I read on here that the optimal level for Vit D is 50-70 ng/ml, so when I discovered that mine was 43 ng/ml I started supplementing.
However, I've just read the following in Michael Holick's excellent book 'The Vitamin D Solution'
"Vitamin D insufficiency is between 21 and 29 nanograms per milliliter. To obtain the full benefits of vitamin D for health, many experts recommend that blood levels be closer to 40 nanograms per milliliter."
So, according to him my 43 ng/ml is more than adequate.
Help please - who is right? I certainly had deficiency symptoms before taking the supplements.
Afraid not - he says "vitamin D sufficiency begins at 30 ng/ml"...and then...."vitamin D intoxication is typically not seen until blood levels are above 150 - 200 ng/ml". On this basis I'd be worried about your private doc wanting your levels to be so high.
my private doc is one of the best docs in the world, so am sure she is right (and I do not trust doctors 'blindly' by the way) and she would like me to be at 101 to 199 nmol/L, I am not talking about ng/ml sorry should have made it clear in earlier post
anyway, as RedApple said: it's controversial.
at one of the hospitals where I test the toxicity levels are >250 nmol/l
by the way, he does then say that sufficiency according to him starts at 30, that does not mean the 'maximum' you should have is 30 right?? so I did interpret it right after all.
I think you are confusing ng/ml with nmol. The 50-70 is ng but the Uk uses nmol (mostly), which means that you need to be about 125 to be in the optimum range
This is all still relatively new stuff, so there isn't going to be a definitive answer. At least not for the time being. Different labs will use different ranges (now where have we heard that before!).
A good starting point might be to go with the lab that does your testing. For example, vitamindtest.org.uk (a lab offering private tests but who also do NHS testing) say this in their Q&As:
Q. Could I just check - your results state that greater than 50nmol/l is normal. My understanding is that total 25-hydroxyvitamin D should be over 75 nmol/L.
A. Vit D deficiency historically is defined as a blood level below 25 nmol/L and many NHS laboratories quote this range. Scientific evidence is emerging that the optimal level for general health may be higher than 50 nmol/L but we will stay with this a the moment.
As far as I am aware, normal 25-hydroxyvitamin D sufficiency (healthy levels) are considered to be 30ng/ml upwards - this is equivalent to ~75nmol/L.
Between 20 - 30ng/ml (or 50 - 75nmol/L), 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are 'insufficient' but this usually doesn't show any clinical symptoms so people often don't realise they are insufficient.
Below 20ng/ml (50 nmol/L) most doctors would class this as a Vitamin D deficiency - this is where you start showing symptoms and would most likely visit your doctor with problems.
This coincides with the info presented by other people above; 50nmol/L is equivalent to 20ng/ml... they're just different units of measurement; therefore I'd double check the units used in previous posts...
Based on the info you have given, this means your levels are 107 nmol/L which sounds absolutely fine to me :).
she is my private doctor by the way, and when I said she would like me to be at 101 to 199 I meant nmol/L which in ng/ml is 40 to 80 (roughly) (as per my post above)
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
)
(and I do not trust doctors 'blindly' by the way) and she would like me to be at 101 to 199 nmol/L, I am not talking about ng/ml sorry should have made it clear in earlier post 
Help please; suspected low Vitamin D; advice on supplementation please.
Vitamin D / Folate Levels
Confused about Vitamin K
Vitamin d levels more than 100ng/ml
VItamin d tablets - I'm confused!
