10,000 units of vitamin D

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

Comments (47) -

  • Pater_Fortunatos

    8/2/2010 8:06:19 PM |

    There is a romanian guy that promotes healthy life style with low carb and other paleo ideas.

    http://www.cristianmargarit.ro/

    On his forum, a schizo girl was asking about suplemments, but she was really amazed by Dr Davis prescriptions, 6000 UI/zi, she said that NowFoods recomand a 5000 UI gelcap /3 days.

    But Cristian (the body builder from the link) replies:

    "It happened that I had once 100.000 UI on a day of vitamin D. Yes, one hundred thousands! When you try to adjust the level for certain deficencies, the therapeuthical doses can be a lot higher than the usual doses, that look like jokes for healthy people."

    Readind the article that Dr Davis just published, I assume he has a point, but 100.000 on a day!?!

  • Anonymous

    8/2/2010 8:16:33 PM |

    hi Dr. Davis

    could you sum up the benefits of vitamin d for non heart patients?

    im in early twenties and have my vit d at 18!

    i feel normal. what can i expect with higher blood levels of this vitamin?

    i have some source naturals 2000 ui powdered caps is that effective?

    Thanks

  • enliteneer

    8/2/2010 8:49:12 PM |

    There is evidence to suggest a correlation between high circulating Vitamin D blood levels (>40ng/ml) and rare cancers (pancreatic, etc):

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892544/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract

    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/66/20/9802

    http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/69/4/1439

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kwq114

  • Anonymous

    8/2/2010 9:05:48 PM |

    My Vit. D level 2 years ago was 42, I started supplementing with 6K per day.  I retested this spring and had decreased to 41.  

    I was amazed and confused.

    After some communications with the Vit. D council,  I found out that the Tretinoin Cream I was using for my splotching skin was interfering with absorption of Vit. D.

    I have since stopped the cream, increased to 12K per day and get 1 hour of sun without any sunscreen.
    I am sure my Dermatologist won't be happy with my tan.

  • aurelia

    8/2/2010 11:22:05 PM |

    Did you call her PCP?

  • steve

    8/3/2010 12:54:59 AM |

    2 questions about vitamin d. Should I take it in the summer months. I work outside all day long? Whats the differences between vitamin d with cod liver oil  and without ? thanks...

  • Tommy

    8/3/2010 1:11:35 AM |

    What about taking Vitamin A to counter balance Vitamin D?

  • Patricia Dillavou

    8/3/2010 3:45:24 AM |

    It has been determined that toxicity concerns for VD3 occur somewhere around 200 ng/ml.  (www.grassrootshealth.net)

    Vitamin D experts recommend between 70-90 ng/ml depending on the doctor.  Some even higher. For instance - Dr. Cannell of The Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.org) recommends at least 90-100 ng/ml for cancer survivors.

    Dr. Cannell is also on the board of GRH - both non-profit advocacy groups promoting the health benefits of VD3.

    Grassroots Health is running a five year study on VD3 that is well worth joining.  Anyone can join - find the details at their website.

  • Patricia Dillavou

    8/3/2010 3:54:18 AM |

    Dr. Cannell warns that vitamin A "antagonizes the action" of VD3.  He says you don't need to supplement with vitamin A outside of a good diet.

    Not quite halfway down in this newsletter post:
    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-june.shtml

  • Sara

    8/3/2010 4:07:00 AM |

    I read a study recently where they measured the actual amount of vit. D present in various name brands. They varied in strength from 1% to 82%.
    That's very weak on the mfgs. part and would only encourage the use of prescription D.
    Here is the link:
    http://www.medpagetoday.com/MeetingCoverage/CMSC-ACTRIMS/20522

  • Pat D.

    8/3/2010 4:08:36 AM |

    Enliteener - a quote from the study at the second link you provide:
    ( 7). Ecologic data are not supportive of a strong positive association between vitamin D and pancreatic cancer as sunnier regions do not have higher rates of pancreatic cancer. In fact, the opposite is true, in the United States, relatively high pancreatic cancer rates are observed in states where UV exposure is low.

  • vlado2020

    8/3/2010 11:46:08 AM |

    as much I respect dr. Davis he is like all the docs obsessed with numbers and stability and "safety". Unfortunatelly it ignores the basic properties of vitamin D which is an essential , perhaps most important hormone in all the living beings. First of all , vitamin D gets activated in kidneys first and if kidneys get saturated in tissues where all the healing properties of vitamin D occur. Second of all , there is a reason why oral supplementation is possible throughout life as opposed to simple skin synthesis. Then our bodies can absorb much more orally at once than through the skin which leads me to believe that we are designed to take much larger doses at once to correct deficiencies. Lastly vitamin D is fat soluble so it stays with you for 2 months at least. Having said all that , it doesn't make any sense to supplement every day with lesser doses than you can synthesize in the skin or to follow some magical numbers.
    I have dealt with a very stubborn case of psoriasis for 3 years but in a few days I am taking a big vitamin D experiment, 30 days / 500 000 IU daily, 15 million in a month. Indeed if you search google archives you can find newspaper clippings from 30's and 40's when doctors were more liberal and less obsessed with money of such doses reversing psoriasis and arthritis and other auto immune conditions.

  • MissPkm

    8/3/2010 2:16:13 PM |

    Dr Davis, A great post yet again. I guess that is the one single line I have forgotten to tell people "it is not the dose, it is the blood level that matter"!! GREAT! Thank you.

    Sara,
    There is a big concern for supplements on the market as they are not being checked by any agencies, and just like Dr Davis previous have been reporting on - some Vitamin D3 over the counter are not what they say they are. However in this study that you refer to (the part that I was able to read) they do not list the name brands or the type of Vitamin D (pill, gel cap, liquid) as that also plays a big role. I think it is a big separation from the message in the report of saying to only take Vitamin D2 (which is the prescription vitamin D) when we know D2 is not natural to us humans nor is it better. I suggest you read a little bit more about D2 and D3 before deciding what is best for you.

  • Ned Kock

    8/3/2010 5:00:11 PM |

    Hello Dr. Davis.

    Let me point out a few things based on research on vitamin D. Not all agree with what you said in your post, but then again you may well be right and the research wrong:

    - Indeed, toxicity signs do not seem to occur until one reaches the 50,000 IU/d level of intake.

    - Among the elderly (i.e., those aged 65 or above) pre-sunburn full-body exposure to sunlight is equivalent to an oral vitamin D intake of 218 µg (8,700 IU). That is close to 90 percent of what a 20-year-old would produce.

    - People on average will plateau at 130 nmol/L, after months of 10,000 IU/d supplementation. That is 52 ng/mL. Assuming a normal distribution with a standard deviation of about 20 percent the peak mean (a rough guesstimate), one would expect 68 percent of the population to be in the 42 to 63 ng/mL range. That might be the range most of us should expect to be in at an intake of 10,000 IU/d.

    As we know, some people are outliers. A person who is two standard deviations above the mean would be at around 73 ng/mL. Three SDs above the mean would be 83 ng/mL. These are outliers; non-average people.

    There are other factors that may have affected the results for this patient. Being overweight tends to reduce D levels. Sunscreen also does that. Excess cortisol may also be affecting D levels.

    Below are two links with more details:

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/02/vitamin-d-levels-sunlight-age-and.html

    http://healthcorrelator.blogspot.com/2010/01/vitamin-d-deficiency-seasonal.html

  • stop smoking help

    8/3/2010 6:56:15 PM |

    I wonder what levels are found in smokers? I know smokers aren't supposed to supplement with beta-carotene as it statistically increases their risk of developing lung cancer.

    What about vitamin D? Is there any data on this as it relates to people who smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products?

  • Anonymous

    8/3/2010 9:57:45 PM |

    This is so off topic, but for some reason I cannot find the Pharmax website for fish oil. Can anyone help?  Thank you
    From an old person who is not tech savvy.

  • Matthew

    8/3/2010 11:01:03 PM |

    There is a graph of vitamin D blood levels on the video by Dr. Michael Holl+
    ick that shows the knee of the runaway blood levels is around 10,000 IU per day, and he recommends no more than that on an ongoing basis.

    For me, 5000 iu per day stopped my gums from bleeding when I brushed, and ended decades of dysthymia.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq1t9WqOD-0
    http://www.uvadvantage.org/

  • Anonymous

    8/5/2010 6:21:19 PM |

    Dr Davis,
    You are absolutely right that "it is not the dose, it is the blood level that matters”. But, what about the blood level of calcium? One of the causes of the toxicity of Vit D is that it may cause high calcium levels in blood. So, should we not measure also the calcium level, and if it is high then should we not stop taking D, even though  its blood level may be normal or low? Thank you.

  • Ganesh

    8/6/2010 8:17:05 AM |

    How does a dosage of Vitamin D3 supplementation totaling 2,260,000 IU over 56 days averaging daily to about 40,000 IU sound?? Resulting in a blood level of 239.0 ng/mL?? This is no fiction...but my personal experience...and I have never felt more better since then! I got rid of my pre-diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and other fancy new-age potential diseases...  Read all about it at gkwellness.wordpress.com.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/6/2010 9:16:15 AM |

    Perhaps it would be well for others to read what Dr Cannell has to say about massive doses of vitamin D.

    Warning: If you intend to take massive doses of vitamin D based on this newsletter, which I highly recommend you do not, read the entire newsletter. In addition, accurate determination of side effects of massive doses of vitamin D was not available in the early 1930s, nor was accurate determination of the true amount in each pill possible.

    You'll find the Vitamin D Council newsletter at this link.
    Gary Null and Vitamin D Toxicity

  • Josh

    8/6/2010 12:44:21 PM |

    I've been taking 10,000 IUs a day for the last 3 months.  Got my results back today:  I went from 51ng/dL to 65 ng/dL.  I eat strictly paleo and I also get regular sun.  I expected a greater increase.  I also had a CMP run to check for hypercalcemia - all good.

  • Anonymous

    8/7/2010 1:03:50 AM |

    I recently went to a doctor for pre-diabetes and high cholestrol and found my vitamin d level is 17 and I am breastfeeding. Does anyone know what a safe amount would be for me to take. I am taking 5000 d3, liquid dropper full. I am very tan, and out in the sun...why am I not absorbing or making the hormone? My crp level was 24, they said that wasn;t normal. Could this be a effect of this wheat allergy I am reading about? What do you think Dr. Davis?

  • Jimmy Moore

    8/7/2010 11:12:16 AM |

    I too got the same reaction from my doctor when I told him I take 10,000IU daily.  But I HAVE to in order to reach that optimal level you're talking about.  Two years ago my D3 was 42, so I went on a 6-month Vitamin D3 gelcaps regimen to get it up to 68.  Wanting to find the balance of how much to take, I backed off to 6,000IU for about 8 months and my D3 level dropped back down to 50.  So I've been on 10,000IU daily again for the past 8 months and look forward to seeing my levels return into the 60s where they need to be.  THANK YOU Dr. Davis for leading the way on this important issue.  My wife Christine had a D3 level of 9 before starting 10,000IU herself--today her D3 is 54 and she's completely off of her Paxil medicine.  WOO HOO!

  • Anonymous

    8/8/2010 6:57:56 PM |

    I can't find the link but I recall reading something, possibly by Dr. Cannell urging people who are taking higher quantities of vitamin D to ALSO take extra Magnesium and Potassium to prevent kidney stones(which may occur with higher dosing of Vitamin D).

    If this is the case, how much mag and potassium should one take to prevent stones?

  • Neonomide

    8/11/2010 9:58:48 PM |

    Vitamin D3 decreased relapse rate by 50% in Crohn's disease patients in a 12 month randomized controlled trial:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491740


    I knew this for almost two years already and got to ditch my meds, just by taking enough Vitamin D3. If everything in healthcare was this simple we would not have major healthcare problems, yes ?

  • mike V

    8/21/2010 4:56:17 PM |

    Dr D.
    It has probably by now come to your attention that there is some evidence for a U shaped mortality curve with vitamin D in elderly men, esp cancer.

    Here is one report:
    *Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study.*

    Michaëlsson K, Baron JA, Snellman G, Gedeborg R, Byberg L, Sundström J, Berglund L, Arnlöv J, Hellman P, Blomhoff R, Wolk A, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Melhus H.

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug 18. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 20720256 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Related citations

    My suspicion is that it may  be related to insufficent vitamin K2, which of course may relate to typical elderly diets.

    Please comment, and/or refer us to earlier comments you may have made.
    Thank you
    Mike V

  • TedHutchinson

    8/21/2010 10:39:36 PM |

    How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology
    At the most northerly latitudes such as Sweden, where the study Mike V linked to was done and Finland where P Tuohimaa has reported similar findings, we have to appreciate the people with the highest vitamin D status probably have the largest changes in status over the year.
    Vieth provides a hypothesis that explains how people with extreme changes in status experience longer periods of imbalance between the forces controlling cell proliferation.
    Vieth suggests keeping 25(OH)D BOTH HIGH and STABLE is the safest option that way there is little or no CHANGE in status through the year, so no periods where dis-regulation of the counterbalancing forces could occur.

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 11:50:44 PM |

    Ted,

    If I'm reading what you posted correctly, Vieth is indicating that one should maintain higher serum d-levels year round as opposed to allowing them fluctuate?

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 11:53:29 PM |

    I'm sure this has been asked before but what's a suitable dosing strategy for someone who just flat out refuses to get their 25(OH)D3 levels checked? My brother is 28, I've convinced him to start supplementing with vitamin D but her refuses to go to the doctor to get blood drawn and when I suggested he order a kit online and do it himself he looked at me like I was crazy.

    I have him on average taking 5000 to 6000 units per day.

    Mike

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 9:39:52 AM |

    @ Vieth is indicating that one should maintain higher serum d-levels year round as opposed to allowing them fluctuate?

    Vieth says so long as serum 25(OH)D concentrations are in a phase of decline, there can be no full achievement of tissue 1,25(OH)2D to match its ideal set-point concentration.

    There have been a couple of papers recently showing ANNUAL vitamin D supplementation (raising status with high intakes before winter) only makes matters worse because it creates a longer period of declining 25(OH)D.

    Note also that because Ergocalciferol has a shorter half life than D3 it amplifies this problem so should be avoided.

    Supplementing DAILY or WEEKLY reduces the potential for fluctuation so are ideal but fortnightly or even monthly supplementation with D3 probably avoid the periods of declining status, if the person concerned really isn't capable of more regular dosing.

    The amount of vitamin D made in the skin varies with 25(OH)D status This reduces the summer rise in status but if you get lots of sun in summer (unlike the UK)it may be sensible to REDUCE (but not stop) vitamin D supplements while you are also getting near full body sun exposure, and then resume the full amount of supplementation as soon as sun exposure reduces.

    I think people who live furthest from the equator have to be particularly careful when taking winter sun holidays in the tropics.
    As Vitamin D is itself photoprotective it's worth supplementing with vitamin D before a winter sun break rather than relying on the holiday sun to raise status. Then reduce intake while sunning in the tropics but resume supplementation as soon as you return. Careful supplementation increases serum 25(OH)D concentrations and reduces the effect of the seasonal amplitude in 25(OH)D on the tissue fluctuations in 1,25(OH)2D.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 10:11:13 AM |

    @ Mike
    Grassrootshealth graph of typical responses to various vitamin D intakes

    Startling Findings About Vitamin D Levels in Life Extension® Members

    The graphs at the above links show 5000~6000iu/daily gets most people above insufficiency status and doesn't raise status above a safe amount.

    The range of response to regular D3 supplements is about 100ng/ml so without a few 25(OH)D tests it's impossible for anyone to say if you're at the lowest or highest end of that response scale.

    If you're diabetic or celiac then it's likely you're a poor responder but there are people reading this with inflammatory conditions who've taken very modest vitamin D3 amounts but had extremely high 25(OH)D test results.

    It's so simple to put a couple of drops of blood on a test strip and post if off that I'm surprised everyone doesn't get it done.

    Once you've had a few tests done you can more or less predict what the result will be, but there have been instances where people have changed brands of D3, been tested and discovered problems.

    Only if you've had a test can you be certain the brand/batch/amount/dosing regime of D3 you are taking is working for you.

  • mike V

    8/23/2010 1:30:20 PM |

    Thanks for the helpful posts, Ted.
    Is it your interpretation that variability still remains important, even if one's 25(OH)D does not fall below say 30 or 40 ng/mL over the year, or do you think the the lower excursion limit would have to drop to a deficient level at least for a part of the year? It would seem to me that storage in body fat would be a consideration in minimizing variability.
    Have you come across any studies on U curve effects  performed at lower latitudes, or perhaps on those supplementing?

    I am a vintage Brit, living in the "Deep South", and whose last readings were between 60 and 70 ng/ml so I have no personal concerns.
    Last winter I was using 8000iu, but I drop back to 4-6000 in the Summer months, when we typically have highs between 90 and 100F.
    FWIW I have been gradually escalating my dose over a period of more than 10 years. Now in 75th year.
    regards
    Mike V

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 2:01:16 PM |

    @ It would seem to me that storage in body fat would be a consideration in minimizing variability. I agree.
    Bear in mind we don't see significant stored D3 reserves below 40ng/ml but at 50~60ng/ml reserves are measurable.
    I stay around 60ng/ml with 5000iu/d + regular full body UVB/SUN exposure.
    I'm not aware of any data on Ushaped curve at lower latitudes or with people maintaining a steady state 25(OH)D by avoiding declines in 25(OH)D.
    I'd be more than willing to participate in any trial, providing I'm assured of remaining on the high end arm of the study.

  • mike V

    8/23/2010 2:56:12 PM |

    Thank you.
    One more question.
    It appears that UVB/sun exposure is useful way to 'top off' supplementation in a natural or controlled way.
    Seems we evolved our African metabolisms getting a heavy daily full body dose.

    Are you aware of any data suggesting that UVB sourced D has any other advantages over presumingly well managed supplementation?
    Thanks again
    I appreciate your awareness of, and facility at quoting relevant studies.
    Mike V

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 6:42:53 PM |

    Ted, you bring up an interesting point regarding different dosing methods. Here's a study comparing daily vs. weekly vs. monthly dosing of D3.

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/93/9/3430

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 7:28:43 PM |

    Seasonal fluctuations may be of importance but the overall 25(OH)D levels still seem most important.

    The Framingham Study data and other papers have already pointed out that not only total mortality, but also bone health seems best in about 35-40 ng/ml, not more. Similarly, not-so-rare cancers like in prostate and pancreas (kills practically everyone) may well increase in susceptiple populations ie in smokers.

    There are also racial differences that may be of huge importance. Not only CHD risk and 25(OH)D does follow the skin color pretty closely, but native Africans also have rather low 25(OH)D levels which perhaps explains the association. Even doctor Cannell wrote previously about this:

    "Dr. Freedman and his Wake forest colleagues measured vitamin D levels and plaque (the build-up in your arteries) on 340 diabetic, obese (BMI 35) African Americans and found higher vitamin D levels were associated with more plaque build up in the arteries."

    http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/vitamin-d-race-and-cardiovascular-disease.shtml


    Infants in Nigeria have much higher 25(OH)D levels, yet as Nigerian people get older, their 25(OH)D levels drop a lot.

    I'd imagine that tremendous UVB exposure for decades makes it progressively harder to make Vitamin D and that seems to be the simplest explanation. Elderly white-skinned people may on the other hand make a lot more Vit D as a recent study shows. I'd die to know if the same works out for native Africans as well - which I very much doubt.

    Vitamin D has tens of metabolites that form only in the skin. This may be the single biggest challenge to the claim that Vitamin D supplementation fixes "everything".

    A quick googling on a wide array of problems people have had when supplementing more than 2000 IU a day is dazzling. So D3 may be a wonder vitamin, but it's benefits are dose dependent and probably highly dependent of other nutriotional factors as well, since D3 affects the absorption of minerals, expression of hundreds of genes and so on.

    Food rep

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 10:47:56 PM |

    @ you bring up an interesting point regarding different dosing methods ...Comparison of Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Vitamin D3
    Perhaps that is because I regard the natural level at which humans produce vitamin D replete breast milk, achieve 25(OH)D equilibrium and maintain a stored reserve of vitamin d3 as ideal, not the level used in that study that barely ever provides sufficient even for basic daily needs.

    Health professionals may aim for a level that maximises health service interventions. I want a level that minimises my need to use those services.

    Bankers make more money from people who frequently use overdraft and loan services. I prefer to save up, keep a reserve of cash in an instant access savings account, only every pay cash and get discounted prices.

    You may be happy to manage your Vitamin D account without ever having any spare reserves available for emergency use but IMO that is neither prudent or safe.

    Why on earth would your skin produce 10~20000iu in a relatively short time if only 1500iu were required?

  • mike V

    8/24/2010 1:39:15 AM |

    Food Rep:
    Suggest you take as a baseline levels that are thought to be closer to the equatorial 25(OH)D blood levels we evolved with. Not minimal levels to mitigate some particular symptom or disease.
      Yes, achieving this goal largely by supplements, can be complicated depending on skin color, genetics, latitude, age, body fat, but in my judgment it is well worth achieving, and it will become easier as time goes on.

    IMHO, Ted and Dr Davis have it about right.

    Do you visit www.grassrootshealth.net?
    If not I recommend you do so... soon. IMHO there is not a more authoritative resource on this topic.
    Mike V
    By the way, vitamin D does not *cause* calcification. It does enable homeostasis.

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 2:51:38 PM |

    Ted,

    I only posted that study above to show that different dosing schedules (daily, weekly, monthly) all seem like viable approaches in maintaining 25(OH)D3 levels granted you are consistent with it. I wasn't trying to suggest that the actual doses they were administering were adequate.

  • Anonymous

    8/25/2010 4:45:49 PM |

    I just trying to have ripped abs.  I am not taking any supplements or anything like that but the literature here suggests that taking some substances could actually have an adverse affect on your body even though they are supposed to be healthy.

  • mike V

    8/26/2010 6:29:59 PM |

    Ted, Dr D.
    I suggest that vitamin 2K should be considered in association with Vitamin D where the cancer mortality curve is in question.
    **
    http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/jan2009_Vitamin-K-Protection-Against-Arterial-Calcification-Bone-Loss-Cancer-Aging_03.htm
    **
    note: I believe I am right insaying that the first 15 references cited in this article relate to cancer.
    Mike

    Mike V

  • max

    9/25/2010 7:50:35 AM |

    good article.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 4:40:15 PM |

    I recently did the Vitamin D Council blood spot test. It cost $70.00 including shipping I think. It was painful and two weeks later, my finger still hurts. If I ever do another blood spot test, I'll try to draw blood from my forearm, although the test requires at least 2 large blood drops. I have no results yet. I am 114 lbs and take 2400 IU a day (softgels). I don't really plan to test ever again, especially on my finger, so I'll play it safe and keep my level around 40. Obviously, I'll have to adjust accordingly, once I get the results. I don't have the luxury of a good doctor. Doctors around here are virtually useless.

  • Anonymous

    1/21/2011 5:19:23 PM |

    Hi there,
    Been researching Vit D here on the heartscan blog and others such as Vit D counsil, Dr. Ben Kims' site,getting good info to stay away from D2 of course.
      But this site, "The Peoples Chemist"- Shane Ellison and blog poster "Chuck" say we all should stay away from any man-made D3(sheep wool) included. They back it up stating specific chemical biological changes in the body.  They say it just isn't the same and can do more harm in the long run. The site states basically that we should be using only food for Vit D3. meats, eggs, cod-liver oil(w/o the vitamins depleted or added)ect...
       This is real important for all of us if this is true.  Please Heart scan Bloggers/Dr. Davis read the info @ Vit D on Shanes site... Thanks

  • Anonymous

    1/21/2011 5:19:47 PM |

    Hi there,
    Been researching Vit D here on the heartscan blog and others such as Vit D counsil, Dr. Ben Kims' site,getting good info to stay away from D2 of course.
      But this site, "The Peoples Chemist"- Shane Ellison and blog poster "Chuck" say we all should stay away from any man-made D3(sheep wool) included. They back it up stating specific chemical biological changes in the body.  They say it just isn't the same and can do more harm in the long run. The site states basically that we should be using only food for Vit D3. meats, eggs, cod-liver oil(w/o the vitamins depleted or added)ect...
       This is real important for all of us if this is true.  Please Heart scan Bloggers/Dr. Davis read the info @ Vit D on Shanes site... Thanks

  • Lynn D

    9/20/2012 10:32:05 PM |

    If our vite D levels show up low 20every year ,even when take 4000/day, then
    are we not absorbing or are we using it up. It sounds like some websearch showed up maybe
    additional testing such as also 1,25 OH in additon to the 25OH
    Thanks for any info

Loading

What Mr. Clinton did NOT do

You've likely already heard that former President Bill Clinton underwent a heart catheterization today during which one of the bypass grafts to his coronary arteries was found to be occluded. The original coronary artery was therefore stented.

Dr. Alan Schwartz, Mr. Clinton's cardiologist, announced to the gathered press that Mr. Clinton had followed a good diet, had adopted a regular exercise program, but that his condition is a "chronic disease" like hypertension that is not cured by these efforts.



Needing a stent just 6 years after four bypass grafts are inserted is awfully soon. I would propose that it has less to do with having a "chronic disease" and more to do with all the things that Mr. Clinton likely is NOT doing. (In addition to all the other things that Mr. Clinton did not do.) In other words, in the Track Your Plaque world, procedures are a rarity, heart attacks virtually unheard of. I would wager that Mr. Clinton has been doing none of the following:

--Taking fish oil. Or, if his doctor was "advanced" enough to have advised him to take fish oil, not taking enough.
--Vitamin D--Followers of the Heart Scan Blog already know that vitamin D is the most incredible health find of the last 50 years, including its effects on reducing heart disease risk. Unless Mr. Clinton runs naked in a tropical sun, he is vitamin D deficient. A typical dose for a man his size is 8000 units per day (gelcap only!).
--Eating a true heart healthy diet. I'll bet Mr. Clinton's doctor, trying to do the "right" thing, follows the prudent course of advising a "balanced diet" that is low in fat--you know, the diet that causes heart disease. Judging by Mr. Clinton's body shape (central body fat), it is a virtual certainty that he conceals a severe small LDL pattern, the sort that is worsened by grains, improved with their elimination.
--Making sure that hidden causes are addressed--In addition to the "hidden" small LDL, lipoprotein(a) is another biggie. Lp(a) tends to be the province of people with greater than average intelligence. I believe Mr. Clinton qualifies in this regard. I would not be at all surprised if Mr. Clinton conceals a substantial lipoprotein(a) pattern, worsened in the presence of small LDL.
--Controlling after-meal blood sugars--Postprandial (after-eating) blood sugars are a major trigger for atherosclerotic plaque growth. There are easy-to-follow methods to blunt the after-meal rise of blood sugar. (This will be the subject of an in-depth upcoming Track Your Plaque Special Report.)
--Thyroid normalization--It might be as simple as taking iodine; it might involve a little more effort, such as supplemental T3. Regardless, thyroid normalization is an easy means to substantially reduce coronary risk and slow or stop coronary plaque growth.


It's not that tough to take a few steps to avoid bypass surgery in the first place. Or, if you've already had a procedure, a few additional steps (of the sort your doctor will likely not tell you about) and you can make your first bypass your only bypass.

Magnesium and arrhythmia

Because magnesium is removed during municipal water treatment and is absent from most bottled water, deficiency of this crucial mineral is a growing problem.

Magnesium deficiency can manifest itself in a wide variety of ways, from muscle cramps (usually calves, toes, and fingers), erratic blood sugars, higher blood pressure, to heart rhythm problems. The abnormal heart rhythms that can arise due to magnesium deficiency include premature atrial contractions, premature ventricular contractions, multifocal atrial tachycardia, atrial fibrillation, and even ventricular tachycardia, fibrillation, and Torsade de Pointes (all potentially fatal). Magnesium is important!

Magnesium supplementation is therefore necessary for just about everybody to maintain normal tissue levels. (The exception is people with kidney disorders, who should not take magnesium without supervision, since they retain magnesium.)

Here is a Heart Scan Blog reader's dramatic rhythm-correcting response to magnesium supplementation:



Dr. Davis,

A few months ago, I contacted you inquiring if you had written any articles on arrhythmia. You were generous enough to answer and guide me to an LEF article you'd written in which you stressed fish oil and magnesium. I had been suffering with bad PVCs [premature ventricular contractions] for over 20 years, and they had gotten so bad recently that I was told my next options were ablation or pacemaker!

I was already on fish oil and had not seen any difference, and so I researched the magnesium you suggested more thoroughly and found a huge body of studies supportng its effect on arrhythmia. I also read many posts on heart forums with people having success with it. After getting advice from various bloggers, I tried magnesium taurate in the morning and Natural Calm (an ionized form of mag citrate) in the afternoon and evening. Within three days the PVCs were quite diminished and by 2 weeks totally gone! As long as I keep taking it, they never return---not even one irregular blip---even when I drink strong coffee! The magnesium also cleared up my restless leg syndrome, my eye twitching, and insomnia. (Apparently, I was the poster-girl for magnesium deficiency.)

I am so angry that after all these years of suffering, trying various medications, and seeing at least 4 different cardiologists that NOT ONE ever even mentioned trying magnesium. The generosity of the few minutes you took to answer my email and steer me in a helpful direction brought me total relief.

Thank you SO MUCH!

Warmly,
Catherine C.

Video teleconference with Dr. Davis


Dr. Davis is available for personal
one-on-one video teleconferencing

to discuss your heart health issues.


You can obtain Dr. Davis' expertise on issues important to your health, including:

Lipoprotein assessment

Heart scans and coronary calcium scores

Diet and nutrition

Weight loss

Vitamin D supplementation for optimal health

Proper use of omega-3 fatty acids/fish oil



Each personalized session is 30 minutes long and by appointment only. To arrange for a Video Teleconference, go to our Contact Page and specify Video Teleconference in your e-mail. We will contact you as soon as possible on how to arrange the teleconference.


The cost for each 30-minute session is $375, payable in advance. 30-minute follow-up sessions are $275.

(Track Your Plaque Members: Our Member cost is $300 for a 30-minute session; 30-minute follow-up sessions are $200.)

After the completion of your Video Teleconference session, a summary of the important issues discussed will be sent to you.

The Video Teleconference is not meant to replace the opinion of your doctor, nor diagnose or treat any condition. It is simply meant to provide additional discussion about your health issues that should be discussed further with your healthcare provider. Prescriptions cannot be provided.

Note: For an optimal experience, you will need a computer equipped with a microphone and video camera. (Video camera is optional; you will be able to see Dr. Davis, but he will not be able to see you if you lack a camera.)

We use Skype for video teleconferencing. If you do not have Skype or are unfamiliar with this service, our staff will walk you through the few steps required.

Thinner by Thursday

You want to lose a few pounds . . . Okay, maybe 50 or 75.

Should you exercise? Lengthen you workout? Push the plate away, deny yourself seconds, use a smaller plate?

Of all the weight loss strategies I've tried in patients, there's only one that stands out as a means of obtaining immediate--meaning within 3 days--weight reduction.

Wheat elimination.

Omega-3 Index: 10% or greater?

We've previously considered the question:

What is an ideal level of omega-3 fatty acids in the blood?

Recall that omega-3 levels in red blood cells (RBCs), a measure called the "omega-3 index," have been associated with risk for sudden cardiac death:





In a recent analysis, 265 people experiencing sudden death during a heart attack (ventricular fibrillation, successfully resuscitated) showed an omega-3 index of 4.88%, while 185 people not experiencing sudden death during a heart attack showed an omega-3 index of 6.08%.

We have more ambitious goals than just avoiding sudden death, of course! How about the omega-3 index associated with reduced risk for heart attack? A recent analysis of females from the Harvard School of Public Health suggested that RBC omega-3 levels as high as 8.99% were still associated with non-fatal heart attack (myocardial infarction), compared to 9.36% in those without heart attacks, suggesting that even higher levels are necessary to prevent non-fatal events.

Most recently, another study comparing 50 people after heart attack with 50 controls showed that people with heart attack had an omega-3 index of 9.57% vs 11.81% in controls--even higher. (This study was in a Korean population with higher fish consumption. There was also a powerful contribution to risk from trans fat RBC levels.) The investigators concluded: "The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of fatty acid profiles was larger than that for traditional risk factors, suggesting that fatty acid profiles make a higher contribution to the discrimination of MI cases from controls compared with modified Framingham risk factors."

The data suggest that, while an omega-3 index of 7.3% is associated with reduced risk for sudden cardiac death, a higher level of 10% or greater is associated with less risk for heart attack. Surprisingly, fish consumption and fish oil intake account for only 47% of the variation in omega-3 index.

I believe the emerging data are becoming increasingly clear: If you desire maximal control over heart health, know your omega-3 index and keep it 10% or higher.

Let's soak 'em with fish oil

If you don't think that charging drug prices for fish oil is wrong, take a look at a letter from an angry Heart Scan Blog reader:


Hello Dr. Davis,

My 44 year old brother had an MI [myocardial infarction, or heart attack] in June. He got pushed around due to "bad government insurance," a state-run program for the "uninsured": government pays 1/3, job pays 1/3, and individual pays 1/3.

What they didn't tell him is that there is no major medical coverage and little to no prescription coverage. We fought for 4 months to get him open heart surgery that the insurance was not going to pay for.

Now, with no assistance, terrible insurance, and no disability he has little to no income. He is a heavy equipment mechanic and is trying to be the "good American"-- take care of his bills, not file bankruptcy, etc.

Anyway, the doctors never seem to pay attention to what they prescribe. Lipitor was not working for him, due to side effects. Now they want to give him Zetia and Lovaza....Zetia at $114, and Lovoza is $169.85! Wow! For dead fish???? I think this is a little fishy! I looked up Lovaza, gee how nice, they will give you a $20 coupon....

Forget it, he can't afford this stuff. So I am enrolling in the Zetia program for him. And trying to get him OTC [over-the-counter] fish oil. The most prevalent fish oil around here (that I take myself is) Omega 3 Fish Oil that has EPA 410mg, DHA 274.

Thanks for your blog. It made me feel better that I wasn't the only one outraged by this stuff. I 've been a nurse for 20 years and it just never seems to get better. Thank you for your wisdom.

Sincerely JP, Tennessee



Had this reader not been aware that her brother could take fish oil as a nutritional supplement, he likely would have been denied the benefit of omega-3 fatty acids in slashing the risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. You and I can buy wonderfully safe and effective fish oil as a nutritional supplement, but there won't be a sexy drug representative to sell it, nor an expensive dinner and payment for a trip to Orlando to hear about it.

Heart scan gone wrong

Those of you reading the Heart Scan Blog, I hope, have come to appreciate the power in measuring atherosclerotic plaque, the stuff of coronary artery disease, and not relying on indirect potential "risk factors," especially the fictitious LDL cholesterol.

However, like all things, even a great thing like heart scans can be misused. Here's a story of how a heart scan should NOT be used, submitted by a reader.


Dr. Davis,

First of all, let me start out by commending you on all of the work you are doing with your website, blogs, etc. You are truly a breath of fresh air at a time when conventional medicine is no longer making any sense. In the last 3 years or so, I have spent a lot of time using the internet to try and find answers . . . and just about every time, when I find things that make "sense," it coincides which the recommendations you provide. Thank You!!

I am 56 years old, and roughly 5 years ago I bought your book, Track Your Plaque, primarily because I had asked my then Internal Medicine physician about why we weren't more "proactive" about determining the state of our cardiovascular health...since the means to do so existed (scans). He was trying to get me to go on a statin because my cholesterol #'s were a little high and at the time I smoked. Other than that, I was in perfectly good health with no side effects or issues. The following year at my annual physical, we again discussed this and he gave me a few options and I ended up having a calcium score done, which showed some blockage, but again, I never had any pains, sweats, or any other symptoms whatsoever, and I am a very active former athlete. This is when I bought your book to try and set a course of plan that wouldn't just include pharmaceuticals.

At the same time, my father was in his last months of life dealing with prostate cancer and the multiple radiation and chemo treatments, so I was making many trips from my home to be with him . . . a 4 hour drive, and very disruptive to family, as I still have 3 kids at home. At what I thought was going to be my last visit with him, I stopped at the cemetery he had planned on being buried to confirm details and such and then started home.

As I was driving, a symptom hit me which I was unfamiliar with (pretty sure it was an anxiety attack now) and I stopped at a friend's house in Chicago, as I didn't want this to be a heart attack while I was driving. This is when I began thinking about the heart scan and the blockage, and ended up driving back later that night and went right to the ER....not because I had any chest pains, but thought it best to be checked out because I did not want to go before my dad did. I ended up staying the night. In the morning the cardiologist PA [physician's assistant] came in with a copy of my calcium scoring and said it was best to have a heart cath...which I was in total agreement with since it would definitively tell me the current condition of my coronary vessels. As I was getting ready to be wheeled into the cath lab, they approached me with a form that would allow them to treat (stent). This is where I became very uncomfortable, in that I had never even met the cardiologist . . . and I didn't like this. No one ever had asked if I was experiencing pains or anything else . . . but I buckled and signed the form.

Before you knew it, I was awake watching my heart being cathed and the cardiologist angry because they did not have all the right sizes of stents, so he had to use a couple extra and I ended up w/5 total . . . and my life changed forever! In looking back, I can't necessarily argue the need for intervention, but in hindsight, it would have been nice to have tried an alternative method of reversing my plaque, especially since I had never experienced any symptoms and didn't appear to be in any imminent danger.

Upon release from the hospital I was put on a cocktail of drugs that typically follow and I then began to search and research. No one talked to me about lifestyle changes other that smoking....but nothing on diet or other means of cholesterol control, etc....in fact, when I had to pick out my meals in the hospital, they wouldn't let me have cheese....but the rice crispy treat was fine....how stupid! They originally told me the Plavix had to last 6 months....and then 12....and then 2 years....I stayed on it for 1-1/2 years and it was the only thing other than a baby aspirin. I went to another cardiologist out of town and he wanted me back on 5 or 6 medications and said that now I had the stents....I would have to be on these for life.....and he was the expert that talked at several main conferences.....my last trip to him.

Now, fast forward to about 6 months ago: I was participating in a father-son soccer scrimmage and was playing goalie. It was wet out and I couldn't catch very well. So being the competitive person I am, I resorted to using my chest on several of the saves and also took a direct blow to my eye ( I wear glasses) and the eye started swelling up pretty good. We then finished and went inside to have pizza and everyone was concerned about my eye. About 30 minutes later I excused myself as i felt some pretty significant sweats and subsequently a pretty severe pain directly in the middle of my chest....I was having a heart attack! Called 911 and went to hospital (2-1/2 years since original stents) and my local cardiologist removed the blockage that was at the anterior portion of my 1st stent causing the blockage. The huge disappointment to me is that I had taken many steps to improve my overall health. But now that I have foreign bodies in my vessels, the chance of further clotting is something that i will most likely always have to live with.

BU, Michigan



This is an example of how heart scans should NOT be used. They should NEVER be used to justify a procedure, no matter how high the score or where the plaque is located. The "need" for procedures is determined by symptoms (BU's symptoms were hardly representative of heart disease), blood findings, EKG, stress testing, and perhaps CT coronary angiography. "Need" for procedures can never be justified simply on the basis of the presence of plaque by a heart scan calcium score.

Unnecessary procedures like the one BU underwent are not entirely benign, as his experience at the soccer game demonstrated.

Heart scans are truly helpful things. But, like many good things, they are subject to misuse in the hands of the uncaring or greedy.

Blood sugar: Fasting vs. postprandial

Peter's fasting blood glucose: 89 mg/dl--perfect.

After one whole wheat bagel, apple, black coffee: 157 mg/dl--diabetic-range.

How common is this: Normal fasting blood sugar with diabetic range postprandial (after-eating) blood sugar?

It is shockingly common.

The endocrinologists have known this for some years, since a number of studies using oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) have demonstrated that fasting glucose is not a good method of screening people for diabetes or pre-diabetes, nor does it predict the magnitude of postprandial glucose. (In an OGTT, you usually drink 75 grams of glucose as a cola drink, followed by blood sugar checks. The conventional cut off for "impaired glucose tolerance" is 140-200 mg/dl; diabetes is 200 mg/dl or greater.) People with glucose levels during OGTT as high as 200 mg/dl may have normal fasting values below 100 mg/dl.

High postprandial glucose values are a coronary risk factor. While conventional guidelines say that a postprandial glucose (i.e., during OGTT) of 140 mg/dl or greater is a concern, coronary risk starts well below this. Risk is increased approximately 50% at 126 mg/dl. Risk may begin with postprandial glucoses as low as 100 mg/dl.

For this reason, postprandial (not OGTT) glucose checks are becoming an integral part of the Track Your Plaque program. We encourage postprandial blood glucose checks, followed by efforts to reduce postprandial glucose if they are high. More on this in future.

Diabetes from fruit

Mitch sat in my office, looking much the same as he had on prior visits.

At 5 ft 7 inches, he weighed a comfortable 159 lb, though he did have a small visible "paunch" above his beltline.

I had been seeing Mitch for his heart scan score of 1157 caused by low HDL of 38 mg/dl, severe small LDL (87% of total LDL), and lipoprotein (a).

Part of Mitch's therapeutic program was elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars, the three most flagrant triggers of small LDL particles, and weighing his diet in favor of oils and fats to reduce Lp(a). However, Mitch somehow failed to follow our restriction on fruit, which we limit to no more than two 4 oz servings per day, preferably berries. He thought we said "Eat all the fruit you want." And so he did.

Mitch had a banana, orange, and blueberries for breakfast. For lunch, along with some tuna or soup, he'd typically have half a melon, a pear, and red grapes. For snacks, he'd have an apple or nectarine. After dinner, it wasn't unusual for Mitch to have another piece of fruit for dessert.

Up until Mitch's last visit, he'd had blood glucose levels of 100-112 mg/dl, above normal and reflecting mild insulin resistance and pre-diabetes. Today, on his unlimited fruit diet, his blood sugar: 166 mg/dl--well into diabetes territory.

I helped Mitch understand the principles of our diet better and advised him to reduce his fruit intake to no more than the 2 small servings per day, as well as sticking to our "no wheat, no cornstarch, no sugar" principles.

While fruit is certainly better than, say, a half-cup of gummy bears (84.06 g carbohydrates, 50.12 g sugars), fruit is unavoidably high in carbohydrates and sugars.

Take a look at the carbohydrate content of some common fruits:

Apple, 1 medium (2-3/4" dia)
19.06 g carbohydrate (14.34 g sugar)

Banana, 1 medium (7" to 7-7/8" long)
26.95 g carbohydrate (14.43 g sugar)

Grapes, 1 cup
27.33 g carbohydrate (23.37 g sugar)

Pear, 1 medium
25.66 g carbohydrate (16.27 g sugar)

Source: USDA Food and Nutrient Database

Fruit has many healthy components, of course, such as fiber, flavonoids, and vitamin C. But it also comes with plenty of sugar. This is especially true of modern fruit, the sort that has been cultivated, hybridized, fertilized, gassed, etc. for size and sugar content.

When you hear such conventional advice like "eat plenty of fruits and vegetables," you should hear instead: "eat plenty of vegetables. Eat a small quantity of fruit."

The sniff test

It is well established that omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are free of mercury, PCBs, furans, and other pesticide residues. Several independent analyses have all agreed: little to none are contained in fish oil. In the Consumer Lab series of assessments, for example, no fish oil supplement failed because of any heavy metal or pesticide residue.

However, oxidative byproducts are a problem. Just as fish that sits on the store shelf or your refrigerator too long starts to smell "fishy," so will fish oil. When fish or fish oil becomes rancid, smelling like rotten fish at its worst, it means that