Post: #26

Update:

I upped my intake to 3600iu (1600 from the multi and 2000 from the D3 supps) and I am already noticing differences being carb depleted. I think I'm going to leave it at 3600iu for now.

Post: #27

Just got my blood tests back. My vitamin d level was 37. Which doctor said was "good". Hes a bullshit conduit though. Im not satisfied. I've done much research on d3 and the vitamin d council now admits optimum levels should be between 50 and 80. I have now began supplementing with 10,000 iu a day. I will get retested to see where I'm at in a month. Supposedly it can take long to fill the well. This is once of my favorite articles on d3 I have seen.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/?o=1395

Most people would call that quackery. It's no coincedence in my opinion.

Just another reason why I'm eventually going to quit my job and live in place where getting sun everyday is routine.

I have started an overall wellness blog and am going to do a post on my testosterone levels before and after reaching optimal d levels. I will keep you guys posted.

Post: #28

(07-03-2012 10:41 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  I drink Carlson's cod liver oil (lemon flavor) with a Carlson's vitamin d.

I take 5,000-10,000 ius of vitamin d a day.

You have a legit job, so when you get some time off, get a dr. appt. He can test all your blood, white blood count, red blood count, whole blood count, vitamin d, testosterone, dhea, etc.

What were your levels? How long have you done that amount for?
I do the skate liver oil and the liquid d3 drops.
5,000 iu a day breaks even for that is how much we use in a day.

Post: #29

(11-26-2012 03:51 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  Just got my blood tests back. My vitamin d level was 37. Which doctor said was "good". Hes a bullshit conduit though. Im not satisfied. I've done much research on d3 and the vitamin d council now admits optimum levels should be between 50 and 80.

Wait.

You don't have faith in your doctor.

But you do have faith in the multinational corporations that build the blood testing machines?

You also have faith in the technicians and doctors running the lab, whom you have never met, who are part of the same system that trained your doctor?

The Vitamin D blood test is unreliable but is being bushed by both Big Biotech and Big Nutrition (the latter is for the most part owned by Big Pharma). You have to take it with a pinch of salt.

Post: #30

Not this particular doctor no. It's a clinic. I simply go to get blood work. Same guy told me 435 was good for my test levels. It wasnt and isn't for 26 years old. He is out of shape and miserable I simply went there to get blood work done. I have faith in all the other doctors I deal with and the research I do. And I feel better the more my d levels have been rising. What do you know ? What's your source? Intentions?

Post: #31

My liquid d3 costs me 12 dollars dude. What does big pharma have to gain here ?

Post: #32

It was told all my blood work came back A OK except being slightly low in vitamin D. I'm in an office 12 hours a day, so I rarely seen sunlight outside of the weekend. I don't feel like some buying and taking some cheap D vitamins are doing much for Big Corporation's profit margin and I trust the doc that ran the test.

Post: #33

I agree. We have become cave people. We're literally afraid of the sun. Im just trying to follow nature. Original man was outside majority of the day.

What was your level?

Post: #34

Vitamin D is the new "it" supplement. We seem to be bouncing around the alphabet these decades. First it was the B vitamins in the early 90's, then Vitamin C, then E, then K and now Vitamin D.
This forum has been an invaluable resource lately so I thought I would share a few things:

1) I wouldn't take megadoses of this stuff. I have seen cases of hypervitaminosis D firsthand, and the last thing you want is high blood calcium and messed up kidneys from being a food fadist. If you are taking a lot of calcium for whatever reason - supplements, megadoses of tums, a poor understanding of your CKD meds - I would use even lower doses. If you have a history of any kind of granulomatous disease, I would just steer clear.
2) The amount of time it will take to get an ideal amount of vitamin D from the sun varies by your skin tone. A redhead may just need 10-15 minutes to get an ideal amount, whereas someone with darker skin may need an hour or longer. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the disease profile of darker skinned immigrants to places like North America and Europe is significantly worse than the local caucasian populations in coming generations (distinct from preexisting and significant socioeconomic variables).
3) There is some serious research going into vitamin D at the moment. Everything from multiple sclerosis to lymphoma as a matter of fact. For instance, there was a study that recently came out that showed poorer outcomes for patients with lymphoma and vitamin D deficiency - and this has been compelling enough that many north american docs are now giving generous doses - 2000 IU daily to patients with certain types of lymphoma as well. I am sure you can find the article on pubmed easily. Here is a link to a more accessible version of it:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/non-hodgkins...a-survival
4) I don't know if there is any significant difference between long term outcomes with vitamin D taken orally and vitamin D obtained naturally through the sun...If anybody knows more about this, chip in sil vous plait.
Cheers.

Post: #35

(11-26-2012 03:51 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  Just got my blood tests back. My vitamin d level was 37. Which doctor said was "good". Hes a bullshit conduit though. Im not satisfied. I've done much research on d3 and the vitamin d council now admits optimum levels should be between 50 and 80. I have now began supplementing with 10,000 iu a day. I will get retested to see where I'm at in a month. Supposedly it can take long to fill the well. This is once of my favorite articles on d3 I have seen.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/?o=1395

Most people would call that quackery. It's no coincedence in my opinion.

Just another reason why I'm eventually going to quit my job and live in place where getting sun everyday is routine.

I have started an overall wellness blog and am going to do a post on my testosterone levels before and after reaching optimal d levels. I will keep you guys posted.

Isnt 10000iu a day overkill? I'm at 5600iu right now.

Post: #36

Have you been tested ? What's your level? The body uses 5,000 iu a day. So supplementing with that amount would keep me at my same level and do nothing for my progress. I have to supplement with 10,000 iu a day until I'm in between 50-80. Especially now that its winter.

Toxic levels are greater than 40,000 iu a day over several days. But it varies because everyones level is different. But all professionals agree, majority are at sub optimal levels. I'm not coming close to that 40,000 iu a day amount and I am monitoring with a blood test every couple of weeks. I took 5,000 iu a day for two months straight and it raised my level 2 points.

Post: #37

[Delete]

Post: #38

(07-04-2012 05:16 PM)velkrum Wrote:  UV radiation is trapped by the oil on your skin. it takes at least 48 hours 2 Full Days for the UV charged sebum (oil) to convert into D3.

Showering washes off the oil on your skin. If you sun bathe on a Sunday, you should shower Wednesday afternoon. You can wash your armpits and your groin, but a full body shower should be avoided.

If that's not complete nonsense (and it may very well be), then at least it's not an important factor, or we'd have heard about it from medical doctors sounding the alarm about vitamin D deficiency.

Post: #39

(11-26-2012 04:34 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  My liquid d3 costs me 12 dollars dude. What does big pharma have to gain here ?

I'm not in manufacturing but I've heard from people connected to the pharmaceutical industries that vitamins only cost a few cents to manufacture per dose. If it cost 50c to make and they sell it for $12, that's like being able to print your own money.

The challenge is to convince people to buy these cheap things at that markup.

This is easier to do if you've popularised a test that will pretty much tell everyone who takes it that they are vitamin deficient.

This is a nice article for the layman that I found, that expresses my concerns in plain language:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-...ood-sample

I've had lab reps come to my practice trying to push me to do Vitamin D testing. I'm worried: if a test is so damn useful why does it have to be pushed by marketers?

My other issue: I was taught that blood vitamin D levels are proportional to the amount of sunshine you've received in the past few hours. If you spent the entire day indoors and take your blood test, then your vitamin D level will be low. If the very next day you spend the entire day on the beach in the sun, and take your blood test, then your vitamin D level will be high. A valuable vitamin D test would be something that measures your average levels for the past month or so, not a single test at a specific point in time that easily alters based on what you've done a few hours ago.

Post: #40

Yeah I have been taking roughly 10k IUs intermittently for a while now. After seeing that study I think I'll just drop to 5k IUs on the regular.

Post: #41

(11-29-2012 03:53 AM)Thomas the Rhymer Wrote:  My other issue: I was taught that blood vitamin D levels are proportional to the amount of sunshine you've received in the past few hours. If you spent the entire day indoors and take your blood test, then your vitamin D level will be low. If the very next day you spend the entire day on the beach in the sun, and take your blood test, then your vitamin D level will be high. A valuable vitamin D test would be something that measures your average levels for the past month or so, not a single test at a specific point in time that easily alters based on what you've done a few hours ago.

That's definitely not how the 25 hydroxyvitamin D test works. It's pretty stable throughout the day despite recent sun exposure.

Post: #42

Does it matter what brand of vitamin D you take in?

I know its better to have it be D3, but does it matter if your getting some cheap Costco brand, GNC brand, bodybuilding brand etc.

Post: #43

My doctor prescribed me vitamin D earlier this year (1.25 MG - 50,000 unit) and I take one every 2 weeks. I also get 700 IU in my daily multi-vitamin, and I also take Calson's cod liver tablets, drink vitamin D fortified almond milk, and eat food like mushrooms. I also get out to walk for an hour each day, when its sunny and also take vacations every other month in sunny locations.

Post: #44

(11-26-2012 04:34 PM)MidniteSpecial Wrote:  My liquid d3 costs me 12 dollars dude. What does big pharma have to gain here ?

Millions of dollars. Production is dirt cheap, in contrast to drugs there is no investment in research involved and millions of people are taking this stuff, even the healthy. It can't get any better.

Some of you guys are taking insane amounts of D3. I know someone who accidentally overdosed on Vitamin D3 and it isn't funny. Kiss your inner organs good bye.

Post: #45

I'm pretty fair skinned so I try to stay out of the sun as much as possible. My Dr. recommended I up my vit d to at least 4,000 IU a day so now I take the Kirkland (Costco) brand soft gels, 2 2,000 IU tablets a day. I noticed a side benefit that a lot of my acne cleared up. In searching the net I've found anecdotal evidence that for some people if they're vit D deficient their skin will produce more oil in hopes of catching sunlight and converting it to vit D. If it goes unused that oil can clog the pores and create acne. Not sure if it's real science or BS but supplementing the vit D helped my skin too.

Post: #46

(06-10-2013 05:40 PM)RCron Wrote:  I'm pretty fair skinned so I try to stay out of the sun as much as possible. My Dr. recommended I up my vit d to at least 4,000 IU a day so now I take the Kirkland (Costco) brand soft gels, 2 2,000 IU tablets a day. I noticed a side benefit that a lot of my acne cleared up. In searching the net I've found anecdotal evidence that for some people if they're vit D deficient their skin will produce more oil in hopes of catching sunlight and converting it to vit D. If it goes unused that oil can clog the pores and create acne. Not sure if it's real science or BS but supplementing the vit D helped my skin too.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health-conditions/acne/