Vitamin dosage and when to take it.

[Sarfran]

Hello everyone,

I have my vitamin D result

31.4 (50.0).

The Doc has prescribed D3 Colecalciferol 800IU capsules.

Do you think that this is enough and when should I take it?

Thank for your help. Great forum, so informative.

[SeasideSusie Remembering]

Sarfan

Unfortunately, because your level isn't below 25 - which would be deficiency and require loading doses - your GP isn't obliged to give you more than 800iu but it would be better if he gave you more. However, you may be better off treating yourself anyway, that way you will get a better supplement!

The Vit D Council recommends a level of 125nmol/L and the Vit D Society recommends a level of 100-150nmol/L. Doctors have no idea about "optimal" levels, they aren't taught much about nutrition so only aim to get you into range, albeit your level of 31.4nmol/L is in the "insufficiency" range.

To reach the recommended level from your current level, based on the Vit D Council's suggestions you could supplement with 5,000iu D3 daily .

I had severe deficiency of 15nmol/L and I successfully raised my level to 202nmol/L in 2.5 months by taking Doctor's Best D3 softgels (which I still use for my maintenance dose to keep my level as close to 150nmol/L as possible). It is a good quality supplement at a very reasonable price and contains just 2 ingredients - D3 and extra virgin olive oil.

Some people like BetterYou oral spray, I personally wont use that as it has so many excipients, I prefer my supplements to be as "clean" as possible. Tablelts and capsules are poorly absorbed.

Retest after 3 months.

Once you've reached the recommended level then you'll need a maintenance dose to keep it there, which may be 2000iu daily, maybe more or less, maybe less in summer than winter, it's trial and error so it's recommended to retest once or twice a year to keep within the recommended range. You can do this with a private fingerprick blood spot test with an NHS lab which offers this test to the general public:

vitamindtest.org.uk/

Doctors don't know (because they're not taught much about nutrients), but there are important cofactors needed when taking D3 as recommended by the Vit D Council.

D3 aids absorption of calcium from food and Vit K2-MK7 directs the calcium to bones and teeth where it is needed and away from arteries and soft tissues where it can be deposited and cause problems such as hardening of the arteries, kidney stones, etc.

D3 and K2 are fat soluble so should be taken with the fattiest meal of the day, D3 four hours away from thyroid meds if taking D3 as tablets/capsules/softgels, no necessity if using an oral spray.

Magnesium helps D3 to work. We need Magnesium so that the body utilises D3, it's required to convert Vit D into it's active form. So it's important we ensure we take magnesium when supplementing with D3.

Magnesium comes in different forms, check to see which would suit you best and as it's calming it's best taken in the evening, four hours away from thyroid meds if taking magnesium as tablets/capsules, no necessity if using topical forms of magnesium.

naturalnews.com/046401_magn...

drjockers.com/best-magnesiu...

afibbers.org/magnesium.html

[Sarfran in reply to SeasideSusie]

Many thanks Seaside Suzie. I'll get on it today.

[Sid_Arthur]

Depending on other factors, including specific presentation, a measurement of 31.4nmol/L for one metabolite ( - called calcidiol) may, . . . . or may NOT indicate a basis for supplementing with either cholecalciferol ("vit D3") or even ergocalciferol ("vit D2").

Those with presentation of chronic inflammation-causing and autoimmune type conditions had better be aware of the issues with relying on only the measurement of one metabolite ( - the prohormone, calcidiol) and determining "deficiency, insufficiency" etc on the basis of this alone: it cannot be done reliably, says quality information already in the public domain for well over a DECADE ! ! ! Sadly, "vitamin D" is a misnomer, dating back to 1928, it seems.

See: fearlessparent.org/suppleme... - for an introduction to the above ( - gooble-dee-goop ?) where I feel the science is well founded !

Hope the above is of use to you, . . . . and to any other readers too !

AtB,

Sid ;~)

Sun 24 May 2020

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

[SeasideSusie Remembering in reply to Sid_Arthur]

As someone who had severe Vit D deficiency and now maintains an optimal level, I supplement and retest twice a year. The test in the UK is a Total Vit D test and shows the total of D3 plus D2, not just one metabolite. I get my test done privately and they break down the total to show the amounts of D3 and D2 separately as well as the total amount.

The amount of D2 is minimal, the bulk of it is D3.

When my result was Total D3: 202nmol/L the breakdown was D3: 198.7nmol/L and D2: 3.3nmol/L.

I keep my level as close to 150nmol/L as I can.

My latest test last week shows Total D3: 148.7nmol/L and the breakdown is D3: 145.9nmol/L and D2: 2.8nmol/L.

So I really don't think there is anything to worry about because D2 is always going to show as a very small number compared to D3.

D3 is the usual supplement and comes from animals. If a vegetarian or vegan is unhappy with this then it's suggested they supplement with D2 which comes from plants.

Sarfran I have tagged you so that you can see this information and not worry about your Vit D supplement.

[Sarfran in reply to SeasideSusie]

Thank you!

[Sid_Arthur in reply to SeasideSusie]

You had a "vitamin D" 'deficiency' . . . . . indicated by a low total vitamin D test result - and therefore this is absolutely the case for EVERYONE in the population, . . . you might be tempted to assume, or even infer Susie.

Those who have the described 'VDR' dysfunction - again, not a satisfactory term, as the V stands for 'vitamin' in this clearly hormonal system - cannot in any case get to the combined prohormone values of anywhere near those some are recommending - say, 150nmol/L ( - as the active hormone, the calcitriol will be pushed to intolerably high values even if the calcidiol is maintained at ~ HALF that value, leading for instance to foreseeable bone LOSS in many cases !).

So, the view you are so passionately advocating for EVERYONE in the population clearly is not appropriate for a those who may have this KNOWN dysfunction, which in practice is not being recognised frequently, and therefore is rarely correctly confirmed or excluded. Those with this is identifiable dysfunction, are not a negligible portion or sub-group of the population either. They will have 'low' calcidiol levels, coupled with uncharacteristically 'high' calcitriol levels as the cited paper explains ( - & which, the information you share about yourself clearly indicates that you do not have).

I shall be delighted to see any credible science with disproves that this 'VDR' dysfunction, readily suspected in most cases from presentation, and further confirmed by measuring TWO metabolites ( - the prohormone, and the active hormone) as indicated in Meg Mangin's introductory paper, actually does NOT exist. Given that it does, raising calcitriol levels further in those people who have it, based on ONLY measuring the (prohormone) calcidiol is NOT without its very serious issues, says the reported medical science on this.

Biology is complex - and this issue is clearly pointing to a two step approach to interpreting calcidiol levels ( - at least) in cases where that is appropriate.

Sid ;~)

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

[Sarfran in reply to Sid_Arthur]

I'm afraid that I haven't understood either of your posts. Would you please explain what all this means in lay persons terms so that I and others can consider the point you are making.

This forum is really valuable for those of us suffering from Hypothyroidism and needing help. We aren't all scientifically knowledgeable so we have to base our treatment choices on advice that we understand.

Thank you in advance.

[Sid_Arthur in reply to Sarfran]

Hi Sarfran,

I'm somewhat puzzled to what I could clarify further.

To recap : a 'low' calcidiol level ( - of say 31.4nmol/L) is not itself a sufficient condition to increase that level ( - for guaranteed beneficial effect in EVERYONE). Another case exists, where the hormone it is converted to, the calcitriol is too 'high' already.

The cited F. Parent article is by a person very experienced in this area of human biochemistry - and its written for lay people; in fact, for parents considering giving their children "vitamin D" ( - which strictly speaking is a precursor to a prohormone, not a vitamin at all, as the article explains). A good list of peer-reviewed references too ! You could re-read the article - more slowly & carefully.

You may also like to consider sending a copy of it to your GP or consultant. This established view may well be unfamiliar to them - as they do have difficulties keeping up with many aspects of their CPD ( - continuing professional development) as required.

If your presentation is indicating an inflammation-causing or autoimmune type condition, then your calcitriol ( - the active hormone) level could already be high enough. So, that sort of diagnosis, or suspected diagnosis is one important indicator.

Then, some blood tests also point towards inflammation - CRP, or C-reactive protein is one of these. It may be worth seeing these results and discussing whether they are pointing to an on-going inflammation-causing condition.

In the final analysis, getting a calcitriol test result would confirm whether it is too high already ( - providing this tricky test is done correctly, and the updated range is used). The 2009 Blaney & al paper, listed in the references of the F. Parent article gives what I take to be the most appropriate range for calcitriol ( - and some lab results are not up-to-date with this still !). Do not be surprised if there is reluctance to authorise a calcitriol test too! However, worth asking for IF presentation & other markers of inflammation are pointing to this being high.

For convenience, the link again is: fearlessparent.org/suppleme... - would again suggest you bring this to the attention of your healthcare providers, and discuss its implication in your specific case.

Hope the above helps!

Sid :~)

Monday 25 May 2020

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

[Sarfran in reply to Sid_Arthur]

Thank you for your reply and the advice.

I'm sure you know that brain fog is a major symptom of Hypothyroidism, consequently short explanations can help when said fog is particularly bad.

I'm sure you didn't intend it to be, but your reply came over as a little patronising, which does nothing to help those of us who are suffering.

I hope that you are not offended by my mentioning this.

[Sid_Arthur in reply to Sarfran]

You're welcome, . . . . . I'm sure !

Brain fog, eh ? Know more about what that feels like than I care to !

You want 'short explanations', . . . . . for elegantly simplified biochemistry, eh ? Sorry, not worked out how to do that . . . . . yet ( - as you observe, critically !) !

[Psst: no matter how long or complex the reply, . . . . you have the option to consider it at your own pace, as its written out - unlike say a phone or other conversation !]

Can anyone patronise you, . . . . . without your consent ? Perhaps the brain fog is interfering with clear perception. Purrfectly correct to infer 'no intent', . . . purrfectly correct ! ! ! 'See you're not as dumb as you look' as the late M Ali was fond of saying.

Offended, . . . . . significantly, substantially ( - but not 'absolutely') offended ! ! ! ( - havn't quite FULLY mastered the art of withholding consent, it seems - perhaps more than minimal brain fog has played its part ? ! !).

Have all you need now ? Or is there anything else, Sarfran ? Feel free to ask Susie - think I'll retire now !

Sid ;~)

Tues 26 May 2020

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