Too much Vitamin D can be harmful. I... - Bone Health and O...

Bone Health and Osteoporosis UK

5,581 members2,454 posts

Too much Vitamin D can be harmful. I started using the BetterYou 3000 Vitamin D Spray since I don't get out much, but am reconsidering...

bessygo profile image
22 Replies

High Doses of Vitamin D May Speed Loss of Bone Mineral Density

By

NutritonReview.org

Exposing bare skin to sunlight for as little as 10-15 minutes is all it takes for the human body to synthesize the vitamin D it needs to absorb calcium and ensure strong, healthy bones. Unfortunately, for those living in northern climes, exposure to sunlight is diminished during the long winter months, necessitating the need for supplements to obtain optimal levels of vitamin D.

In Canada, health authorities recommend a total daily intake of 600 international units (IU) for normal, healthy adults, up to age 70, and 800 IU after age 70. And for osteoporosis, a condition characterized by bone loss, Canadian adults at risk are recommended to take between 400 – 2,000 IU of Vitamin D.

However, some people may be taking up to 20 times the recommended daily dose to prevent or treat a variety of medical conditions that might be related to having not enough vitamin D.

So, what is the correct dose” And how much is too much?

“Although vitamin D may be involved in regulating many of the body’s systems, it is the skeleton that is most clearly affected by vitamin D deficiency,” says Dr. David Hanley, MD, an endocrinologist in the Cumming School of Medicine (CSM), and one of the principal investigators of the study.

“Current Health Canada recommendations were set to prevent the bone diseases caused by vitamin D deficiency for the vast majority of healthy Canadians. But it has been more difficult to clearly establish the optimal dose of vitamin D. When we designed this study, there remained a question whether there’s more benefit in taking a higher dose.”

A three-year study by researchers at the Cumming School of Medicine’s McCaig Institute for Bone and Joint Health published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), showed there is no benefit in taking high doses of vitamin D.

The study followed 300 volunteers between the ages of 55 and 70 in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that with increasing doses of vitamin D, there would be a dose-related increase in bone density and bone strength. A third of the study participants received 400 IU of vitamin D per day, a third received 4,000 IU per day, and a third received 10,000 IU per day.

Volunteers had both their bone density and bone strength measured using a new, high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan called an XtremeCT to measure bone density of the wrist and ankle. Used only for research, the XtremeCT scan is the first of its kind in the world, allowing researchers to study bone microarchitecture at a level of detail never seen before.

Standard dual-X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) bone density was also obtained. Participants received scans at the start of the study and at 6, 12, 24 and 36 months. To assess vitamin D and calcium levels, researchers also collected fasting blood samples at the beginning of the study and at 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 and 36 months as well as urine collections annually.

Bone mineral density (BMD) is determined by measuring the amount of calcium and other minerals in a defined segment of bone. The lower the bone density, the greater the risk for bone fracture.

Adults slowly lose BMD as they age, and the DXA results showed a modest decrease in BMD over the duration of the study, with no differences detected between the three groups. However, the more sensitive measurement with high resolution XtremeCT showed significant differences in bone loss among the three dose levels.

Total BMD decreased over the three-year period by 1.4 per cent in the 400 IU group, 2.6 in the 4,000 IU group and 3.6 in the 10,000 IU group.

The conclusion was that, contrary to what was predicted, vitamin D supplementation at doses higher than those recommended were not associated with an increase in bone density or bone strength. Instead, the researchers measured a dose-related decline in bone density, with the largest decrease occurring in those taking 10,000 IU per day.

“We weren’t surprised that using DXA we found no difference among the treatment groups, whereas with XtremeCT, the latest in bone imaging technology, we were able to find dose-dependent changes over the three years.

“We were surprised to find that instead of bone gain with higher doses, the group with the highest dose lost bone the fastest,” says Steve Boyd, a professor in the CSM and one of the principal investigators of the study.

That amount of bone loss with 10,000 IU daily is not enough to risk a fracture over a three-year period, but the findings suggest that for healthy adults, vitamin D doses at recommended levels of 400-2,000 IU daily are adequate for bone health.

A secondary outcome of the study found that participants taking higher doses of vitamin D (4,000 IU and 10,000 IU) over three years were more likely to develop hypercalciuria (elevated levels of calcium in the urine), compared to those receiving a lower daily dose. Hypercalciuria is not uncommon in the general population, but is associated with increased risk of kidney stones and may contribute to impaired kidney function.

Hypercalciuria occurred in 87 participants. Incidence varied significantly between the 400 IU (17%) 4000 IU (22%) and 10,000 IU (31%) study groups. If hypercalciuria was detected in study participants, calcium intake was reduced. After repeat testing, the hypercalciuria usually resolved.

“What we can see in this study is that large doses of vitamin D don’t come with a benefit to the skeleton,” says Dr. Emma Billington, MD, one of the authors of the study. “For healthy adults, 400 IU daily is a reasonable dose. Doses of 4,000 IU or higher are not recommended for the majority of individuals.”

Source: Lauren A. Burt, Emma O. Billington, Marianne S. Rose, Duncan A. Raymond, David A. Hanley, Steven K. Boyd. Effect of High-Dose Vitamin D Supplementation on Volumetric Bone Density and Bone Strength. JAMA, 2019; 322 (8): 736 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.11889

Written by
bessygo profile image
bessygo
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
22 Replies
waveylines profile image
waveylines

Hmmmm what a confusing piece of research. They dont state what the starting level of their patients vitamin D level was, they dont say if they were supplementing with calicium (you need both!) etc.... They assume the vit D level of dose caused the bone loss......how did they rule other factors out?

What I can say is my vit D level was 3 and a major bone in my leg snapped as I walked on it. My bone density scan showed weak bones which were transformed in one year with high doses of vit D AND calcium. My high doses of vit D were 100000iu once per month under medical supervision for three months then lowered to 5000.

Am sure as with all things in life too much of a good thing doesnt do you any good!! What wouldve been helpful if theyd also done blood tests to show before and after blood levels of vit D.

I agree with waveylines and I disagree with the conclusion of the study because I don't see that a causal relationship between higher doses of vitamin D and bone loss has been established here. Have I missed something?

knitwitty profile image
knitwitty

They only looked at 300 people in the study, and they don't state what their vitamin D levels were to begin with, so quite a few ifs and buts.

If for example your vitamin D was at the top of the recommended level to begin with and you took a high dose maybe it would be bad for your bones, but if you were at the bottom maybe it wouldn't.

I had low vitamin D levels and went out daily last summer (2018) without sunscreen and I took 1000iu vitamin D daily , in three months my level hardly changed, however I swapped to the oral spray of 3000iu daily and raised my Vit D to a more respectable level in 3 months. I reduced it to 2000iu daily but again when tested it had dropped significantly so I need at least 3000iu daily to maintain a healthy level.

The biggest flaw, in my opinion, with this study is the lack of testing before supplementation and the small number of people studied.

SusanEleven profile image
SusanEleven in reply to knitwitty

One summer my endocrinologist and I tested the skin and sunshine approach. I went out for daily sun exposure with no sunblock. My Vit D levels never improved.

Trial and error led us to my daily dose of 4000 IU daily (year round) to keep me in the normal range versus my otherwise “severe deficiency” blood test results.

bessygo profile image
bessygo in reply to SusanEleven

I wonder what it is that doesn't allow one's body to absorb Vitamin D when out in the sun? I will post on this thread, an app that actually measures when the optimum time to go out for maximum exposure depending on where you live in the world and how close you are to the equator.

trishbindefeld profile image
trishbindefeld

Neither did they use any co factors with the vitamin D.

High doses of Vitamin D make the calcium you ingest (from food) some 400% more available. That calcium needs to find its way to your bones, and stay there. For that you need magnesium and Vitamin K2 - MK7. Possibly boron too. If you just increase the calcium in your body, its likely to end up in you sift tissues as well as your urine.

jgelliss profile image
jgelliss in reply to trishbindefeld

I couldn't agree with you more . There are other components to bone density than just vitamin "D" . K2 that you mentioned Boron and Calcium keeping a more alkaline diet exercise . It's never about one thing only . Having thyroid hormones *Optimally*is very important too .

trishbindefeld profile image
trishbindefeld in reply to jgelliss

If you’re taking big doses of vitamin d3 you need to be very cautious about supplementing with calcium too. Could easily overdo it.

jgelliss profile image
jgelliss in reply to trishbindefeld

Oh For Sure .

in reply to trishbindefeld

That's where Vitamin K2 Mk7 is needed, to steer calcium into the bones, and as has been suggested, to rout out calcium from soft tissue where it has no good reason to be.

trishbindefeld profile image
trishbindefeld in reply to

Even with Vit K2 it’s still not a good idea to have large doses of vitamin d AND calcium supplements unless you have blood tests showing you’re actually calcium deficient and then monitor your levels.

in reply to trishbindefeld

Not a good idea to supplement without blood testing, for sure. Though it's important to get the relevant test. Some tests show serum levels where only the activated levels inform about sufficiency.

MollyStark profile image
MollyStark

Leading on from that, GPs need to be educated on vitamin D supplementing. The drs I've spoken to are completely unaware of the need for K2 or boron and magnesium for that matter. After a vit D test showed I was severely deficient, I was put on 10,000iu a day for a month. No retesting was done at the end to see if my levels had come up. I'm now on 1,000 to 2,000 per day plus K2 M7 etc. I told the dr this and received a blank stare and a shrug!

bessygo profile image
bessygo

Thanks everyone for all the feedback.

Yes, I take Relentless Improvement Vitamin K2 which has both MK-4 and MK-7 and is made from Orange Jasmine.

Also, there is an app called Dminder which tracks the sun and tells you when you can get Vitamin D. The stopwatch interface lets you set your session target by either amount of D to get or time. And you set it for wherever you are on the planet for optimum exposure. Maybe that is why some aren't absorbing the D since they are not in the sun at the optimal time or maybe not enough skin is exposed.

My levels were slipping a bit under 50 ml ; I essentially don't go outside sometimes for days because of agoraphobia from vision loss and the sun hurts my eyes. So I started supplementing with the 3000 Spray. But not everyday. I also take boron, and Reacted Calcium and Magnesium (those levels are fine). Will be tested again in a few weeks.

Wondering if I should hold off the vitamin D spray a few days prior to being tested? Wonder how long the Vitamin D supplements stay in one's system?

in reply to bessygo

24-36 hours...

bessygo profile image
bessygo in reply to

Thank you!

in reply to bessygo

welcomes! and K2 Mk 7 - 72 hrs!! (Lara Pizzorno in"Your Bones"

bessygo profile image
bessygo in reply to

That's quite a range. So I should stop calcium and K2 how many days prior to blood labs testing calcium?

in reply to bessygo

That rather begs the question: I don't know the answer, but your question implies that you should stop taking a supplement before blood testing. I don't know if that is correct.

Met00 profile image
Met00 in reply to

My understanding is that you shouldn't stop supplements before a blood test. Your Vit D blood level will drop off a little each day that you don't supplement.

judej profile image
judej

Does anyone know who funded this study? From past experience I know that can be an important factor. i live in London so not easy to absorb vit d from sun in the winter. However, I have many friends in sunny California who are getting proper sun exposure and still low vit d? Maybe due to sunsceen or something new going on in our environment?

bessygo profile image
bessygo in reply to judej

The source is listed at the bottom of my initial post. It was published in JAMA

You may also like...

Vitamin K2 dose and Strontium

am on high dose prednisone for PMR/GCA and also have osteoporosis as per my last bone density......

Osteoperosis in family, low vitamin D

lower/deplete Vitamin D levels and affect bone density. I was honestly expecting G.P to send me for...