http://www.sciencedaily.com/release...21105130355.htm

There have been hints that the current (actually five year old IIRC) fad of high vitaminnD levels might be just another fad based on one or two studies, and a whole lot of speculation. Two years ago I decided to lower my suppplements in general, this one included.

Yet, when I supplemented with vitamin D3, I felt better, and my immunity strength went up.

I'd like to not supplement; but our soils are depleted, oil based fertilizers are missing micronutrients, and I didn't eat well my whole life; I only started this century.

Is it the genetic variation or their intake that affected Vit D levels?



I look forward to reading it when it comes out.

It's a bit premature to say that low vitamin D levels caused the longevity.

That mutation they have could be causing them to better utilize the vitamin D, hence the lower levels and greater longevity.

The controlled studies I've read show that vitamin D3 supplementation prevents disease. The only one showing negative effects was one where they gave a years worth of D3 in a single dose.

Note to self: don't do that!

While I understand the feeling that "we shouldn't have to supplement" I just got off a year of intermittent illness because of Sick Building Syndrome. Three rounds of heavy duty antibiotics for sinus infections, having NO energy, vulnerable to whatever is coming around, miserable! Finally, the steps I took are taking hold and I feel that things are going to stabilize now.

The only thing that got me through it was stuff like Vitamin C, spirulina, and Vitamin D3. Whenever I backed off the D, I got sick! Obviously, my body was using it up to keep me somewhat healthy.

Yeah, it would perhaps be just a bit like corellating cholesterol in the diet to blocked arteries just based on the fact that both are present at the same time. Lol.

Here's the Vitamin D Council's take on the study.

Study links low vitamin D levels to longer lifespan: Did we hear that correctly?
Posted on November 8, 2012 by Brant Cebulla

http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/201...that-correctly/

********
There are studies that higher vitamin D levels decrease mortality. There are studies that higher vitamin D levels prevent many cancers and increase survival after cancer....decrease hospital stays...improve treatment outcomes...improve balance, stamina, muscle strength, mobility, fertility, etc., etc., etc.

I have my own vitamin D miracle.

So, I'll keep taking my vitamin D.

According to the news, people are living longer but sicker. IMO, vitamin D3 allows people to go against the tide.

So, that particular gene means you'll have D3 levels 2 points lower than someone without it, on the average.

Like 25.5 versus 27.5.

Not exactly an enormous difference.

My concern is that the studies supporting just about all supplements for preventative use are not well done studies. they are seldom (never?) double blind, and so often later better studies discovers no benefits, or worse -bad side effects.

I search PUBMED for studies on supplements. Then I analyze the study based on what I know and have researched about those supplements.

There ARE plenty of double blind studies on vitamin D.

IMO, the studies you have to look out for are the FUD studies. Those are studies paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, deliberately designed for a negative outcome, and to sow Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about supplements. A sicker population is a cash cow for pharmaceutical companies.

One FUD study on vitamin D I particulary remember was a so called double blind study on vitamin D that showed no benefit in vitamin D supplementation over the control group.

It had these, IMO, deliberate weaknesses.
1. The vitamin D dose given was too small to be effective or pharmacological despite countless other studies proving the minimum dose needed to be effective.

2. Vitamin D cofactors such as magnesium, and vitamin K were not given; calcium was given in too small an amount to be effective.

3. The control group was not screened for vitamin D use nor prohibited from taking vitamin D during the study.

So, of course, the study found no benefit for vitamin D supplementation.

Or

The FDA not allowing verified, long-recognized vitamin D experts to testify at the hearing to decide whether vitamin D levels should be raised.

Instead they determined based on one study on vitamin D that vitamin D was only important for bone health and had no other role in human health.

The vitamin D expert they selected to speak supported the above position and suggested that 400 IU/day of vitamin D3 was more than adequate and should be reduced.

Consequently the FDA dropped the RDA of vitamin D3 from 400 IU to 200 IU/day.

The problem with the basis on which they made their decision
1. No other vitamin D experts were allowed to testify though these experts filed a brief and recommended a list of experts to speak.
2. The study the FDA based its decision on was over 40 years old. They ignored reams of much more recent studies.
3. The expert they allowed to speak who stated that vitamin D3 had no other role than for bone health and recommended lowering the RDA of vitamin D3 holds over 200 patents on vitamin D3 analogs for treating cancer.
4. A good portion of the FDA panel, including the chairman had recent ties to or came from the pharmaceutical industry.

I do my own research.

I bought a Vitamin D3 lamp and found that while using it my immune system took a big hit. I was way more susceptible to the flu.

When I first started taking D3, I felt like I had the flu. I wanted to do nothing but stay in bed for three straight days. I think it was an adjustment though, absorbing and utilizing more minerals perhaps. I've been taking it ever since and haven't had any such symptoms at all.

I took D3 for two months, and one day I woke up and got ready for work and was singing along with the car radio when I realized, Dang, I feel good!

And that sense of well-being is still with me.

On the advice of a nutritionist (online) who specializes in chronic fatigue, my husband started taking 2k a day. And he feels better for it.

Besides, ONE study that moved the needle a tad? Balanced against abundant evidence that supplementing low levels increases my ability to fight off illness and sleep better and gives me a happy feeling?

Not persuasive.

The first time I ever took Vitamin D3 (10,000 IU) I actually didn't expect anything from it, it was merely another pill added to a growing list of bottles in my fridge.

But about 8 hours I realized that I had been chemically depressed at a low level and not even known it. Because suddenly, my "fundamental sense of well-being" was profoundly increased.

It was such a significant difference that although I suck at doing so consistently, I've tried to maintain D3 supplementation since. I probably still don't get remotely enough of it.

I recently found D3 in powdered form at purebulk.com and am wondering if this is significantly inferior to the oil capsule form I am currently taking. It matters in part because it might work with some self-experimental ideas with DMSO. Does anybody (Z?) know about this powder vs. oil for D3 topic?

PJ