Thyroid UK
82,957 members97,992 posts

"Vit D" - how much is "optimum" long term for the masses . . . . . . & Jo(e) Average ?

Came across this March 2015 paper of a large Danish study by the University of Copenhagen:

One pertinent paragraph in the abstract is: " "If your vitamin D level is below 50 or over 100 nanomol per litre, there is an greater connection to deaths. We have looked at what caused the death of patients, and when numbers are above 100, it appears that there is an increased risk of dying from a stroke or a coronary. In other words, levels of vitamin D should not be too low, but neither should they be too high. Levels should be somewhere in between 50 and 100 nanomol per litre, and our study indicates that 70 is the most preferable level," Peter Schwartz states." I see Goldilocks nodding & smiling at this ! ;~))x

This contrasts well this many opinions by well known "vit D" experts who repeatedly claim optimums of 125nmol/L (of serum calcidiol, or 25(OH)D3) for most or almost ALL of the population - forewarned is forearmed ! ! ! Something to consider, rather than following "expert" advice with too much faith, . . . . or too little scepticism, perhaps !

However, closer inspection is required to confirm whether the study made any attempts to identify those with the known and reported "vitamin D dysfunction" which really could have usefully been taken into account.

It's reported ( - but remains unknown in the UK !) that those with this "dysfunction" either feel UNWELL on raising "vit D" levels in the 60s, 70s and higher (nmol/L), even after an initial temporary palliative effect or, . . . . . . perhaps that their blood levels simply do NOT rise even with copious supplementation ( - as I understand it).

This sub-group of the population REALLY does need to be identified competently and is often associated with chronic inflammation causing illnesses of varying types. Further information on this "vit D dysfunction" is available from an introductory article on it, from: with an IMPRESSIVE range of references attached to it !

Seasonal greetings, happy holidays . . . . . . and a wish for a healthier 2016 to all !


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

6 Replies


Sounds scary stuff but what of the people who actually feel well on higher levels of Vit D?

The people who died from a stroke or coronary may well have had a high (or low) Vit D level but are we actually told what else was wrong with them?

Perhaps a subset of people with chronic inflammatory and autoimmune disease may have increased risks? In which case would it be better to treat the underlying cause and perhaps the Vit D resistance (or whatever one chooses to call it) may right itself?

The linked article states some people are genetically predisposed to having lower Vit D levels and so I guess must find a means (diet, sun or sups) to accommodate it. However, it also says it is not clear whether or not these individuals have an increased risk of developing Vit D related diseases so perhaps do not need further treatment as the amount of Vit D their bodies can accommodate is the right amount for them to function healthily.

Obviously there are others whom this may affect differently or greatly.

Early seasonal greetings, happy holidays . . . . . . and a wish for a healthier 2016 to you too ! !



Disclaimer: I am not a medical professional and this information is not intended to be a substitute for medical guidance from your own doctor. Please check with your personal before applying any of these suggestions.



5,000 IU. 10,000 if you're sick already. This of course is separate from what Flower explained. But is what's recommended by holistic healers as a maintenance supplemental



Do "they" recommend 5000IU/day (=125mcg) for all who are "healthy" . . . . . and 250mcg for all you are "sick". And for how long ?

And without even a consideration of the calcidiol ( - let alone calcitriol) level ? ? ? Might be best to stay well away for those "healers" who readily give such "un-nuanced" advice ! ! !

Perhaps that type of advice is cause for an even larger "scary" than to which Flower refers. You may also like to consider my reply to her post.



What could/should really be identified as "SCARY" in this case is people being advised to get their calcidiol blood levels well into the sometimes quoted range of "75 - 150 nmol/L" WITHOUT any other consideration than one calcidiol test rest - that approach (given what's actually known) would appear to be medical negligence ( - I feel as I don't know of any credible authority that reasonably challenges that an immune response of certain types can reduce calcidiol levels AND increase calcitriol levels: as seen in the known "vit D dysfunction" . . . . . and THIS needs to be taken into account where it applies ! ! !).

As Meg M. says in the F. Parent article:

"Chronic illness is complex and it follows that solutions must also be nuanced."

As you state in your post, this nuanced approach is preferably applied to the whole population, when it comes to advising the "optimum" vit D levels. It would be ASHTONISING if a "one size" OR "a range of limited sizes" fits ALL approach was not without its issues - but sadly, this rather simplistic approach does appear to have been adopted/recommended too often by some of the so-call "vit D experts" who, evidence such as the above paper suggests, are a notably way off ( - the optimum for ALL) mark !




Scary for those who show low levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-D) and may unknowingly have the Vit D dysfunction and are encourage to supplement.

As I understand it the low 25-D level is the result rather than the cause of the dysfunction.? ? ..

Therefore, is it not possible to test people exhibiting chronic disease symptoms ? .

However as Th-1 pathogens are extremely common and sometimes symptoms aren’t immediately present, (although the bacterias may proliferate undetected inside the cells prompting the eventual release of inflammatory cytokines & then symptoms) perhaps testing everybody (who never gets well) should be considered..

… but as usual I guess it comes down to cost.



Yes, its largely possible to identify those who have the "vit D dysfunction" and the seam of medical references related to this can be tracked as far back as (at least) the mid-80s [ - quite literally, as it happens, in the last millennium ! ;~)x].

However, we'd all better be v. concerned & utterly perplexed ( - if not scared !) that this is NOT done as routine, at least in the UK, let alone other parts of the world.

Ruling out this "dysfunction" is one clear way to prevent often already unwell people from becoming worse by increasing "vit D" levels in cases when it can actually be foreseen ( - by those in the "know") to be detrimental to this sub-group of cases - and those in this sub-group are found to have lower than average calcidiol blood levels, for reasons that are well known & explained !

Sadly, much of the medical profession currently remains excluded from this group of those in the "know" and able to identify this "dysfunction" which says little about CPD in clinical medicine these days - a major cause for concern for us all, I suggest !

And simply labelling those in whom calcidiol levels fail to rise on supplementation as (only?) having a "vit D resistance" ( - and nothing more) seems like an inadequate cop-out, . . . . . given what's already been amply identified and reasonably reported about the "vit D dysfunction" ( - for which a recovery protocol is available ! ).


1 like

You may also like...