Hi just had my vit d results done ive been on Vit D3 K2 mk7 for few months now i started with 6,000 iu as ive had no outdoor sun hardly at all this year i cut it down to 3,000 iu a day for last month my results are over range 152nmo/L (50.0-150.0) being i have osteoporosis my Gp gave me Calcichew n alendronate which id rather not take.. my bone aches n pains have greatly reduced since i have been on Magnesium oil and vit D 3 mk7 as im over range shall i leave off the D3 for a while or just take a smaller dose... Thank you for any advice
Vit d results: Hi just had my vit d results done... - Thyroid UK
The Vit D Council recommend a level of 125nmol/L (they used to say 100-150nmol/L).
As you've now reached 152nmol/L I would just slightly reduce your dose, maybe take 3000iu on 6 days a week rather than 7.
From what I understand, for bone health it's recommended to take Vit D, K2, Magnesium and Boron.
Blog post on Cytoplan about bone health, it does mention calcium but also talks about the importance of boron
Thank You SeasideSusie, ill read up on it.. i was suprised id got it up that far but it has helped a lot with magnesuim oil n epsom salt baths
Excellent read SeaSide Susie being as i eat a lot of foods fruits nuts etc that contain Boron i should be ok i also take D3 k2 mk7 in capsule form i eat all sorts of fish more than meat so that contains calcium plus red top milk a glass a day i think ill be ok without anymore supplements re my bones etc do you agree?
Odd, re the Vit D Council?
The Grassroots statement (which inc. Dr Cannell of Vit D Council) is still stating the same as before:
A heart surgeon (in one of the recent online health summits) actually revealed that he's been keeping his Vit D3 level higher (than what's stated in the above pdf). However, I'd probably err on the side of caution (until there's further info) and not aim higher than what's suggested in the above pdf.
Yes, I thought it was odd. They say above 150nmol/L can be potentially toxic.
Here is the article recommending 125nmol/L
There doesn't seem to be a date on it.
On my results it says Greater than 150nmo/L Vit D sufficient but consistant levels above 250 nmo/L are associated with toxicity
It would be nice, and less confusing, if they all sang from the same hymn sheet. City Assays say "Total Vit D levels above 220nmol/L are considered high and increase the risk of toxicity.
I'm happy to keep mine between 125 - 150.
I didn't see where the Vit D Council said that "above 150 nmol/l can be potentially toxic". Their top end of the "sufficient" range is higher than the top end of the Grassroots sufficient range i.e. the Grassroots sufficient range is 40-60 ng/ml (100-150 nmol/l), whereas the Vit D Council's sufficient range is 40-80 ng/ml (100-200 nmol/l).