vitamin d experiment

Very interesting, thanks for posting, good to know any of the 3 ways work well.

 

On the basis of established clinical data, the outcome of this trial could have been accurately predicted:

There will be no significant health outcome differences between the three arms of the study. Yes, all three trial groups would have a small, insignificant increase in serum vitamin D levels — but not enough to make any useful health benefits.

Here’s the science of why this was so.

Arm One, the group that got an additional 10 min of sunshine midday.

Ten minutes of intense sunshine can synthesize only a very small amount of vitamin D in the skin. Sun exposure time was way too short.

Arms and legs were exposed. But not enough time or skin area exposure for the body to make sufficient vitamin D.

But the real problem was this. The skin can make vitamin D ONLY from the ultraviolet B spectrum, and the earth’s atmosphere absorbs a lot of UVB. This project was in England, which is pretty far to the north. The noon-day sun simply isn’t high enough to keep the atmosphere from absorbing most of the UVB before it hits the Brits’ exposed arms and legs, especially if this was not in high summer.

It is well established that virtually no vitamin D-producing UVB hits the earth surface at a sun angle lower then 45 degrees. If your sun shadow is longer than you are tall, you can stand there stark naked for as long as you’d like (or neighbors would allow), and not a molecule of vitamin D will be synthesized in your otherwise gorgeous skin area.

Arm Two, the group that took “low dose” vitamin D supplements.

Another clinical failure. The maximum supplement dose was no more than 1000 IU of vitamin D. That’s enough to keep from getting rickets, but not enough to forestall the many dozens of other vitamin D deficiency diseases and conditions. To be effective, a minimum of 4000 IU need to be taken, to elevate serum vitamin D levels to a minimum of 30 ng/ml, the threshold of vitamin D efficacy. A far more helpful concentration is in the 40 to 50 (or greater) ng/ml range.

The researchers over there simply have it wrong. They are claiming that doses higher than 1000 IU can be hazardous and jeopardize health. Not a shred of clinical evidence for this anywhere. It’s a made-up concern with no scientific backing. Modern research shows that one needs to consistently take at least 10,000 IU for any hint of vitamin D toxicity to occur.

(Life guards on American beaches commonly synthesize 10,000 to 20,000 IU of vitamin D all summer, but no one has ever heard of a life guard showing any vitamin D toxicity.)

Arm Three, the group that ate oily fish.

Yep, these fish species do have a moderate amount of vitamin D — but not enough to elevate serum vitamin D levels to any useful concentration for those eating those fish. They’d be lucky (and perhaps have fishy breath) to attain 1000 IU of vitamin D with big, daily fish meals.

The real problem with all of this is that the Brit’s — like some many (but now fewer) American docs, A) simply think the body only needs a few hundred IUs of vitamin D each day for good health, and B) anything greater than 1000 IU(over there) or 2000 IU (here) can be toxic and unhealthful.

The working phrase is this: Fifty is Nifty. Unless you have approximately 50 ng/ml of vitamin D in your blood (and that will require between 4000 and 8000 IU of daily supplementation), you are simply failing to gain the prophylactic (disease-preventing) advantages of adequate vitamin D.

Scrutinize all the data here on these topics:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/

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

–John of Ohio

 

You know what is funny to me. My vit d level is 54. I do nothing right. No fish oil, no supplements, live in the north and stay in the shade when outdoors due to fair skin and a melanoma. I eat a marginal diet. Where do i get all this vit d?

 

your sunny disposition of course!

 

clever! deadeye, hope are you doing? any improvement for you I hope??

 

hope=how

 

Interesting. What is the connection between inner ear afictions and Vitamin D please?

 

The value of sufficient vitamin D levels continues to be discovered and affirmed:

"Patients with vitamin D deficiency were more likely to have a poor neurological outcome or die after sudden cardiac arrest than those who were not deficient. Nearly one-third of the patients who were deficient in vitamin D had died 6 months after their cardiac arrest, whereas all patients with sufficient vitamin D levels were still alive."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-10/esoc-vd101514.php

--John of Ohio

 

I've been bouncing around as usual. Have gotten off diuretic and serc with no noticeable changes. Will receive my "cure" in the mail any day now from aussieland ha. Hopefully through time this will help. Will see. Still go to site daily and read but tired of reporting I'm feeling better from sleeping on my stomach or whatever ha. We are all so desperate to feel better from cayenne pepper to chiro's I've tried them all Really feel in a couple of years there will be a real breakthrough. Hopefully I'll still be young enough to raise enough hell to make up for lost time! God bless you all. I'm hugging grand kids in Dallas this weekend, it's all good

 

Good Luck! On the "treatment" I hope it helps you. Enjoy your grandkids!

 

My ophthalmologist advised me when taking vitamin D to also consume food that has fat otherwise the vitamin D would not be absorbed and would be worthless. Now when I take my vitamin D I eat a hard boiled egg since the yolk has fat. Vitamins are expensive, and it's aggravating to not realize that while I was thinking I was doing something very healthy, I was wasting my time and money. Vitamins are expensive.

 

Most vitamin D products (at least the ones you should be consuming) come in oil-based softgels. The oil provides the fat needed for absorption.

Of all the vitamins, vitamin D is among the least expensive (and has the greatest number of benefits). For example, VitaCost sells this vitamin D, an entire year's supply (365 softgels) for $10.79. That's a daily cost of 2.9 cents:
http://www.vitacost.com/vitacost-vitamin-d3-5000-iu-365-softgels-mini-gels-6

--John of Ohio

 

John of Ohio,

I do take vitamin D in oil. I have wondered about that, but figured the amount was too small, and that the doctor would have known that. Thank you so much. I can now stop boiling eggs.

Laney

 

Vitamin D (cholecalciferol) is a fat-soluble molecule. The physician knew that, accurately. But he was simply not familiar with modern formulations of the vitamin, which in almost all cases are sold in oil-enclosed softgels. The vitamin is then easily absorbed by the body as the enclosed oil is absorbed by the intestines.

And because it's fat-soluble, vitamin D is stored in the body's fats. This is why those who fail to take any supplemental vitamin D tend to get influenza in the winter. Even with the slight amount of high-angle sun moderns encounter in the summer, a slight increase in stored vitamin D occurs. But in late fall and winter, in all but the deepest south, it is impossible for the skin to synthesize any vitamin D, because the late fall and winter sun never gets high enough in the sky to allow adequate amounts of UVB light to come through the atmosphere. Ultra-violet B rays are the only ones that synthesize vitamin D in the skin, and when the sun angle is low in the sky (as in winter), the atmosphere absorbs virtually all UVB before it gets to the ground.

That's why influenza cases so often occur in late fall and winter. People who have low fat-bound reserves of vitamin D have exhausted those quantities, and because vitamin D is essential for the proper functioning of the immune system, flu cases then so often occur in late fall and winter. Conventional medicine has that explanation wrong. It is claimed that flu happens then, when people become enclosed, in close contact, without "fresh air," so the virus gets passed around with ease.

Not so, anymore. Modern Americans spend as much time in air-conditioned houses and offices in the summer as they do in enclosed, heated rooms in winter. Enclosure and close human contact is not the reason flu cases happen in late fall and winter. It's because already low vitamin D reserves in body fat have been consumed and the immune system is debilitated. The flu viruses have been sneezed out and breathed in all year long. In summer, immune systems are slightly stronger from the slightly greater amounts of sun-generated vitamin D. In winter, the flu viruses confront vitamim D-deficient immune systems, and thrive.

My wife and I have taken 5000 IU of vitamin D each day of the year now for over a decade. She's never had the flu (but her friends at quilting and church have), and I had just one case --- for a day and half, with only the slightest degree of symptoms; exceptionally mild and short-lived.

To be honest, I get 9000 IU of vitamin D: 5000 in the softgel, and another 4000 in my big multivitamin. Haven't had a cold since all of this, either. My wife's serum vitamin D was measured at 49 ng/ml (close enough to the "fifty is nifty" good-health threshold). I've never had my vitamin D tested, but it has to be in the same range, or greater.

Please, take at least 5000 IU of vitamin D, to obviate colds and flues, and cancers and many other human diseases.

I strongly believe that had I been taking vitamin D back in the mid-90s when Meniere's struck me, the disease could never have gained a working foothold in my inner ear tissues. My immune system would have been strong enough to counter the causative herpes viruses.

Now there would be an interesting study, a determination of the serum vitamin D levels for those first presenting with Meniere's disease. I'm betting there would be a distinct negative correlation, that the majority of those with the disease have lower than average, or grossly deficient, levels of the vitamin.

It is well known that vitamin D absorption and synthesis decline with age. Older age makes and absorbs less, but is needed more. Note that Meniere's most commonly strikes in the 40s or older --- at the time of life when vitamin D becomes less present and more needed; when the immune system begins to weaken because of chronic vitamin D deficiency.

--John of Ohio