Confused about Vitamin D levels.

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.

[nobodysdriving]

I read that as if he's saying you need to be around 40 to have 'sufficiency' but not that 40 is the max you should aim for....

my private doc likes me to be in the 'one hundred+range' (ie from 101 to 199)

in 2012 I had 2 tests done 6 months apart measuring 140 then 90 (failed LOL )

[Hidden in reply to nobodysdriving]

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.

[nobodysdriving in reply to Hidden]

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.

[Hidden in reply to nobodysdriving]

Yes, that makes all the difference. I assumed since I had quoted ng/ml that's what you were using in your reply.

[nobodysdriving in reply to Hidden]

oh and by the way, 101 to 199 nmol/l is (roughly) the equivalent of 40 to 80 ng/ml.....

so I guess my doctor is not anything to 'worry' about

[Angel_of_the_North in reply to Hidden]

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

[RedApple]

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.

vitamindtest.org.uk/q&a.html

[Hidden in reply to RedApple]

Oh dear, I'm more confused than ever! My lab range is 50-120 nmol/L, so an optimal level of 50 nmol/L doesn't make much sense.

[nobodysdriving in reply to Hidden]

sue-f if you want to convert nmol/l to ng/ml divide the nmol value by 2.496.

if you want to convert ng/ml to nmol/l then 'multiply' by 2.496, hope that helps

[PerfectParadox]

Hey,

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 :).

Hope this helps.

PP x

[Hidden in reply to PerfectParadox]

Have just double-checked Dr Myhill's site, and she says "the ideal range for optimal health is 50-80 ng/ml" and that's definitely ng/ml NOT nmol/L.

[nobodysdriving in reply to Hidden]

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)

[nobodysdriving]

don't know pettals, it's always best to call her secretaries and ask (number on website)

[Hidden]

My German doctor said optimal Vit D levels for most people would be around 80 nmol/L but 140 if you have thyroid issues.

TedHutchinson, thanks for your extremely interesting post.

koala

[Hidden]

Thanks everyone - this is all making more sense now.

Sue