Dr. Michael Eades on the Paleolithic diet

18. February 2009 William Davis (16)
Dr. Michael Eades has posted an absolutely spectacular commentary on the Paleolithic diet concept:

Rapid health improvements with a Paleolithic diet

The post was prompted by publication of a study that tried to recreate a Paleolithic-like diet experience over a brief study period:

Metabolic and physiologic improvements from consuming a paleolithic, hunter-gatherer type diet.

Dr. Eades discussion is wonderfully insightful and comprehensive and there's little to say to improve on his discussion.

I'd make one small point: From what I see in my experience, the improvements in lipid patterns seen in the brief period of this study are very likely to have been primarily due to the removal of wheat. Followers of this blog know that wheat elimination is among the most powerful cholesterol-reducing strategies available.

What vitamin D form?

15. February 2009 William Davis (36)
In response to questions regarding why don't vitamin D tablets work, here are my observations.

When I first started correcting vitamin D levels around 3 1/2 years ago, people would begin with starting 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels of around 20 ng/ml.

Taking, say, 6000 units vitamin D as tablets over 3 months yielded blood levels of 24-30 ng/ml. Taking 6000 units in an oil-based form, and blood levels would commonly be 60-70 ng/ml.

In other words, tablets are very poorly absorbed. I also saw very erratic absorption with tablets, with tremendous variation in blood levels.

I witnessed this effect many times. I finally began telling patients to avoid the tablets altogether. It's simply not worth it. Taking dose X of tablets, you cannot predict what the blood level of vitamin D will be.

Now, you can sometimes make the tablets get absorbed by either taking with a teaspoon of oil (e.g., olive, flaxseed) or taking with an oil-rich meal. However, I am uncertain just how consistent the absorption is under these circumstances, not having done this enough times to know.

Oil-filled gelcaps are no more expensive than tablets (or perhaps a dollar more). Health food store employees and pharmacists don't know this. I have had many patients come to the office claiming they changed to tablets because that's all their health food store or pharmacy carried and the person behind the counter assured them it was the same. Blood level of vitamin D to confirm: right back down to the starting level or near it--little or no absorption.

The only way to know whether a preparation is absorbed is to check a blood level. But, in my experience, having checked vitamin D blood levels thousands of times, gelcaps never fail; tablets fail over 80% of the time.

Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged

14. February 2009 William Davis (20)
Most Heart Scan Blog readers already know:

Your doctor has been brainwashed by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your doctor more than likely has spent the better part of his or her career in the Guantanamo Bay of healthcare, water-boarded by seductive sales representatives, enticed with promises of fame and riches, threatened with ostracism from the clubby internal halls of healthcare if--gasp!--he or she didn't subscribe to the "rule" that only drugs are good, anything else is bad.

The same FDA-approval-is-necessary-to-be-good brand of nonsense is gaining popularity among my colleagues who, having caught some mention (on the Today Show, Oprah, or similar source of medical information), hope to join the vitamin D hoopla.

People will proudly declare that they are taking a high dose of vitamin D: 50,000 units once per week.

No. They are taking a barely useful form: D2, ergocalciferol.

Studies examining the reliability of the D2 form differ:

There's the Heaney study suggesting that D2 is less effective than D3:
Vitamin D2 is much less effective than vitamin D3 in humans

Then there's the Holick study showing they are equivalent:
Vitamin D2 is as effective as vitamin D3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

My experience is more in line with the Heaney study: Little or no real effect with D2.

One particularly illustrative case I witnessed was a woman who was mistakenly prescribed D2 at 50,000 units per day. She told me that she'd been taking it for a year. I fully expected to see clear-cut signs of toxicity (e.g., high blood calcium levels). Curiously, she showed no signs of toxicity. Nor did she show any vitamin D at all in her blood: 25-hydroxy D level of zero--literally zero.

I've witnessed similar phenomena several times: plenty of vitamin D2 . . . very little vitamin D in the blood.

All in all, I suppose that D2 is better than No-D at all. But you are far better off joining the ranks of the pharmaceutically challenged and go with the stuff that really works: D3.

D3, or cholecalciferol, yields confident increases in blood levels. It is inexpensive, safe, and an exact copy of the human form of vitamin D. (Of course, gelcap or drops only, NEVER tablets.)

There is absolute NO reason to take vitamin D2, the form that sometimes works, sometimes doesn't, the facsimile plant form issued by the drug industry.

Why don't stents prevent heart attack?

12. February 2009 William Davis (11)


No study has ever documented that stents prevent future heart attack. But, in day-to-day practice, stents are frequently implanted for just this reason.

A little clarification. Stents do prevent heart attack--if the heart attack is already underway, either as an "acute myocardial infarction" or "unstable angina."

In other words, a plaque in a coronary artery can rupture just like a little volcano. Rather than spewing lava, the underlying plaque contents--fibrous tissue, inflammatory cells, cholesterol crystals, fatty material, debris--are exposed to flowing blood and trigger spasm of the artery and blood clot formation. A ruptured plaque is typically found in people who go to the emergency room with severe chest pain or have difficulty breathing.

A heart catheterization is performed, a severe (e.g., 90-100%--completely closed) is found. A stent in this situation is of clear-cut benefit.

What is not clearly beneficial is someone with no symptoms, symptoms only with physical activity that has been present for at least several months, or someone with a high heart scan score and no symptoms. In these circumstances, stent implantation does not reduce risk for future heart attack.

Why?



Take a look at this angiogram of a right coronary artery. You can seen plaque all along the artery (represented by areas that appear pinched off. There are at least 4 visible.)

Putting one 15 millimeter stent in the artery will only affect the area of artery stented. (Stents vary in length, but typically are 12-18 millimeters in length.) The right coronary artery is about 10 times or more this length. There are also two other arteries of similar length. A stent at one location will do nothing to affect the potential for rupture in any of the other plaque-laden areas.

Say a stent is implanted in the "worst" blockage in this right coronary artery, the plaque located at around 9 o'clock. What about all the other plaques? They can still rupture.

Why not put in many stents, say, 4 or 5, and stent all the visible plaques?

Two reasons: 1) Plaque you can't even see on an angiogram can still rupture, and 2) it is very costly (easily $30,000 at the very least), 3) incurs greater procedural risk, and 4) messes up the artery for future procedures, since a steel-lined artery that develops more disease in future will be more difficult to re-implant stents, bypass, or perform other procedural manipulations.

The point: Putting in stents does not reduce potential for plaque rupture in the entire artery.

What can prevent plaque rupture? That's the whole point of following an effective prevention program: prevent plaque rupture.

(Of course, this discussion cannot encompass the wide variety of potential situations that may cause your doctor to individualize your approach. Nonetheless, when advised to have an elective heart procedure, a healthy dose of skepticism and is clearly a good practice.)

Top image courtesy National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

Low thyroid: What to do?

8. February 2009 William Davis (25)
I've gotten a number of requests for solutions on how to solve the low thyroid issue if either 1) your doctor refuses to discuss the issue or denies it is present, or 2) there are government mandates against thyroid correction unless certain (outdated) targets are met.

Oh, boy.

While I'm not encouraging anyone to break the laws or regulations of their country (and it's impossible to generalize, with readers of this blog originating from over 30 countries), here are some simple steps to consider that might help you in your quest to correct hypothyroidism:

--Measure your body temperature--First thing in the morning either while lying in bed or go to the bathroom and measure your oral temp. Record it and, if it is consistently lower than 97.0 degrees (Fahrenheit), show it to your doctor. This may help persuade him/her.(You can still be hypothyroid with higher temperatures, but if low temperatures are present, it is simply more persuasive evidence in favor of treatment).

--Supplement with iodine 150 mcg per day to be sure you are not iodine deficient. This is becoming more common in the U.S. as people avoid iodized salt. It is quite common outside the U.S. An easy, inexpensive preparation is kelp tablets.

--Show your doctor a recent crucial study: The HUNT Study that suggests that cardiovascular mortality begins to increase at a TSH of only 1.5 or greater, not the 5.5 mIU usually used by laboratories and doctors.

--Ask people around you whether they are aware of a health practitioner who might be willing to work with you, or at least have an open mind (sadly, an uncommon commodity).

Also, see thyroid advocate and prolific author, Mary Shomon's advice on how to find a doctor willing to work with you. Yes, they are out there, but you may have to ask a lot of friends and acquaintances, or meet and fire a lot of docs. It shouldn't be this way, but it is. It will change through public pressure and education, but not by next week.

Another helpful discussion from Mary Shomon: The TSH Normal Range: Why is there still controversy? You will read that even the endocrinologists (a peculiarly contentious group) seethingly debate what constitutes normal vs. low thyroid function.

Also, you might remind a resistant health practitioner that guidelines are guidelines--they are not laws that restrain anyone. They are simply meant to represent broad population guidelines that do not take your personal health situation into consideration.

Which statin drug is best?

8. February 2009 William Davis (7)
I re-post a Heart Scan Blog post from one year ago, answering the question: Which statin drug is best?

I still get this question from patients in the office and online, nearly always prompted by a TV commercial. So let me re-express my thoughts from a year ago, which have not changed on this issue.


The statin drugs can indeed play a role in a program of coronary plaque control and regression.

However, thanks to the overwhelming marketing (and lobbying and legislative) clout of the drug manufacturing industry, they play an undeserved, oversized role. I get reminded of this whenever I'm pressed to answer the question: "Which statin drug is best?"

In trying to answer this question, we encounter several difficulties:

1) The data nearly all use statins drugs by themselves, as so-called monotherapy. Other than the standard diet--you know, the American Heart Association diet, the one that causes heart disease--it is a statin drug alone that has been studied in the dozens of major trials "validating" statin drug use. The repeated failure of statin drugs to eliminate heart disease and associated events like heart attack keeps being answered by the "lower is better" argument, i.e., if 70% of heart attacks destined to occur still take place, then reduce LDL even further. This is an absurd argument that inevitably encounters a wall of limited effects.

2) The great bulk of clinical data examining both the incidence of cardiovascular events as well as plaque progression or regression have all been sponsored by the drug's manufacturer. It has been well-documnted that, when a drug manufacturer sponsors a trial, the outcome is highly likely to be in favor of that drug. Imagine Ford sponsors a $30 million study to prove that their cars are more reliable and safer. What is the likelihood that the outcome will be in favor of the competition? Very unlikely. Such is human nature.

If we were to accept the clinical trial data at face value and ignore the above issues, then I would come to the conclusion that we should be using Crestor at a dose of 40 mg per day, since that was the regimen used in the ASTEROID Trial that achieved modest reversal of coronary atherosclerotic plaque by intravascular ultrasound.

But I do not advocate such an ASTEROID-like approach for several reasons:

1) In my experience, nobody can tolerate 40 mg of Crestor for more than few weeks, a few months at most. Show me someone who can survive and tolerate Crestor 40 mg per day and I'll show you somebody who survived a 40 foot fall off his roof--sure, it happens, but it's a fluke.

2) The notion that only one drug is necessary to regress this disease is, in my view, absurd. It ignores issues like hypertension, metabolic syndrome, inflammatory phenomena, lipoprotein(a), post-prandial (after-eating) phenomena, LDL particle size, triglycerides, etc. You mean that Crestor 40 mg per day, or other high-intensity statin monotherapy should be enough to overcome all of these patterns and provide maximal potential for coronary plaque reversal? No way.

3) Plaque reversal can occur without a statin agent. While statin drugs may provide some advantage in the reduction of LDL, much of the benefit ends there. All of the other dozens of causes of coronary atherosclerotic plaque need to be addressed.

So which statin is best? This question is evidence of the brainwashing that has seized the public and my colleagues. The question is not which statin is best. The question should be: What steps do I take to maximize my chances of reversing coronary atherosclerotic plaque?

The answer may or may not involve a statin drug, regardless of the subtle differences among them.

Dr. Nancy Sniderman, heart scans on Today Show

5. February 2009 William Davis (6)
While shaving this morning, I caught the report by NBC medical expert, Dr. Nancy Sniderman, about her coronary plaque and CT coronary angiogram.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy




Those of you in the Track Your Plaque program or who follow The Heart Scan Blog know that we should tell Dr. Sniderman and her doctor that:

She has done virtually nothing that will stop an increasing heart scan score! In fact, Dr. Sniderman is now following the "prevention program" that is eerily reminiscent of Tim Russert's program! We all know how that turned out.

It is pure folly to believe that a combination of Lipitor, exercise, and a "healthy diet" (usually meaning a low-fat diet--yes, the diet that promotes heart disease) will stop the otherwise relentless increase in heart scan score.

Dr. Sniderman, please consider:

1) Having the real causes of your coronary plaque identified. (It is highly unlikely to be just LDL cholesterol, though the drug industry is thrilled that you believe this.)

2) Ask yourself (or, if your doctor knew what she was doing, ask her): Why do I have heart disease? LDL cholesterol is insufficient reason--virtually nobody I know has high LDL cholesterol as the sole cause. LDL cholesterol is, at most, one reason among many others, but is insufficient as a sole cause.

3) What is your vitamin D status? Crucial!

4) What is your thyroid status?

5) Fish oil--a must!

6) Do you have lipoprotein(a)? Small LDL?

Just addressing the items on the above checklist would put you on a far more confident path to stop your heart scan score from increasing.

If you were to repeat your heart scan score, my prediction: Your score will be higher by 18-24% per year.

My personal experience with low thyroid

3. February 2009 William Davis (31)
Something happened to me around October-November of last year.

I usually feel great. Ordinarily, my struggles are sleeping and relaxing. As with most people, I have too many projects on my schedule, though I find my activities stimulating and fascinating.

I blasted through a very demanding November, trying to meet the needs of a book publisher. This involved sleeping only a few hours a night for several days on end, all after a full day of office practice and hospital duties.

But it was getting tougher. My concentration was becoming more fragmented. Getting things done was proving an elusive goal. Exercise became a real chore.

Although I usually force myself to go to sleep, I was starting to fall asleep before my usual bedtime, and I was sleeping longer than usual.

It's been a tough winter in Wisconsin. Let's face it: It's Wisconsin. But it's been tough even for this region, with weeks of temperatures consistently below 10 degrees. Even so, I was having a heck of a time keeping warm. Extra shirts, socks, soaking my hands in hot water--none of it worked and I was freezing.

So I had my thyroid values checked:

Free T3: 2.6 pg/ml (Ref 2.3-4.2)
Free T4: 1.20 ng/dl (Ref 0.89-1.76)
TSH: 1.528 uUI/ml (Ref 0.350-5.500)

Normal by virtually all standards. I measured my first morning oral temperature: 96.1, 96.3, 95.9. Hmmmm.

My experience coincided with the Track Your Plaque and Heart Scan Blog conversations about low thyroid being enormously underappreciated, with the newest data on thyroid disease suggesting that a TSH for ideal health is probably 1.5 mIU or less. (More about that: Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update .

Could this simply be a case of medical student-oma in which every beginning medical student believes he has every disease he learns about?

Despite the apparently "normal" thyroid blood tests, I took the leap and started taking Armour thyroid, beginning at 1/2 grain (30 mg), increasing to 1 grain (60 mg) after the first week.

Within 10 days, I experienced:

--Dramatic restoration of the ability to concentrate
--A boost in mood. (In fact, the last few blog posts before I replaced thyroid reflect my deepening crabbiness.)
--Large increase in energy, now restored to old levels
--Need for less sleep
--I'm warm again! (It's still <20 degrees, but I get easily stay warm while indoors.)

I am absolutely, positively convinced of the power of thyroid. I am further convinced from the clinical data, patient experiences, and now my own personal experience, that low levels of hypothyroidism are being dramatically underappreciated and underdiagnosed.

I shudder to think of what my life would have been like 6 months or a year from now without correction of thyroid hormone.

Now, the tough question: Why the heck is this happening to so many people?

Speaking availability

3. February 2009 William Davis (5)
Just a quick announcement:

If you would like to hear more about the concepts articulated in The Heart Scan Blog or in the Track Your Plaque program, I am available to speak to your group.

Among the possible topics:

Return to the Wild: Natural Nutritional Supplements That Supercharge Health
Why this apparent "need" for fish oil and other heart-healthy supplements? I discuss why some nutritional supplements make perfect sense when we are viewed in the context of primitive humans living modern lives, while other supplements do little.


Shrink Your Tummy . . .or, Why Your Dietitian is Fat!
Weight loss doesn't have to involve calorie counting, deprivation, or hunger pangs. But the conventional "rules" for weight loss and health have to be broken.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Extraordinary Heart Health
Heart health is something that you can seize control over, something identifiable, correctable, and . . . reversible. Much of this can be achieved with little or no medication, nor procedures. I detail all the enormously empowering lessons learned through the Track Your Plaque program.


I can also present in-depth yet entertaining discussions on the power of vitamin D, natural cholesterol control, screening for heart disease, and similar topics covered in the blog.

To learn more, just e-mail us at contact@trackyourplaque, or call my office at 414-456-1123.

Learn how to eat from Survivorman

31. January 2009 William Davis (22)

Look no farther than Discovery Channel to learn how humans were meant to eat.

The Survivorman show documents the (self-filmed) 7-day adventures of Les Stroud, who is dropped into various remote corners of the world to survive on little but ingenuity and will to live. Starting without food or water, the Survivorman scrapes and scrambles in the wilderness for essentials to survive in habitats as far ranging as the Ecuadorian rainforest to sub-arctic Labrador.

What does Survivorman have to do with your nutrition habits?

Everything. The lessons we can learn by watching this TV show are plenty.

Survivorman plays out the life we are supposed to be living: slaughtering wild game with simple handmade tools and his bare hands, identifying plants and berries that are safe to eat, trapping fish, scavenging the kill of other predators. He's even resorted to eating bugs and caterpillars, particularly following several days of unsuccessful hunting and scavenging.

What is notable from the Survivorman experience is what is absent: In the steppe, desert, tundra, or jungle, you will not find bread, fruit drinks, or Cheerios. You won't find farm-fattened, corn-fed livestock with meat marbled with fat.

Imagine the result of such an experience for us, drawn out over 6 months. Even an obese, diabetic, gluttonous, XXX dress size 350-lb woman would return a lean 105 lbs, size 0, non-diabetic, fully able to run miles in the wild tracking game.

Survivorman's quiet desperation of living in the wild, preoccupied with worries over where his next meal might be found, is a stark contrast to the bloated, shelves stacked floor-to-ceiling supermarkets, and our modern society's all-you-can-eat several times per day lifestyle.

Am I advocating selling the car and house and chucking modern society for the "safety" of the jungles of Borneo?

No, of course not. I am advocating taking a lesson from the clever experiment conducted by Mr. Stroud, a return-to-the-wild experience that should teach us something about how perverse our modern nutritional lives have become.
Vitamin D toxicity

Vitamin D toxicity

6. February 2008 William Davis (26)
It is the craziest thing.

The notion of vitamin D being easily and readily toxic has grabbed hold of many people, including my colleagues who were taught that vitamin D was toxic in medical school based on the skimpiest (and often misinterpreted) observations in a handful of unusual cases.

In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Here's an interesting graph from Dr. Reinhold Vieth. Those of you familiar with the vitamin D argument know that Dr. Vieth is among the few genuine gurus in the vitamin D world.



















From Vieth R. Vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations, and safety. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:842-856. (Full text is available without charge.)

In the graph, the X's represent toxicity; circles fall within the non-toxic range. (Toxicity is generally defined as a level sufficient to raise blood calcium levels, "hypercalcemia.") Note that the 25(OH) vitamin D3 levels are given in nmol/L; to convert to ng/ml units that are customary in the U.S., divide the nmol/L value by a factor of 2.5.

You will notice that toxicity is virtually unheard of until the dose exceeds 10,000 units per day. Beyond 10,000 units per day, the curve heads upward sharply and toxicity does become a possibility, though not an absolute (since there are circles above 10,000 units).

You may also notice that the curve is relatively flat from vitamin D doses between 200 units and 10,000 units (log scale on x axis; arithmetic scale on y), the range of most common doses for vitamin D supplementation.

Another perspective on vitamin D blood levels is to examine the blood levels of people who are young and obtain plentiful sun exposure. Lifeguards, for instance, have blood levels of 84 ng/ml (210 nmol/L) without ill-effect. (Sun exposure cannot generate vitamin D toxicity, because of a feedback safety mechanism in skin.) While this may not represent an ideal level since they represent an extreme, it does provide reassurance that such levels are non-toxic. I also point out these levels occur in the youthful since most people lose 75% or more of vitamin D activating capacity in the skin by their 70s. Most of us over 40 are kidding ourselves if we think that a suntan provides sufficient vitamin D.

Keep in mind that it is not necessarily the dose of vitamin D that is toxic, but the blood level it generates. I take 10,000 units of vitamin D as a gelcap per day to maintain my blood level between 50-60 ng/ml (125-150 nmol/L). This strategy helps me keep my HDL in the 70-80 mg/dl range, my blood sugar around 90 mg/dl, my blood pressure <120/80, and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."


Copyright 2008 William Davis, MD
Tags :

Comments (26) -

  • mike V

    2/6/2008 5:19:00 PM |

    Dr D:
    I take up to 4000 IU per day depending on season and have recently had a zero CTA scan, so I personally have high confidence in vitamin D3.
    From time to time I see references to the possibility that excessive D can produce soft tissue/arterial calcification in some people. I understand of course that Vitamin K2 menaquinone is an essential partner in proper calcium homeostasis.
    Are you completely without concern at the blood levels discussed?, or should people with marginal kidney performance or other moderate metabolic conditions be cautious?
    Would appreciate your thoughts.
    MikeV

  • mtflight

    2/6/2008 5:31:00 PM |

    Where does one get 10,000 IU caps?

    I take 4000 IU capsules from Carlson Labs (called "Solar Gems")--the oil in the caps is fish oil, so that's a plus, and my multivitamin has 1,000 IUs.


    P.S. Thanks for the blog, I'm a big fan!

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 9:33:00 PM |

    There are clearly groups of people who should work with their doctor when it comes to vitamin D, particularly people with kidney disease or dysfunction; history of kidney stones; glandular diseases like hyperparathyroidism; a history of high calcium.

  • MrSardonicus

    2/6/2008 9:58:00 PM |

    If taking 4,000 IU of Vitamin D a day increases one's HDL by a relatively small number -- say, 10 -- but it's still low, what do you think is the likelihood hiking the amount will further increase HDL?

    Also, do you take calcium with your Vitamin D?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 10:01:00 PM |

    I have never seen 10,000 capsules. I'm hoping somebody comes out with such a preparation. I wasn't aware of the 4000 unit capsules. Thanks for the tip!

  • Dr. Davis

    2/6/2008 10:04:00 PM |

    I would not advise taking more vit D just to raise HDL.

    Blood level of vit D is the parameter to assess vit D adequacy. I would regard a rise in HDL as a fortuitous side phenomenon.

  • Brandon

    2/6/2008 11:00:00 PM |

    “…and I no longer experience colds nor winter "blues."

    Careful, this sort of personal testimonial lends to sounding more like a “nutritional guru” instead of medical professional examining scientific evidence.

    I’m not saying you’re incorrect, it may be your experience and it may be absolutely true, but a stick to the clinical facts. You’re talents are better suited to being a “medical watchdog” than a “dietary duck.”

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 12:19:00 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    I would love your opinion of my doctor's protocol regarding my recent diagnosis of osteopenia in my hips (t-scores -1.1 and -1.2 femoral neck, my spine was normal, -0.2).  I'm a 56 year old woman, 115 pounds, just went through menopause, taking Zocor and Lotrel (high cholesterol and hypertension both run in my family), I exercise regularly.  My doctor said he wanted to see how well I absorb Vit D, so he ordered a blood test, however, he ordered the D1,25 test (results 35 pg/mL), NOT D25 which I understand is a truer biomarker.  He prescribed Vitamin D, Calcitriol, one 0.025 capsule per day for one month, with no restrictions on my Calcium/Vit D intake through supplements, after which he said to return for another Vitamind D blood test (another D1,25).  I've read that Calcitriol can cause hypercalcemia.  I've also read that D1,25 will not tell you how well you're absorbing Vitamin D.  Based on that, I felt I was wasting my time and risking hypercalcemia, so I stopped taking the Calcitriol.  Should I tell my doctor that he ordered the wrong blood test?  Also, which prescription Vit D should I be taking? I have no other health issues.  Thank you, Dr. Davis.
    Ruthie

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 12:58:00 AM |

    Thank you, but I disagree.

    I add my experiences to that of probably over 1000 patients in the last two years who have shared similar effects.

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 1:00:00 AM |

    Hi, Ruthie-

    Lots of issues. However, it sounds like your doctor is simply toeing the conventional line of prescription drugs. It may be time to either prod your doctor to get up to date on vitamin D, or to find a doctor willing to engage in the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 1:27:00 AM |

    Do you know if any one is making or developing an at home vitamin D3 testing product?

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 2:55:00 AM |

    Wouldn't that be wonderful?!

    Unfortunately, I do not know of any such commercially available product. However, it would be a tremendous boon to this movement of self-empowerment in health care that I see coming for the future.

  • Anonymous

    2/7/2008 5:36:00 AM |

    I am taking vitamin D3 two softgels of 2000 IU each daily, one in the morning and one in the evening. I want to know if I get the same effect if I take two softgels together instead of taking one twice a day. Thanks.

  • Anne

    2/7/2008 9:12:00 AM |

    Hi Ruthie,

    I'm 54 and diagnosed with osteoporosis (T scores -3.7 in hips and -3.1 lumbar spine). I've been prescribed calcium supplements (as well as Strontium Ranelate) but I've found that I'm very intolerant to the calcium, no matter whether I try calcium citrate, calcium carbonate or calcium amino acid chelate, so since Christmas I've stopped all calcium supplements and upped my vitamin D3 intake to 4000iu per day (not prescription, I wish it was then it wouldn't be so expensive...vitamin D costs a lot in the UK, much more than the US) so that I absorb my dietary calcium as well as possible. I feel very confident that this will work, especially in view of a previous blog from Dr Davis about calcium:http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/calcium-chaos_22.html

    Plus logic tells me that it is not lack of calcium that causes osteoporosis but other factors. People in third world countries such as Africa on suboptimal diets have very low levels of dietary calcium but they don't usually get osteoporosis...they get more sunshine (vitamin D) and do much more physical work. I'm doing plenty of weight resistance exercise now !

    bw's
    Anne

  • Dr. Davis

    2/7/2008 1:03:00 PM |

    Yes, no difference.

  • moblogs

    2/7/2008 2:25:00 PM |

    bio-tech-pharm.com supply D3 in 1k, 5k and 50k capsules, and with delivery rates that are reasonable for those out of the US.
    I've been taking 5k for the past 2 weeks and don't feel bad on it, but will be getting blood levels checked within a season to see if I'm personally responding correctly.
    The 400IU average was just based on preventing rickets.

  • hoosierville

    2/7/2008 7:03:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis,
    I've had great results from increasing my vitamin D intake with regards to my lung capacity. I'm a recovering smoker with moderate copd and, after being hospitalized for pneumonia, am finally recovering to a point where I can almost run up and down steps. I attribute this to my "D" supplements which I began taking about a month ago. I can take deep breaths for the first time in years.

    My question is about the supplements themselves. I see very expensive D3 tablets and then I see the regular vitamin D. Is one better than the other? Is there a great deal of difference? Thanks.

  • jabs28

    2/8/2008 6:05:00 PM |

    I am surprised to see how many people are gettingtheir their Vitamin D requirements with supplements.  Go out into the sun WITHOUT sunscreen for 10-15 minutes a day and then supplement the rest.  Remember it also takes about 40 glasses of milk to equal 4000 iu's of Vitamin D.  You can get that from about 15 minutes of sun exposure depending on your age and ethnicity.  The more melanin in your skin, the longer you need to expose it.

  • Anonymous

    2/8/2008 6:10:00 PM |

    The capsules I take (the Solar Gems) are 6 cents a 4000 IU softgel:

    http://www.vitacost.com/Carlson-Solar-D-Gems-Vitamin-D

  • hoosierville

    2/9/2008 2:25:00 PM |

    Jabs,
    I live in Indiana. It's going to be 6 degrees out in just a few minutes. We haven't seen the sun in weeks. What do you suggest, tanning beds? I'll do it but not until I hear that they're safe. Be reasonable, not everyone lives where they can get natural sunlight. I think that's part of the Vitamin D deficiency problem.

  • TedHutchinson

    2/10/2008 9:08:00 PM |

    I have been taking the same 5000iu Biotech capsules Moblogs uses.
    I was 147.5nmol - 59ng when tested at the end of summer (UK latitude 53) although I did not take a D3 on days when I knew I would be able to get near full body sun exposure at midday.

    As others have reported, I also have not had a cold or flu over the winter (so far and still touching wood) others I am regularly in contact with have been unlucky.
    (I also did not need to get my SADLIGHT down from the attic this winter)

  • MattWheeler

    2/11/2008 3:26:00 AM |

    Something in the my 7 month TYP program (6000iu D3 gelcap, Slo-Niacin 1.5g, 3g+ fishoil, low wheat-suger) has really helped with joint pain I have had for 8 years.  This has allowed me to lift weights 3 times per week and thus reduced my bodyfat from 27 to 19 percent.  I look and feel much better.  I am 51, male at 215 lbs.

  • Anonymous

    2/11/2008 10:00:00 PM |

    Oh, is it because I take vitamin D3 that even with people dropping like flies around me (with colds, flu, etc) I never get sick? I have always thought it surprising that I tend not to get these things, given that I do have a number of autoimmune conditions. I have only ever used tablets (1000IU 1/day) and my vitamin D3 (250H) level is 52ng/mL.

    However, my vitamin D2 (250H) level is <4ng/mL and my vitamin D (1,25) level is only 24pg/mL (normal range 22-67). Should I (and is it possible to?) do anything to increase those levels?

  • Anonymous

    12/3/2008 2:51:00 PM |

    * * D2 v. D3 * *
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/92952.php

    * * D2 vs. lupus vulgaris * *
    ("administered in alcoholic solution is key" to success of therapy)
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1583253&blobtype=pdf

  • George Mclaughlin

    10/9/2010 12:37:54 AM |

    Very interesting article. I find myself concerned about the side effects of vitamin D supplements, as opposed to sunlight-derived vitamin D.

    I'd love to hear your thoughts on this article, which appears to be quite well cited:

    http://www.raw-food-health.net/Vitamin-D-Toxicity.html

  • buy jeans

    11/2/2010 8:39:57 PM |

    In my practice and in the Track Your Plaque program, we routinely use doses of 2000-10,000 units per day, occasionally more. We are guided by blood levels of 25(OH) vitamin D3. I have personally never witnessed vitamin D toxicity.

Add comment

Loading