HiMy vitamin d at last test was 141 and optimal in the range. Is this too high?
Do I need to get my vitamin k tested?
I'm not on d or k supplements.
HiMy vitamin d at last test was 141 and optimal in the range. Is this too high?
Do I need to get my vitamin k tested?
I'm not on d or k supplements.
My understanding is that it’s high and close to upper limit. If you haven’t taken supplements I’m not quite sure why it would be that high? Any ideas?
I would seek advice from a nutritionist and/or your GP. Mine is considered high at 90. Normal would be around 30-60 but my GP liked me to be high because I have osteoporosis.
Good reply and I agree with your suggestion about seeking advice.
A recent study relating Vitamin D levels and mortality risks suggested that benefits plateau in the 50-75 nmol/L range. See ... medscape.com/viewarticle/98...
Therefore the 30 figure you mentioned does seem unhealthily low, and other countries also specify below 50 as a deficiency.
But I'm also aware we have Forum members reporting very low Vitamin D serum levels without apparent concern.
If your measurement is in nmol / l as used in UK 90 is not high. It is equal to 36ng/ mL. As sufficient range starts at 75nmol/l ( 30 ng/mL ) anything below this would be insufficient. The measurement should always be given not just a figure or confusion can arise.
My latest measurement is 94 mol/L - NHS say 36-60 mol/L - Adequate for optimal bone health but concentrations at the upper end of reference range may be preferable. >60 = Optimal.
That's interesting . I had read somewhere that the minimal level for sufficiency had moved up to 75 nmol/l in UK to bring it in line with other countries. I suppose moving it up from 50 to 60 is an improvement . 36- 60nmol /l might be adequate for bone health but it nowhere near good enough for other things like immune system support. All the studies done which show a positive correlation between between covid outcomes and the chances of infection with vit D levels show that levels above 75nmol /l are needed . A level of less than 75nmol/ l has been considered insufficient here for years - and treated. 36 nmols/l is considered as severe deficiency. My own vit D deficiency discovered in 2007 was only just below this level . It does not surprise me that the UK is still dragging it's heels over what are considered adequate vit D levels or that they are stubbornly clinging to only considering bone health as a metric.
From what I read, according to a major recent study, there's no evidence that extra supplements help the heart or anything else, although I think the study did suggest that vitamin D might be useful over autumn and winter. That comes as no surprise to me as a decent diet provides all of our nutrients in the most easily absorbed form possible - except vitamin D. That said, if you have any issues such as low calcium levels, there might be a medical reason to take supplements but, as always, it's a doctor that will know best.
Steve
My GP and Osteoporosis consult say I benefit from VitD+K2 supplements. Less for the heart and more for brain, immune response and bones. I have to say my hair, nails - can't see bones or brain - are much, much stronger since starting supplements 18 months ago.
Whilst I agree a good diet used to be good enough, I regret it is no longer. Personally I go with nutritionist unless doctor is dual trained, which is becoming more common thankfully.
I'm afraid that over many years my initial high respect for nutritional "science" has become severely eroded with the recent study on supplements seeming pretty definitive to me. I think there will be some people, you being one, who, and for some reason, do benefit from taking extra vitamins. Absorption of these micro-nutrients can vary in a few people, I imagine, so it's a matter of trial and error. For the vast majority, it will be a placebo effect at best or perhaps a kind of comfort and hope, even habit.
Steve
I would be quite content with that level of vit D. If you take any calcium supplementation or have a diet high in calcium you should take vit K2.
vitamin D is best from getting sun I understand
Yes, you are right. But, the sun in Britain is only good enough in the summer. And in hot countries you become adept at avoiding the sun so deficiency is quite common.
You probably have to do a lot of whole body sunbathing to make enough vit D in the short period in the UK that it is possible to produce it in the skin in order to store enough to last you through till the following spring . The further north you go the shorter the window. In the winter it is possible to top this up with UVB sun lamps but these are a faff. You have to time yourself carefully to avoid burning and wear special goggles . Full body ones are very expensive and need storage space. The benefit of sun is not just UVB but the whole spectrum. I can sunbathe in the winter here if we have a sunny windless day as the heat from the sun is strong enough to make this ok. The last time I was in the UK in 2017 ( north west) it was mid March. We had a sunny day when travelling and I put my face to the sun sitting outside on the train platform and remarked to my husband that at home I could take off all my clothes and lie on our terrace but there I would not even discard my coat!
Good job I’ve got a trip to the Caribbean next Feb 😜
I get my vitamin D tested every winter through an NHS lab which also tests privately. Their range a year ago was:-
Severe Deficiency Below 15 nmol/L
Deficiency 15 to 30 nmol/L
Insufficiency 30.1 to 50 nmol/L
Adequate 50.1 to 220 nmol/L (though it's probably now higher)
Risk Of Toxicity Above 220 nmol/L
People who work outdoors, or live nearer the Equator often have levels up to at least 150 nmol/L
The scientists working with a US charity that's funding research into vitamin D and co-factors say "The recommended daily intake of vitamin K (especially as vitamin K2 or MK7) is 180-200 mcg per day from foods and supplements" Fermented foods (eg sauerkraut, kimchi) are a good source of vit K. grassrootshealth.net/blog/r...