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
All posts by william-davis

Honey: More fructose than high-fructose corn syrup

Honey: It’s natural. Mom probably gave it to you, either straight or in tea for a sore throat when you were a kid. Even today, honey is touted as possessing almost supernatural qualities for promoting health.

Honey contains B vitamins, minerals, and a handful of antioxidants. It also contains . . . fructose. 60% of honey, in fact, is fructose.

While the average per capita intake of honey is only a modest 1.29 lb per year (National Honey Board; 2008) and therefore contributes only 0.77 lb of fructose per year, there are people who, believing honey to be healthy, use it to excess and use far more than 1.29 lb per year.

How does that compare to table sugar, or sucrose?

Sucrose is 50:50 glucose to fructose. How about high-fructose corn syrup, the sweetener found in virtually all processed foods that has replaced sucrose as the most common sweetener? Depending on the variety, high-fructose corn syrup is generally 42-55% fructose. Many of us (including me) believe that the proliferation of high-fructose corn syrup in processed foods is a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Yes: Judged by its fructose content, honey is worse than high-fructose corn syrup. It is also worse than sucrose.

It means that honey can also contribute to the adverse health effects of fructose, as detailed in this prior Heart Scan Blog post.

Sun, fish, and seaweed

Extraordinary heart health springs from three basic sources in our environment:

Sun, fish, and seaweed.

Sun: Sunlight exposure is nature's intended source of vitamin D. Humans were meant to run naked, or at least scantily clad, in tropical or sub-tropical climates. The large surface area of skin ensured plenty of skin activation of vitamin D, along with long days of intense sun (unlike the seasonal variation of day length and less intense sun further north).

Fish: Fish are the principal source of omega-3 fatty acids, as are, to a lesser degree, wild land animals. Humans as hunter-gatherers tracked, captured, and slaughtered fish and wild game, eaten immediately, since there was no means of storage. Omega-3-rich game was the principal source of fat for primitive cultures.

Seaweed: Seaweed is the world’s most concentrated source of iodine. While seafood like fish and shellfish also contain iodine, seaweed contains, on average, a thousand-fold greater quantity. Seaweed, like plants found on land, are also rich in phytonutrients.

The healthiest cultures on earth follow this simple recipe for health. The unhealthiest population on earth-meaning Americans (i.e., without benefit of bail-out medications and procedures that keep us alive, or vaccinations that protect us from infectious diseases)--neglect all three. Witness the Okinawans, whose daily meals nearly always contain some form of fish and seaweed, and whose sub-tropical climate provides greater sun exposure. It is not unusual for Okinawans to live to 100 years of age, not as an exception, but the rule. Heart disease was virtually unknown except in 90-year olds and older-that is, until the recent adoption of Western practices like fast food and snacks.

It's pretty incredible when you think about it: Simple practices can markedly reduce your likelihood of heart attack and developing heart disease.

Perhaps you’d rather not run naked along a semi-tropical beach, spear fish, and gather seaweed. You could always do the modern equivalents and achieve similar benefits.

Fructose is a coronary risk factor

As discussed in a previous Heart Scan Blog post, Say Goodbye to Fructose, a carefully-conducted University of California study demonstrated that, compared to glucose, fructose induces:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol, doubled Apoprotein B

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, 3-fold more than glucose

4) Increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.


Other studies have shown that fructose:

--Increases uric acid--No longer is red meat the cause for increased uric acid; fructose has taken its place. Uric acid may act as an independent coronary risk factor and increases high blood pressure and kidney disease.

--Induces insulin resistance, the situation that creates diabetes

--Increases glycation (fructose linked to proteins) and protein cross-linking, processes that underlie atherosclerosis, liver disease, and cataracts.


Make no mistake: Fructose is a powerful coronary risk factor.
There is no doubt whatsoever that a diet rich in fructose from fruit drinks, honey, raisins and other dried fruit like cranberries, sucrose (table sugar), and high-fructose corn syrup is a high-risk path to heart disease.

Also note that many foods labeled "heart healthy" because of low-fat, low saturated fat, addition of sterol esters, or fiber, also contain fructose sources, especially high-fructose corn syrup.

Who lost weight?

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.


I went wheat-free and I . . .


Gained weight 6 (3%)

Lost no weight 41 (21%)

Lost less than 10 lbs 28 (14%)

Lost more than 10 lbs 34 (17%)

Lost more than 20 lbs 22 (11%)

Lost more than 30 lbs 28 (14%)

I'm still losing weight! 30 (15%)

(189 respondents)


This means that, by eliminating wheat:

24% had no success

31% had moderate success (less than 10 lbs or more than 10 lbs)

25% had extravagant results with 20 lbs or more lost


It would be interesting to know where along the weight-loss spectrum the last category, "I'm still losing weight," group falls. (Anyone with a good story please speak up!)

I believe we can conclude from this casual exercise that, as a simple strategy, wheat elimination is surprisingly effective.

Why would 3% gain weight? Well, without knowing the details, there are several possible explanations:

1) Weight gain developed through other foods. For instance, I've had people eliminate wheat only to replace it with fattening gluten-free alternatives. Remember: wheat-free is not gluten-free. Others load up on the wrong foods, e.g., Craisins and other dried fruit; overdo dairy; or snack on wheat-free but unhealthy foods like ice cream and chips.

2) Too much alcohol

3) Hypothyroidism--A lot more common than you'd think. In fact, this has been the case with a majority of people who have done everything right, yet either failed to lose weight or gained weight.

Those are the biggies.

I'd like to hear your personal stories of wheat elimination--the ups and downs, your success or failure, how you felt during the process, how easy or difficult, your eventual results. Just post them as a response to this blog post.

A niacin primer

A reader of Life Extension reminded me of a piece I wrote about niacin a couple of years back.

Anyone desiring a primer on how and why to use niacin to correct lipid and lipoprotein patterns might find this useful.

While some people, no matter what they do, cannot tolerate niacin (about 10% of people), many others enjoy spectacular benefits.


Q: I recently had a cholesterol profile blood test and learned that I may be at risk of heart disease because my levels of beneficial HDL (high-density lipoprotein) are too low. I read that niacin could help increase my HDL, but my doctor said niacin is dangerous. Whom should I believe?

A: Your doctor would be right—if we were still living in 1985. Since then, however, we have learned how to use niacin (vitamin B3) safely and effectively. Unfortunately, many physicians have not yet caught up, or are still trapped by the idea that cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are the only way to decrease cardiovascular disease risk. I have personally prescribed niacin for thousands of patients as part of our program to reverse coronary disease. In fact, niacin is the closest thing we have available to a perfect treatment that corrects most of the causes of coronary heart disease.

Continued here.

What would life be like . . . ?

What if coronary heart disease could be prevented--no eliminated--applying methods that were accessible, easy, and cheap?

What if coronary heart disease and, thereby, angina, heart attack, sudden cardiac death, ventricular tachycardia, heart failure, and the cerebrovascular equivalent, stroke, could be eliminated using readily available tools available to virtually everyone in the U.S.? And, over a year, it cost less than a once-a-week latte at Starbucks?

How would the healthcare landscape change? What would become of hospitals, manufacturers of the billions of dollars of hospital equipment necessary to supply the cardiovascular hospital industry (e.g., stent manufacturers, catheter manufacturers, defibrillator and pacemaker manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers who no longer have to produce the volume of antiplatelet agents, inotropic drugs, antiarrhythmic agents, etc.)?

How would our lives change? What would the end of life look like if people stopped dying of heart attack, sudden cardiac death, congestive heart failure at age 55, 65, or 75, but lived out their lives to die of something unrelated?

What if the solution had little or nothing to do with drugs but evolved from simple nutritional strategies, supplements meant to correct the deficiencies that accompany modern lifestyles, and a few unique strategies targeted towards the genetic predispositions that lead to heart disease?

What if all this were possible at a cost of a few hundred dollars per year?

It would certainly be a cataclysmic change. Hospitals would shrink to a small remnant of their current gargantuan, dozens-per-city presence. The need for hospital staff would be slashed by over half. The rare cardiologist would tend to congenital heart disease sufferers and other unusual forms of heart disease and he or she might have a colleague or two in all of a major city.

Healthcare costs would plummet, no longer having to sustain the enormous cardiovascular healthcare machine of hospitals, staff, industry, and long-term care. Health insurance, private or public, would drop by 50%.

It would free up nearly a trillion dollars that could be redirected towards other pursuits, like schools and research. Extraordinary leaps forward in quality of life and science would emerge, given that magnitude of funding.

It's not as grand a thought experiment as Alan Weisman's The World Without Us, in which he imagines what the world would be like without humans altogether.

How long would it take to recover lost ground and restore Eden to the way it must have gleamed and smelled the day before Adam, or Homo habilis, appeared? Could nature ever obliterate all our traces? How would it undo our monumental cities and public works, and reduce our myriad plastics and toxic synthetics back to benign, basic elements?

But I believe this thought experiment--what would life be like without heart disease because it was eliminated using inexpensive tools-- is more plausible, more likely to occur. In fact, it has already begun to occur.

See those vines growing up the side of the hospital?

Are jelly beans heart healthy?

Total Fat

3 g or less

Less than 6.5 g





Saturated Fat



1 g or less

1 g or less





Cholesterol

20 mg or less

20 mg or less





Sodium

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving

480 mg or less per RACC* & labeled serving





Nutrients

Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1 of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber



Contain 10 percent or more of the daily value of 1of 6 nutrients; vitamin A, vitamin C, iron, calcium, protein or dietary fiber





Trans fat

Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving



Less than 0.5 g per RACC* and labeled serving





Whole Grain

N/A



51 percent by weight/RACC*







Minimum Dietary Fiber



N/A

1.7 g/RACC of 30 g

2.5 g/RACC of 45 g

2.8 g/RACC of 50 g

3.0 g/RACC of 55 g





(RACC=Reference Amount Customarily Consumed)

Thyroid correction: The woeful prevailing standard

Rich has been taking Synthroid or levothyroxine for many years.

When Rich came to my office for continuing management 10 years after his bypass surgery, I checked his thyroid panel:

TSH 7.44 uIU/L

Free T4 1.88 ng/dl (Ref range 0.80-1.90 ng/dl)

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml (Ref range 2.3-4.2 pg/ml)


Rich's thyroid hormone distortions--high TSH, low T3--are sufficient to account for a tripling of heart attack risk long-term.

As Richs' thyroid was being managed by his primary care physician, I notified this doctor of Rich's panel. He therefore increased Rich's levothyroxine from 75 mcg per day to 100 mcg per day. Another thyroid panel several months later showed:

TSH 0.98 uIU/L

Free T4 2.38 ng/dl

Free T3 2.0 pg/ml



As you would expect, increasing the intake of the T4 hormone (levothyroxine) increased free T4 and suppressed TSH.

But what about T3? It's unchanged.

Indeed, Rich says that he feels no better and, in fact, wakes up in the morning foggy and requires a nap in the afternoon.

In my experience, the majority (approximately 70%, but not 100%) experience subjective improvement when T3 is added in some form and the free T3 level is increased. While the data (summarized here) are conflicted on whether there is objective benefit to T3 management and supplementation, there seems to be a poorly-quantified subjective improvement.

Rich's increased levothyroxine dose decreased (calculated) LDL cholesterol by 10 mg/dl. Based on my experience, I'll bet that his lipid panel would likely be further improved with T3 correction.

What I find incredible is the absolutely rabid resistance waged by primary care physicians and endocrinologists against this notion of T3, mostly due to fears of the remote likelihood of inducing atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis, while they are ready to prescribe lifelong statin drugs without a moment's hesitation.

Launch of new Track Your Plaque newsletter: Cardiac Confidential

Track Your Plaque has just launched a new version of our newsletter. We call it Cardiac Confidential.

Cardiac Confidential is meant to be a no-holds-barred, go-for-the-throat exposé of the world of heart disease. We will expose the dishonest, reveal what we view as the underlying truth. We'll even have an occasional "undercover" report of what goes on in hospitals and the go-for-the-money world of heart procedures.

Read the first issue here (open to everyone) in which "Laurie" describes her encounter with a sleazy, profiteering cardiologist. She survives, but not without paying a dear price.