Throw away total cholesterol!

17. May 2006 William Davis (1)
Richard's total cholesterol without treatment was 186 mg/dl. "That's great!" his doctor declared, referring to the conventional dictum that total cholesterols less than 200 carry low risk. Several fingersticks in a mall kiosk set up by a local hospital to check total cholesterols confirmed Richard's low number.

But after Richard's unexpected hospitalization and two stents for severe coronary blockages, he demanded better answers.

Tragically, the answer was there all along: Despite a "favorable" total cholesterol, his HDL ("good") cholesterol was a miserable 32 mg (ideal >60 mg).

Total cholesterol is actually the sum total of HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, with a contribution from triglycerides. That's why a low total cholesterol can conceal a low HDL.

This situation is quite common. And low HDL is accompanied by a constellation of other undesirable causes of heart disease, most notably small LDL.

Don't accept total cholesterol as your sole measure of risk. It's nearly worthless. If you live in Bangladesh or a third world country, well perhaps that's the best you can get. But if you live in the U.S. or developed world, it's absurd to rely on total cholesterol.

Smart Start not so smart

15. May 2006 William Davis (2)



Kellogg's has crafted a campaign to support the American Heart Association featuring acress Sela Ward. Her attractive face, familiar to many TV and movie viewers, does add a comforting face to their efforts.

What's in this cereal made by the manufacturers of Pop-Tarts, Cheez-It, Rice Krispies, and Chips Deluxe cookies?

There are, indeed, some healthy ingredients: oat bran, potassium; you can even get a version made with soy protein. But there's sugar listed as the second ingredient. High-fructose corn syrup is also listed prominently. (Remember this issue? High-fructose corn syrup causes overwhelming sugar cravings, causes your triglycerides to skyrocket, and is probably among the principal food ingredients that make you obese.)

Upon detailed questioning of my patients struggling to lose weight, this and products like it are often among the "healthy" foods they've gravitated towards. We spend a great deal of time dissuading them of this idea.

A one-cup serving of Smart Start is low in fat (1 gram) but contains 43 grams of carbohydates, of which there are 14 grams of sugar. There are a meager 3 grams of fiber. To me, this sounds like a cupcake.

The Kellogg's people are exceptionally clever marketers. Partner with the American Heart Association and movie stars? Brilliant!

You should trust food manufacturer advertising about as much as you trust drug manufacturer advertising, which is to say not at all.

Kellogg's sold $10 billion dollars of food products last year. They are the world's leading producer of breakfast cereals. They are a leading producer of convenience foods: cookies, crackers, cereal bars, and frozen waffles under the brands Keebler, Pop-Tarts, Eggo, Cheez-It, Nutri-Grain, Rice Krispies, Famous Amos, and Kashi.

Can they cash in on healthy trends? They'll certainly try.

Does anybody have a normal vitamin D level?

15. May 2006 William Davis (0)
We now routinely check everyone's vitamin D blood level at the start of the program. (The measure to obtain is 25-OH-Vitamin D3. This is not to be confused with 1,25-OH2-vitamin D3, which is a kidney function measure.)

Of the 10 people with levels drawn today, none were even close to normal levels (which we define as 50 ng/ml)--not a single one.

The majority were in the range of severe deficiency (<20 ng/ml). Only two had levels in the 30s. None had higher. (Remember: I'm talking about people in Wisconsin, a terribly sunlight-deprived area much of the year. This might not apply quite as vigorously to Florida residents or others in sun-exposed regions.)

Curiously, I've also seen several people this week who had extraordinary quantities of coronary plaque on their heart scans (scores >1000), all of whom had extremely low vitamin D levels. One of these people had fairly unimpressive lipoproteins, with very minimal abnormalities identified. (This is quite unusual, by the way.) It makes you wonder if a profound deficiency of vitamin D is sufficient to act on its own as an instigator of coronary plaque.

The more we examine the issue of vitamin D deficiency, the more fascinating it gets. I suspect we've just scratched the surface and there's a lot more to learn about this tremendously interesting nutrient. Nonetheless, with what we're seeing in our experience, I'm urging everyone to get a blood vitamin D level.

Don't believe your LDL cholesterol!

14. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Harry's case is typical. For years, his doctor told him his LDL cholesterol of 123 mg was okay. But a heart scan score of 490 (90th percentile at age 52) made him question just where his coronary plaque came from.

Lipoprotein analysis told a very different story: His LDL particle number was 2400 nmol, meaning his trueLDL was more like 240 mg, nearly double the value of LDL obtained through his doctor. Harry had other sources of risk, too, but the LDL particle number was a clear stand-out.

Why does this happen? How can LDL cholesterol be so terribly inaccurate?

LDL cholesterols obtained in virtually all labs are not measured, they're calculated. The calculation was developed in the 1960s by Dr. Friedewald at the National Institutes of Health and therefore goes by his name (the Friedewald calculation). Dr. Friedewald derived this simple calculation to permit doctors across the U.S. to obtain LDL cholesterols, which were technically difficult to measure in those days by using measured HDL, total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Doctors were told that the only time that the Friedewald calculated LDL was inaccurate was when triglycerides exceeded 400 mg. So most family practitioners and internists still believe that calculated LDL's are, for the most part, quite accurate.

Nothing could be further from the truth. When LDL's are actually meaured, you find that LDL is rarely accurate. In fact, in our experience, inaccuracy of 30-50% is the rule, sometimes 100%. The one telltale hint that calculated LDL is wrong is when HDL is <50 mg--that's nearly everybody.

So what's your LDL? You won't really know unless it's measured. Our preferred method is NMR (LipoScience) LDL particle number, probably the most accurate of all. Second best: apoprotein B, direct measured LDL, and non-HDL. (We'll cover this issue much more extensively in an upcoming report on the www.cureality.com website in an extensive Special Report.)

Are you the exception?

14. May 2006 William Davis (0)

I read about 40 heart scans this morning. In the stack was a 41-year old man with a heart scan score of 841.

That's terribly high for anyone, let alone a 41-year old person. He's lucky to find out about this before catastrophe strikes.

People like this worry me. In general, we advise men to consider a heart scan age 40 and older; women 50 and older. If there's anything exceptional about your family history or your own history, then you might notch these numbers down another 5-10 years. For instance, if your Dad had a heart attack at age 43, you might consider a scan at age 35. Or, if you've had diabetes for several years and you're a 42-year old woman, you might think about a scan. (Men tend to develop measurable plaque by heart scans 10 years before women.)

There are no hard and fast rules. It's unusual for a male to have a score >0 before age 40. Likewise, it's very uncommon for a woman to have a score >0 before age 50. But there are occasional exceptions--but they can be very important exceptions.

Our 41-year old man with the score of 841, for instance, probably had a high score since his mid-30s. I've seen several women without any obvious risk factors with scores in the several hundred range in their early 40s.

My rule: When in doubt, opt for safety. Every day, I still read about people in their 30s, 40s, and 50s dying of heart attacks. It shouldn't happen.

When in doubt, get the heart scan. The most you'll lose is the cost of the scan and a modest exposure to radiation. If your score is zero, you know you're safe for the next 5 or more years. But if you have an exceptional score at a young age, take preventive action.

Self-empowerment in health: The new wave in health care

12. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Track Your Plaque is just one facet of the broad and powerful emerging wave of self-empowerment in health.

Hospitals, drug and device manufacturers, and the medical establishment don't like this idea. People managing their own health? That's ridiculous! Dangerous! But mostly unprofitable.

Self-empowerment means having easy access to simple, safe, and inexpensive diagnostic tests like heart scans, carotid scans, bone densitometry (for osteoporosis), cholesterol tests, abdominal ultrasound, even brain scans (e.g., CT or MRI) for people with a family history of brain aneurysm.

Opponents of this idea worry about the "false-positives" that come about with broad testing, i.e, detection of abnormalities that are artifactual. Our experience is that false-positives are only an occasional problem with any test. Instead, we find that most people have many true-positives. In CT heart scanning, for example, we find many unsuspected enlarged aortas (potential future aneurysms), valve disorders, and aortic calcium. These are all important in a preventive program. Unfortunately, your doctor's definition of false-positive often means that no corrective procedure or operation is required.

Other evidence that self-empowerment in health is growing:

--The nutritional supplement movement. What better example of power in managing your own health is there than the fabulous array of nutritional supplements available?

--Medications moving to over-the-counter status. Gradually, more and more medications are trickling into availability for you to obtain without a doctor's prescription.

--What I call "retail imaging", i.e. screening ultrasound, heart scans, full body scans, etc. that are available in most states without a doctor's order.

--The Internet. The rapidity and depth of information available on the Internet today is mind-boggling. It will fuel the self-empowerment movement by providing sophisticated information to the health care consumer previously available only through your physician.

--High-deductible health insurance plans. If health care consumers will bear more and more of the costs of health care, they will seize greater responsibility for early identification and prevention to minimize long-term costs.

There are more. But the movement is powerful and broad--and unstoppable. Let the establishment with vested interests in preserving the status quo fuss and complain, just like horse and buggy manufacturers did in the early 1900's when the autmobile came along.

Vitamin D deficiency is rampant

12. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Today alone I've seen several people with severe deficiencies of vitamin D.

We're now checking everyone's blood vitamin D level at the start of the program. The measure that most accurately reflects your vitamin D status is 25-OH-vitamin D3. This is very confusing to many physicians, who traditionally have thought of 1,25-di-Hydroxy vitamin D3 as the standard test to measure. What they're failing to recognize is that this second measure is a kidney product, not a reflection of vitamin D status.

Using 25-OH-vitamin D3, several people today alone had levels of <10 ng/ml, clearly in the category of severe deficiency (generally regarded as <20ng/ml).

The majority of people we see in the office are Wisconsin residents. It's no wonder they're deficient. Although it's mid-May, we've seen the sun only a handful of days this year. And most of the days have been too chilly to wear short sleeves and shorts to permit sufficient surface area for UV exposure.

Living in a sunny climate, however, is no guarantee that you have sufficient blood vitamin D levels. Two recent studies have shown that 30-50% of the residents of sunny southern Florida and Hawaii are also deficient. (Why, I'm not sure.)

Although our experience thus far is anecdotal in several hundred people, my impression is that people who have normal blood levels of vitamin D (we regard normal as 45-50 ng/ml) have a far easier time of halting or regressing coronary plaque.

Vitamin D is among the most exciting nutritional tools we've come across in a long time. The conversation is making the media, which impresses me tremendously, given the fact that nobody stands to profit financially to any significant degree through vitamin D supplementation.

For a wonderful collection of discussions on vitamin D, go to Dr. John Cannell's website, www.vitaminDcouncil.com. You'll find a huge quantity of scientific background and conversation on the whole idea. I believe you will be thoroughly impressed with just how powerful the argument in favor of vitamin D has become.

What if wheat products were illegal?

11. May 2006 William Davis (3)
Imagine if anything made of wheat were illegal: bread, bagels, crackers, pasta, pretzels, donuts, Shredded Wheat cereal, Raisin Bran, pastry, cookies, cakes, cupcakes. . . Your grocery store would then be unable to carry any of these products.

How empty would the grocery store shelves be?

There would be very little. The stores would be filled instead with vegetables and fruits, meats, and dairy products. But aisle after aisle would be empty. There'd be no cereal aisle. There'd be no snack chip aisle. The ordinarily overcrowded bread shelves wouldn't be there.

Bakery? Nope, not there either. Pasta and noodles? Empty. How about cakes and pastries? Also gone.

Getting the picture? American groceries are dominated by wheat products. What would happen to your health and the health of your family if wheat were abruptly removed from your choices? Would you be less healthy?

No. In fact, your health would be hugely improved. You'd lose a significant quantity of weight. Extraordinary numbers of people would lose diabetic or pre-diabetic tendencies. Feelings of sluggishness, sleepiness, and moodiness would dissolve. Blood pressure would be reduced. The incidence of cancer, skin disease, and inflammatory diseases would plumet.

From a plaque control perspective, your HDL cholesterol would rise, triglycerides drop. Small LDL would improve dramatically.

The message: Slash wheat products from your diet. Yes, you'll miss the smell and taste of freshly baked bread. But you'll do it for many more healthy years. And you may do it without a 14 inch scar in your chest.

The sobering tale of small LDL

10. May 2006 William Davis (0)
Every day, I learn to respect small LDL more and more.

Small LDL particles, and its evil partner, low HDL, is among the most common reasons why someone fails to fully gain control of coronary plaque and heart disease risk.

Just yesterday, I saw a slender businessman (6 feet 1 inch in height, 186 lb.) whose small pattern persisted despite niacin, fish oil, oat bran, and raw almonds. We generally think of small LDL as an overweight person's pattern, but in some people the genetics are quite powerful and it can be expressed even in slender people.

The solution: More physical activity and exercise; cut back on processed carbohydrates, particularly wheat products like breads, pasta, crackers, breakfast cereals; think about magnesium (see our two recent reports on magnesium on the www.cureality.com membership website, the latest report to be posted this week); be sure sleep is adequate (gauge this by whether you're energetic during the day and don't fall asleep watching TV or movies). Lack of sufficient physical activity in people with sedentary jobs is probably among the most common reason the small LDL pattern persists.

Ignore small LDL and it can be like a hidden cancer in your body, growing and metastasizing (not literally, of course), fueling coronary plaque growth. Be sure your doctor assesses whether you have small LDL if you hope to gain control of your coronary risk.

Burn off the fat

9. May 2006 William Davis (0)

If you've ever wondered just how many calories you're burning with various activities like yard work, driving, climbing stairs, etc. go to this great website that will calculate it for you: http://www.caloriecontrol.org/exercalc.html.

Here are some examples:


Dancing for 30 minutes(fast, e.g., tango): 193 calories
Yoga for 30 minutes: 204 calories
Washing the car for 30 minutes: 173 calories
Vacuuming for 30 minutes: 88 calories

(All are for a 170 lb person.)

As you see, physical activity does not necessarily have to consist of exercise. It doesn't require fancy equipment or expensive outfits. But it does require you to keep moving. Sedentary work is among the most common reasons I see in my patients for failing to control weight and its associated lipoprotein patterns, like low HDL and small LDL.

If your work is sedentary, then a minimum of 60 minutes of physical activity per day is necessary to begin to correct weight-related patterns. If you gauge by calories burned, then a useful goal is 500 calories per day in physical activity--at a minimum.
Prescription vitamin D

Prescription vitamin D

23. June 2007 William Davis (32)
Niacin:

Over-the-counter: $2-5 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Fish oil:

Over-the-counter: $3-6 per month
Prescription: $120 per month


Vitamin D:

Over-the-counter: $2 per month
Prescription: $70 per month



With vitamin D in particular, the prescription form is vastly inferior to the over-the-counter preparation. This is because the prescription form is ergocalciferol, or vitamin D2, not the effective human form, vitamin D3 or cholecalciferol.

When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively.

Moreover, D2 is the plant-based form. It is a form not found naturally in humans. D3 is the mammalian form, the same found in humans that exerts all its biologic benefits.

Then why is the prescription form of vitamin D2 (brand names Driscol and Calciferol) more expensive?

It's the same old pharmaceutical industry scam: Look for something patent protectable, regardless of whether it's superior to the non-patent protectable product, then sell it for exagerated profits. Though it is inferior and the science and clinical experience prove that it's inferior, you can still fool lots of people, including prescribing physicians. So what if you only make $50 or $100 million?

Don't fall for it. Prescription doesn't necessarily mean superior. In fact, the prescription form may be significantly inferior, as with vitamin D2. But the pharmaceutical industry carries such power and persuasion, who's going to know?
Tags :

Comments (32) -

  • Anonymous

    6/23/2007 12:10:00 PM |

    I guess it could be said that a flaw some have is a willingness to take advantage of the uneducated.  

    On the niacin, my guess is that the over the counter Slo Niacin is manufactured by the same company in the same facility as the prescription form.  The machines used would be different as the FDA wants this, but the manufacturing procedures and source product would be the same.  I don't know this for a fact, but it would not surprise me if it were true.  

    For fish oil, there are only a couple facilities in the world that manufacture fish oil.  The products these facilities sell are pretty much all the same in quality.  Everyone buys from the same places.  The facilities that encapsulate pharmaceuticals often times also manufacture health foods in the same plant.  The exact machines used for encapsulating pharmaceutical fish oil and store shelf fish oil will need to be different for government purposes but basic manufacturing practices followed will be about the same.

    I was in a unique situation to witness a Germany company sell a product as a health food - and at the same time was going through the FDA drug approval process with the same exact patent protected product.  The product never did make it through testing in the end.  Phase 3 (I think that is what it is called) human studies at the Cleveland Clinic were a bust as too many people stopped taking the product. (Reportedly the product worked so well that people stopped taking it as they felt healed.)  I remember the German company planned to make “large” amounts of money off of their product if it passed testing as they would be able to charge a premium.  After testing fell through they decided to not try again.  A large American firm took on their product and placed it into every store in America, - and that was good enough for them.

  • Edward Hutchinson

    6/23/2007 1:49:00 PM |

    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/84/4/694
    The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement provides more information which may interest some.
    http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6
    Risk Assessment for Vitamin D shows that up to 10,000iu daily produces no observable adverse events but readers should note that actual harm occurs is 40,000iu are consumed daily.
    However as you body uses only 4000iu daily http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/77/1/204 there has to be good reason to take more than 4000iu daily.

  • BarbaraW

    6/23/2007 2:06:00 PM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    I've been reading your blog for sometime, since I found the link on Regina Wilshire's blog. I've learned a lot and want to thank you for sharing your insights and expertise with everyone. I imagine (and hope) that there are many, many more people reading it than are posting. I think what you and your colleagues are doing with Track Your Plaque is phenomenal. Interesting that there seem to be none of these services in New England, that bastion of tradition.

    I've been fascinated by your articles on Vitamin D.  In looking around at Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) to purchase online (I can't find gelcaps locally), I came across the "Wilderness Family Naturals" web site.  In their article on cod liver oil ( http://www.wildernessfamilynaturals.com/cod-liver-oil-health-benefits.htm ), they state:
    "Cholecalciferol is the form found in vitamin supplements and fortified dairy products and not the hormonal form of vitamin D, namely 1,25-dihydroxycholecalciferol."
    The also state: "The form of vitamin D that we get from supplements is not fully active."

    Can you talk about this for us?

    In any case, my question is: can't I just take my cod liver oil to get my Vitamin D? Do I need the gelcaps of D3 in addition?

    Thanks again,
    Barbara

  • Dr. Davis

    6/23/2007 10:04:00 PM |

    Wow! Thanks for the helpful commentary.

  • Dr. Davis

    6/23/2007 10:09:00 PM |

    Barbara-
    It's really very simple once you start checking blood levels on everybody--you quickly begin to learn what works and what doesn't.

    Vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is what you need. Don't be confused by the comment about the "real" form, 1,25-diOH-vitamin D3. This is a kidney metabolite. We all still need vitamin D3.

    It's best to find D3, not cod liver oil. I remain skeptical about the safety of cod liver oil due to some reports of preparations with excessive pesticide residues.

    Try www.vitaminshoppe.com or look for Carlson's preparation, both 2000 unit gelcaps of D3.

  • Cindy

    6/24/2007 9:06:00 PM |

    I take D3 and have been for at least 3 months. I've been taking 3000iu/day and just had a blood test that indicates my blood level is only 33 (22 - 67 is the reference level).

    I'm out in the sun at least 15 min a day, not including driving, walking to and from, etc.

    So...how much Vit D should I be taking? I believe you recommend a level of 50-60?

  • Dr. Davis

    6/24/2007 11:24:00 PM |

    Cindy--
    We commonly use 5000-6000 when situations like this arise and generate desirable levels. Also, the values of "normal" in the reference range you provide suggests that your laboratory also runs an outdated method of measurement. (The newer methods tend to show "references ranges" of 20-100, or something close to that range.)

  • Cindy

    6/25/2007 4:22:00 AM |

    Thanks!! I've made several changes recently thanks to your posts!!

  • Mike

    6/26/2007 6:25:00 AM |

    Hi Dr. Davis,
    I see both Vitamin D and Vitamin D3 supplements being sold:

    Vitamin D

    Do I need to assume that supplements labeled as simply Vitamin D are, in fact, D2?  Are there other forms that it could be?
    Thanks,
    Mike

  • Dr. Davis

    6/26/2007 12:33:00 PM |

    Mike-
    No, you can not assume D is D3.

    Always look for:
    1) gelcaps, not tablets
    2) D3 or cholecalciferol
    3) Never D2 or ergocalciferol.

    Those little attentions to detail will help a bunch and ensure you get the right stuff.

  • Mike

    6/26/2007 6:19:00 PM |

    Thanks!

  • Anonymous

    7/25/2007 8:32:00 AM |

    I was diagnosed with a defiency in vitamin D in january . My total level was 12ng/mL . I started taking supplementation, 800 IU daily of Vitamin D3 (cholcalciferul), and a Centrum multi-vitamin which has another 400 IU . I took that for over 6 months. I just had my level checked again . It is only 15ng/mL still !
    How much D3 should I be taking ?
    And what would be a good target for a 31 year old male ?

  • Dr. Davis

    7/25/2007 12:04:00 PM |

    There's no "one-size"fits-all" in dose for vitamin D. However:

    1) The vitamin D in multivitamins doesn't work at all.

    2) You're therefore taking 800 units per day, the dose for a small child.

    3) Most adults require 2000-6000 units per day. The D must be in capsule form, not tablet.

    4) In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim for a blood level of 50 ng/ml.

  • Anonymous

    7/26/2007 5:43:00 AM |

    Thanks, Dr.

    1) Can you expand on why that is re. multi-vitamins inefficacy of vitamin D ? Does this apply only to the vitamin D in them ?
    Are the liquid forms of multi-vitamins any better than the tablets (eg. centrum liquid) ?

    2-3) I thought according to the FDA, the recommended daily dose was 400 IU for an adult and the safe dose was 2000 IU. How did you come up with your numbers ?

    3) You guessed it - I had been taking Vitamin D in tablet form only. I can certainly believe that they were not effective given my test results. But can you explain why the tablet forms don't work ?

    Tonight I looked for vitamin D in liquid form . I had to go to 4 places - Costco, my Kaiser pharmacy, Longs, and finally Walgreen's, which had some softgels from fish oil. I bought 100 softgels of 1000 IU each for $7.99.

    The tablets I have are Nature made brand. I have about 300 left. As far as tablets go, how do you rate them ? Would you just throw them away and just take the gels ? Or take some gels and tabs ? I hate to just waste the tabs.

    4) Thanks !

  • Dr. Davis

    7/26/2007 12:30:00 PM |

    Please refer to the several previous posts under "Vitamin D" or our extensive discussion on the www.trackyourplaque.com website.

  • Dr. Davis

    7/28/2007 2:50:00 PM |

    Vitamin D should always be either "D3" or cholecalciferol, NEVER "D2" or ergocalciferol, since D2 exerts negligible benefits.

    If your preparation fails to specify which form, look for another that does.

  • Ava

    10/10/2007 8:12:00 PM |

    Hello I'm a vegan from Germany and like to respond to the argument that is circling through the web relating to D2. Since I'm vegan don't use D3 since that is produced by irridating butchers-wool with UV-light, an information that is often left out when touting this version of vitamin D as the "natural" one. Because of all the negative rap D2 has gotten, it has now in fact disappeared as a supplement in the EU, effectively starving vegans and other vegetarians of vitamin D. I was thus forced to look for alternatives to have my winter supply of vitamin D. What I do is grow my own delicatessen mushrooms right here at home and either dry them in the sun or irridate them with the Utra Vitalux 300 Watt UVB - Lightbulb after harvest which makes them a very rich source for vitamin D2.  Now here comes the interesting part. My previously utter deficient 25(OH)D below detection level, measured at the end of summer -I'm not the outside type and almost never get enough UV-exposure from sunlight- has after a year gone up to 105 nmol/L. Given that I have nowhere near enough sun exposure, and as a vegan no other dietary source of vitamin D, it is clear to me that the vitamin D2 from my sun-dried or irridated mushrooms is responsible for my recovery from hypovitaminosis D.

    Now I don't know if there's a difference of vitamin D2 in mushrooms or the pharmacological D2 in pills, all I know is that Vitamin D2 is *my* primary source of vitamin D and it's giving me excellent levels of 25(OH)D.

    What I find highly irritating is the meme like argument flying around that vitamin D3 is the one "naturally appearing in the body". Duh. Vitamin D2 is also converted into vitamin D3 so the fact that D2 is not "naturally in the human body" should be as relevant that Vitamin C is not "naturally in the human body" and has to by sourced from diet. There are many nutrients that are "not natural" in the human body and which we need to source from diet, for example the essential amino acid. Besides, since when does "natural" equate to being good? If a Uranium miner has "natural" radioactivity in his body because he is exposed to it during work, is that good? I don't think so.

    The reason I'm irritated is because the information about vitamin D2 being bad (when that is, at least in my case *not* true) has real implications and discriminatory effect on vegans and other vegetarians because not everybody of us has the patience and curiousity to produce their own Vitamin D at home, and perhaps some people don't enjoy eating mushrooms.

    There is one more point and then I'll end my rant. Every time us vegans were informed that a particular plant based nutrient like vitamin A (beta-carot.) or iron was inferior because it has a lower bio-availability, later research discovered that that lower bio-availability has actually real benefits. I wouldn't be surprised if the same appears to be true for vitamin D2. I have already come across research which noted one of the D2 metabolites to have anti cancer properties, although this study is based on non-human animals meaning it has little to no relevance to humans and is based on the exploitation and death of rats.

    For those who (despite reading this on an electronic network of computers) lay any importance on _naturality_ regarding nutrients, you may want to consider my method of just drying mushrooms in the sun. That's certainly more natural than killing sheep, stripping the hair grease of their wool and irridating that with UV-B light, which is the standard method of how vitamin D3 is produced - a byproduct of butchers waste.

  • Dr. Davis

    10/10/2007 9:40:00 PM |

    Fascinating solution!

    However, I stick by my claim that, for most people, vitamin D2 supplementation does not work. I have seen many people on as much as 50,000 units of D2 per day with zero or near zero levels of conversion to the active D3, all proven by blood levels.

    However, for a vegan, I do not have any useful non-animal solutions beyond getting sun.

  • Anonymous

    2/14/2008 8:14:00 PM |

    My Vitamin D levels, when first tested, were 12.  I have been using a Vitamin D lamp to try to raise the levels, which are now 32-33.  Initially, I took Puritan's Pride Vitamin D, which made me feel like a new person, but I quickly learned that it interfered with the efficacy of Cytomel, which I take because Synthroid interferes with yet a different medication.  Do you know of any form of Vitamin D that might not interfere with Cytomel?  

    Thank you.

  • Anonymous

    4/4/2008 5:47:00 PM |

    I just found out my vitamin D level is abysmally low from a blood test. My endocrinologist gave me a prescription for 50,000 units of vitamin D.  After reading about the subject here, I don't know whether to fill the prescription or go the the health food store and get a bottle of vitamin D3 capsules and disobey doctor's orders. We are investigating whether I have disturbances in my cortisol levels.  So far, testing has shown very low morning cortisol levels.

  • Anonymous

    5/6/2008 8:00:00 PM |

    I went from sickly to healthy from taking 50,000IU (once a week) of Calciferol, proven by my recent bloodwork.  My D level was 18 in November,  and 4 months later it was 38!!!  Taking D2 has changed my life and I continue to take it without hesitation or reservation.

    I have read that I should be taking a cal/mag supplement to increase absorbtion but I have not done so . . . your thoughts please.

  • Anonymous

    7/25/2008 6:43:00 AM |

    Maybe the lab you use for blood tests isn't DEQAS certified, and isn't accurate.  I don't know how else to explain why a recent study contradicts what you're saying about D2:

    http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/rapidpdf/jc.2007-2308v1.pdf

  • Anonymous

    8/5/2008 11:38:00 AM |

    Hello, can you tell me what form of D3 is best and why.

  • Anonymous

    11/7/2008 2:11:00 PM |

    Ergocalciferol (D2) has a kenetic half life of 10 days.  Calcitriol (D3) has a half life of 3 days. I am surgically hypoparathyroid and replaced 100% of that function with calcitriol or ergocalciferol for 30+ years. I find the D3 form is smoother on my body, until I forget to take my dose on any particular day. Then my mood, energy, stamina, sense of well being etc noticably deteriorate. I lived quite easily on D2 for nearly 28 years until medicare decided this life essential medication was a non life essential vitamin and forced a change to the more expensive calcitriol they would pay for. So now I painfully die in 10 days without D3 instead of 30 days if taking D2. This is germane when the price of ergocalciferol in 1991 was $1.99/100 50000IUs dose. After several years of repeated "offshore supply problems" the price is now $125/100 forn teh identical medication. Sometimes I'd drive 75 miles to another pharmacy (dealer - lol) to refill the D2 when the supply dried up. On correct fo the supply problem the price would double or triple (WTF???). Oh well - rather that a "DNR" I insist on a "JSM" (just shoot me).

  • Carminal

    11/8/2008 12:23:00 AM |

    Hi everyone,

    Firstly, I must say I agree with ava reactions being irritated above, even if not being vegan myself, but vegetarian.

    I would like also to point out that health is definitly not numbers on a paper coming from tests but is how we can feel and act.

    Good health is about feeling balanced and in a state that allows personal accomplishment. It is not, not at all, about obtaining or aiming a level of that molecule or this other one in a blood test.
    You can take two people with same amount of that molecule, or with similar tests results and having one feeling very healthy and being really so and the other one being and feeling desperetly ill. Blood tests reflect only very poorly what is really happening in the vast universe of our cells and tissues. It does not indicate at all how plenty of important biological reactions are going in us.

    It makes me smile when I read 50,000 IU of D2 did not increase D3 levels. When you place carrots in your dish, you do not have sprouts !! The purpose of taking D2 is not about raising D3 and D3 metabolites levels but D2 and D2 metabolites ones. D2 and D3 molecules react in same biological fields, and D2 is beeing used with success for decades. It is not honnest to omit that and to pretend D2 is worthless because D3 levels do not raise : it is a false demonstration.

    In my view solar exposition is the most important factor for everyone, but when not getting enough D from sun, the plant-form D (D2) is perfectly suiting. I have never read any animal study that tends to show D3 supplementation is preferable to D2; on the contrary toxicity is shown to be a lot greater with D3 hypervitaminosis than with D2 hypervitaminosis (a lot more calcifications with D3 than with D2). Plants represent the reference in food because everything we need, even B12 for example, can be found in the plant kingdom; that is not the case if the animal kingdom is taken as food. Then ask your intuition about D2 and D3 being the most desirable form of Vit. D when not receiving enough sun...

    Readers should remind that there is two different 25(OH)D : the one with D2 and the one with D3, and also two 1,25(OH)2D. Measuring the D3 forms (most commonly measured in blood tests) is meaningless if you take D2 supplements. It is NATURAL having in the blood less 25(OH)D in its D3 form during winter than during summer because at that time there is less sun activity. Correcting lowering Vitamine D activity during winter with D3 supplementation rather than with D2 is illogical and unatural.

    R. Jehl
    Naturotherapist in France

  • Anonymous

    11/30/2008 10:58:00 PM |

    Individualized Vit D supplementation is necessary. The arguments regardind D2, D3, single Hydroxy and double hydroxy depend on your body and its current disease status. For example, giving a D2 or D3 to a patient without kidney function is useless because they cannot convert it to the ACTIVE form of 1,25(0H)2D3. Kidney patients must take activated or the final form of vitamin D 1,25(0H)2D3. Liver dysfunction patients cannot convert the D3 to the single hydroxylated form, which the kidney needs in order for its metabolism. So, really, blank statements as given by the French provider indicating D2 for all is FALSE. Look up the metabolic pathway. If you are stone cold normal and only have low Vit D, then you can take either form of regular D2 or D3. If you have a disease, GI malabsorption, liver or kidney disease, granulomatous disease etc you should consult a professional to guide your dosage for proper results. I do like combining some fast acting forms with some slower acting forms to help folks feel better faster and then long term treating with slower forms if they can metabolize them. Everyone is unique and sometimes trial and error are required.

  • Anonymous

    12/22/2008 6:32:00 PM |

    I have read through these posts with interest. I am new to this site, looking for a solution to my 'no beef' diet and insufficiencies in Vitamin D (3 mostly). I am on synthroid, but never knew of the Vitamin D correlation.

    I find that in the US there appears to be NO 50,000 Vitamin D without bovine capsules. I cannot find a veggie tab surrounding even the D2.

    Can anyone advise where I might 50,000 units of Vitamin D3 with no 'cow' gelatin coating?

  • Anonymous

    2/4/2009 1:33:00 PM |

    Do you have any recommendations for those who are vitamin D deficient but cannot tolerate oil based capsules but have no problem with fortified foods?  Is the UV lamp a safe alternative?  Is there a powder form of D that is effective?

  • Anonymous

    2/6/2009 8:52:00 PM |

    I've read this discussion with a great deal of interest.  I've been supplementing with Vital Nutrients capsules which are vegetarian.  They make 2000iu capsules and 5000iu capsules. http://www.vitalnutrients.net/vnestore/detail.asp?product_id=VNVD2

  • Ava

    12/26/2009 1:17:19 AM |

    Hello this is Ava again from Germany, I posted a long rant into this thread some while ago.

    I'd just like update that I've switched from irradiated mushrooms to a vitamin D2 supplement as drops ( Sterogyl 2,000,000 ergocalciferol ) and my 25(OH)D levels are really nice in winter at 156 nmol/L or 62 ng/ml! In France it's availalbe without perscription and we've been able to get it Germany too. It's very cheap around 2 Euro for 400,000 IUs despite the name. I started out with 13 drops / 5200 IU for 14 days, then I took a single mega dose of 300,000 IUs. Since that I've been taking 70.000 IUs once a week. I'm very tall at 6' flat and this is the dose my body needs to achieve good levels.

    It's also possible to just keep on taking 3500 to 5000 every day, however it then takes much longer to reach desired serum levels.

    If you have access to this cheap product and take 5200 every day, the 2.50 Euro or so will still last you almost 3 months.

  • josephmoss

    7/24/2010 7:37:50 AM |

    Vitamin D3 Iu:

    NOW Vitamin D softgels supply this key vitamin in a highly-absorbable liquid softgel form. Vitamin D is normally obtained from the diet or produced by the skin from the ultraviolet energy of the sun. However, it is not abundant in food. As more people avoid sun exposure, Vitamin D supplementation becomes even more necessary to ensure that your body receives an adequate supply. Vitamin D3 Iu on discount at NutroVita.com.

    For more details please visit:
    http://www.nutrovita.com/32760/now-foods/vitamin-d-3-2-000-iu.htm

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 7:55:30 PM |

    When you're exposed to sun, what form of vitamin D is activated in the skin? It's all vitamin D3, no vitamin D2 whatsoever. Vitamin D3 is also far more effective than D2. People taking D3 (as long as it's oil-based) easily obtain healthy levels of vitamin D in the blood. People taking 50,000 units per day of D2 (the recommended quantity) remain miserably deficient, with minor increases in vitamin D blood levels. In short, D2 barely works at all. D3 works easily and effectively

Add comment

Loading