on Vitamin D.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sat, Dec-23-23, 07:46
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

I'm part of a long-term vitamin D3 study. It's been going on for well over 10 years. Participant D3 blood levels are tested twice a year. The study group of participants with the highest D3 range have 85% fewer fractures than the general population and 60% fewer fractures than participants in the lowest D3 range which is about 32-35.

Vitamin D3 cannot be produced from sun exposure in Boston from November thru March...the last day of any possible sun generated D3 in Boston was November 11. There are calendars for this. In fact a lot of weather reports now include a D3 generation index.

I wouldn't believe anything a general practitioner, oncologist, or D.O. said about D3. I've found they are generally 6-10 years behind in knowledge of D3 research.

I've been studying D3 for over 25 years. Most vitamin D3 experts...real experts...keep their D3 levels over 100. In fact, I have personally spoken to two, Drs. Holick and Hollis, and heard of others that keep theirs in the 120-135 range.

I've seen and heard of D3 miracles related to all kinds of ills/diseases. My family members have experienced quite a few of them.

Oh, and getting enough vitamin D isn't as simple as taking a D3 supplement alone. For optimal results, cofactors such as magnesium, calcium, and vitamin k2 in sufficient amounts are also required. Calcium without k2 is useless.; k2 directs calcium to bone and not tissue. Not enough calcium will cause D3 to leach calcium from your existing bone structure leading to factures and osteoporosis.

My advice is to do your own research via pubmed.

You do you. I'll stick with D3.

Last edited by Zuleikaa : Sat, Dec-23-23 at 10:16.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Fri, Jan-05-24, 15:20
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
Posts: 13,436
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Zuleikaa, I understand that you have been in a big Vit D study and know Dr Holick. I wasnít attempting to change your or anyone's mind about how much Vit D to supplement, if at all. I haven't even made up my own mind!
The more I learn, the more confused it becomes, and then I decide to think about Vit D tomorrow. But now Tomorrow is coming next Tuesday to discuss my latest Vit D level, still too high according to some.

But I know other cancer survivors and women with diagnoses of potential osteoporosis on this forum, so that I wanted to share that my doctors are now recommending not to supplement except for special situations. There are many forms of Hormone D and the tests I have been taking are not adequate, etc. Iíve been reading Jim Stephenson's Facebook page, the NYT "Vitamin D, the Sunshine Supplement, has Shadowy Money Behind It " and other sources that question the current guidelines.
As of this month I am as "middle of the road" as I can get, but want to be opened minded to new evidence. Thank you for sharing all you have about Vitamin D in your thread. It has always been helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Jan-05-24, 17:05
Zuleikaa Zuleikaa is offline
Finding the Pieces
Posts: 17,049
 
Plan: Mishmash
Stats: 365/308.0/185 Female 66
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Maryland, US
Default

I take no offense. All knowledge starts with a journey.

I've read a lot of the negative publicity around Dr. Holick and other vitamin D experts for years; IMO, they've been deliberately demonized and it started way before D3 became mainstream.

As far as I've read and know, Dr. Holick has made no secret of his funding sources. his studies have been peer reviewed, duplicated, and results replicated.

However, as I've said, I've been studying vitamin D3 for over 25 years. In the beginning and probably to this day doctors advocating for testing vitamin D levels and supplementing with vitamin D3 those from the U.S., the U.K, Canada, and India were deliberately targeted and pilloried by Big Pharma. Big Pharma paid writers to write articles against them...in fact in many cases Pharma wrote the articles and paid people and scientists to submit them under their names. Pharma also paid scientists to form studies to disprove the benefits of D3 by deliberately designing studies where the D3 given was too low to be effective, no cofactors or cofactors in insufficient amounts were given to participants, and/or study durations were shortened so no positive or negligible results were manifested.

Pharma also lobbied many countries oversight boards, i.e.,, FDA types, to omit vitamin D experts from testifying and recommended "experts" to downplay benefits of D3. Like the expert testifying before the F.D.A. that said that D3 was only good for bone health and that supplementing with 1,000 IU was more than sufficient for good health but was later discovered to have applied for over 35 patents of D3 derivatives to treat different types of cancer. D3 as a supplement is cheap and not patentable while derivatives are custom, patentable, and worth big bucks. Yes, you always have to follow the money...You just have to find the truth of where the money is coming from.

As my cousin always tells me, Big Pharma doesn't want to cure disease. They learned the lesson with polio...when polio was cured all polio related industries collapsed and disappeared.

Cancer treatment is big business and a cash cow, so are chronic diseases. Pharma doesn't want preventative care, they want ongoing care.

Oh, and Dr. Holick' s deal with Quest Diagnostics? Dr. Holick's team discovered and created the correct test for measuring active D3 in the body. They freely published that information. LabCorp was the only lab at the time doing the D3 test...they were doing the wrong one and refused to listened to Dr. Holick and change the test. Quest was willing to listen.

I remember years of paying out of pocket to have the correct test done because my Dr. ordered the one from LabCorp which was useless at the time.

Vitamin D3 tests are now measured correctly. It only took 6 years for LabCorp to come around, lol.

Last edited by Zuleikaa : Sat, Jan-06-24 at 14:48.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:10.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.