Vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3

An interesting question came up on the Track Your Plaque Member Forum about vitamin D2 vs. vitamin D3. This often comes up among our patients, as well.

Vitamin D is measured in the blood as 25-OH-vitamin D and is distinct from 1,25-diOH-vitamin D, a kidney measure, a test you do not need unless you have kidney failure.

The human form of vitamin D is cholecalciferol and is usually obtained via activation of a precursor molecule in the skin on activation by the sun. You can also take cholecalciferol and it increases blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D reliably.

However, there is a cheap, plant-sourced, alternative to vitamin D3, called vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol. D2 has far less effect in the body. Taking D2 or ergocalciferol orally is an extremely inefficient way to get D. Unfortunately, it's the form often used in milk and many supplements, even the prescription form of D. About half the multivitamins and calcium supplements I've looked at contain ergocalciferol rather than cholecalciferol.

Taking vitamin D2 yields very little conversion to the effective D3. This particular issues is maddening, as the USDA requires dairy farmers to add 100 units of vitamin D to milk, and D2 is often used. In other words, the D in many dairy products barely works at all. There are many children who rely on D from dairy products who are at risk for rickets and are not getting the D they need from dairy products because of this cost-saving switch. Do not rely on milk for vitamin D for your children.

D2 or ergocalciferol is often included in the blood measures of vitamin D along with vitamin D3. The only reason it's checked with blood work is to ensure "compliance,", i.e., see whether or not you're taking a prescribed ergocalciferol. Beyond this, it has no usefulness.

25-OH-vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol, is both the blood measure and the supplement you need. This is the one that packs all the punch. Keep in mind also that it is the oil-based gelcap you want, with more consistent and efficient absorption. Tablets usually barely work at all, even if it contains cholecalciferol. Most people who take calcium tablets with D, or multivitamin with D, not only are getting a powdered form of D, but also in trivial doses. It's the pure vitamin D3, cholecalciferol, in gelcap form you want if you desire all the spectacular benefits of vitamin D.

Comments (21) -

  • Jim Wint

    4/26/2007 1:35:00 PM |

    It's good that you explained how vitamin D3 is better than vitamin D2.

    Your readers should also know that, depending on their skin type, just one or two sessions in a tanning bed will produce all the healthy vitamin D3 a human body can use.

    Moderate tanning is healthy behavior.  Don't sunburn.

  • Anonymous

    4/26/2007 3:36:00 PM |

    Dr. Davis, your blogs on vitamin D are terrific.  I am a colleague of Dr. John Cannell, and am presently coauthoring a book with him.  It will deal with the effect of vitamin D supplementation on athletic performance.  He has also endorsed my current book on the health benefits of sunlight and vitamin D.  If you would like a free copy of that book--Solar Power for Optimal Health--please contact me at or call me at 435-628-3102.  

    Keep up the good work!

    Marc Sorenson, EdD

  • Darwin

    5/3/2007 9:40:00 PM |

    Re vitamin D consumption, do you have any thoughts re this study?  I'd like to recommend to my parents that they take an oil-based Vit. D supplement (they're in their 70s), but that study gave me pause.

  • Dr. Davis

    5/4/2007 1:09:00 AM |

    Unfortunately, the study was only in abstract form, meaning none of the full details were available.

    Nonetheless, several uncertainties:

    What was the calcium intake? What was the vitamin D intake and what blood level of 25-OH-vitamin D3 was obtained?

    I suspect that few of the participants had even normal vitamin D blood levels. The majority of vitamin D preparations in calcium tablets barely work at all due to poor absorption.

    However, I do worry that, with appropriate D supplementation, the doses of calcium many people take is excessive. The true need for calcium is likely far less when D is fully replenished.

    I would not make any firm judgments based on this preliminary report. Interesting issue, however.

  • Dave Lull

    3/27/2008 3:45:00 AM |

    Hi Dr Davis,

    I'd been persuaded, like you, that D3 is the form of Vitamin D to use for maximum effect.  Now comes this study:

    "Vitamin d2 is as effective as vitamin d3 in maintaining circulating concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin d"

    Holick MF, Biancuzzo RM, Chen TC, Klein EK, Young A, Bibuld D, Reitz R, Salameh W, Ameri A, Tannenbaum AD.

    Boston University School of Medicine, 715 Albany Street, M-1013, Boston, Massachusetts 02118.

    J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Mar;93(3):677-81. Epub 2007 Dec 18.

    Dr Holick uses Vitamin d2 in treating his patients.

    He was recently interviewed on the radio program the People's Pharmacy; the interview is available as a podcast.


  • Anonymous

    6/24/2008 4:31:00 AM |

    where can I buy vitamin D3 in Gel Caps?  Are they readily available?

  • Anonymous

    7/4/2008 9:36:00 PM |

    Google "vitamin d2 tablets".  Loog for softgels, or gelcaps.

  • Anonymous

    7/25/2008 4:45:00 PM |

    Buy Vitamin D3 in softgels (oil based form from

  • Anonymous

    9/21/2008 12:06:00 AM |

    So, if I am buying a supplement that is labeled as Vitamin-D (not D3), but the label says it is 1000 IU of Cholecalciferol, the supplement is really Vitamin D3?

  • Anonymous

    11/18/2008 8:16:00 PM |

    I'm curious why you have no comment on the above story that refutes your entire theory.

  • Anonymous

    12/12/2008 11:56:00 PM |

    Actually your post is very confusing because you say vitamin d3 is 25-oh-d3, actually it's a metabolite of d3, also you say ergocalciferol is inneficient because yields little conversion to 25-oh-d3, but d2 converts ONLY to 25-oh-d2 and very efficiently, and has similar activity to the d3 form(about 2/3 of the potency), the bad about d2 is also that has faster metabolism than d3.
    All in all, d2 is efficient, not like d3, but it's not useless like you say, and d2 has metabolites with potent anticancer activity, similarly to tamoxifen in breast cancer, so d2 has it's own benefits over d3.

  • Alphonzen

    3/19/2009 1:42:00 PM |

    Vitamin D2 Is As Effective As Vitamin D3 In Maintaining Concentrations Of 25-hydroxyvitamin D, Study Suggests

    Sorry blogger, but you have been proven wrong.

  • Anonymous

    9/24/2009 11:21:46 PM |

    The difference as I've understood - there are actually 5 forms of Vitamin D (D1-D5). Vitamin D2 must be converted to be used, Vitamin D3 is used directly. Vitamin D2 is "relatively ineffective" because it is the  stored form and it's stored in the body's fat- which is why it has certain properties that D3 doesn't possess for fatty tissue health. Eventually D2 effectiveness would equal D3 because the body eventually converts what it needs. However, it has requirements for the conversion, and if taken for anti-inflammatory, anti-cytokine storm, immune modulation, then D3 is the much better form since it can be used immediately. When healthy I take D2 and D3 - D2 fills the body's stores while D3 is consumed. When the immune system is being challenged Vitamin D3 is the better form and will keep the D2 levels in the fat unaffected.

    As far as calcium supplementation - I think it's ludicrous - I can't imagine anyone, other than people that cannot tolerate milk products, not getting enough dietary calcium. I think that's one of the biggest myths propagated today. Hypercalcemia, and even just excessive calcium intake, has been shown to cause brain lesions in elderly, and calcium creates issues when Vitamin D is supplemented.   Magnesium supplementation is MUCH more important for everything from healthful bones, heart rhythm and heart attack protection, to smooth muscle relaxation, and mental acuity. We need a MINIMUM of 400mg and should be taking more.  With everyone drinking bottled water that has next to no magnesium content, we are all susceptible to dangerously low "sudden heart attack" levels of magnesium.

  • Anonymous

    11/16/2009 7:21:58 AM |

    Have you studied people who have had gastric bypass / weight loss surgery? They have completely different calcium citrate and vitamin D requirements than a regular person. Please see the web site  There are many professionals on this site with articles on supplementation.

    I buy my supplements from

  • Anonymous

    12/2/2009 6:11:36 PM |

    For vegetarians (where killing of an animal is prohibited) -
    D3 made from lanlolin (sheeps wool) is the only choice, there is no pure plant based D3?

    For Vegans (has to be plant based only)
    Looks like D2 made from yeast is the only choice.
    If any one know best form of D3/D2 suitable for vegetarians/vegans, please post where one can get (Please note, gel capsules are made from animal sources, they would not be suitable). Thank you

  • Steve D'Sa

    2/16/2010 4:27:48 AM |

    I'm taking a vegan calcium supplement, with vitamin D3. Its branded Vitamin Code, RAW CALCIUM, from Garden of Life, its fortified with Magnesium and other things. Its vegan, and RAW. I think the D3 source is algae.

  • Anonymous

    9/8/2010 5:49:49 AM |

    Sorry Steve. The code RAW vitamins you're talking about aren't vegan. They get their D3 "primarily from lanolin" (=occasionally fish?). According to them, since they remove the traces of lanolin during processing, they felt that it was vegan.

    After listening to them go on and on with their justifications of it and why it was vegan, it just felt like a giant marketing scheme. Needless to say, I'm now quite wary of all Garden of Life products.

    Regardless, they're still in the process of changing labels, but in the meantime, nope, not vegan. Frown

  • edegra online

    9/23/2010 6:40:36 AM |

    Thanks for providing the comparison
    between Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3.

    Best Regards
    Smith Alan

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 8:32:37 PM |

    D2 or ergocalciferol is often included in the blood measures of vitamin D along with vitamin D3. The only reason it's checked with blood work is to ensure "compliance,", i.e., see whether or not you're taking a prescribed ergocalciferol. Beyond this, it has no usefulness.

  • Dr Brad

    6/13/2011 5:48:35 AM |

    Case study:  lab result shows Total Vit D, 25-OH 36; D3=6, D2=30.  Person supposedly taking 2000 IU D3 daily.   What is the significance of the D3=6 measurement.  I typically look at total and make recommendation from there but have been told that perhaps I should look at sub-classes. thoughts?

  • Annika Brixner

    5/19/2014 4:34:26 AM |

    Wonderful site. Plenty of useful information here. I am sending it to a few pals ans additionally sharing in delicious. And of course, thank you on your effort!

LDL cholesterol, statins, and plaque regression

LDL cholesterol, statins, and plaque regression

The ASTEROID Trial reported in 2006 examined the effects of LDL cholesterol reduction using the statin drug, rosuvastatin (Crestor), with coronary atherosclerosis quantified and tracked with intracoronary ultrasound. The Track Your Plaque report, New study confirms: LDL of 60 mg reverses plaque, on the ASTEROID Trial provides commentary on the results.

Though I remain skeptical that a statin-only treatment strategy can reverse coronary plaque in the majority of people, I do believe that the AstraZeneca-sponsored ASTEROID Trial does add to the wisdom on heart disease management. More importantly, it has served to raise awareness among both the public and my physician colleagues that atherosclerosis is indeed a potentially reversible condition.

Specifically, the ASTEROID results confirm that, either directly or indirectly, LDL cholesterol reduction achieved with statin agents does correspond to increasing degrees of plaque reversal. The mean (calculated) LDL cholesterol achieved in ASTEROID was 60 mg/dl, the same as the Track Your Plaque suggested LDL target.

Though the ASTEROID Trial is not news, I stumbled on a chart posted on the ASTEROID Trial website that clearly highlights how a number of other studies beyond ASTEROID have fallen into this pattern:

The graph reveals a linear relationship: The greater the reduction in LDL cholesterol with statin drugs, the greater the plaque regression ("change in percent atheroma volume"). (Several other studies not included in the graph also cluster into the same linear relationship.)

I am no supporter of drug companies, nor a defender of their policies and practices. But I do believe that their data can serve to teach us a few lessons. For instance, here is an (cherry-picked, to be sure) example of intracoronary ultrasound cross-sectional images before and after two years of rosuvastatin, 40 mg daily:

The color-coded/outlined atherosclerotic coronary plaque is shown shrinking, while the "lumen," or the path for blood to flow, enlarges. The reduction in coronary plaque is irrefutable. (The small circle within the lumen with the white halo surrounding it is the ultrasound catheter.)

If you and I were to choose a single treatment approach to coronary disease reversal, then 40 mg of rosuvastatin is probably at the top of the list. However, in the Track Your Plaque program, we do not advocate a single treatment strategy. While the Crestor-only approach is relatively straightforward--one pill a day--few people, in my experience, can tolerate this dose for any length of time. Patients invariably have to stop the drug or reduce the dose severely due to muscle aches when I've had patients try it. Contrary to the ASTEROID results, in my experience the majority of people, perhaps all, eventually give up with this improbable "one-size-fits-all" scheme.

The Track Your Plaque approach, while more complicated and involves several nutritional supplements and strategies, in my view addresses more causes of coronary plaque, is better tolerated, and provides health benefits outside of just LDL cholesterol reduction. It also minimizes or eliminates the need for prescription medication.

Studies cited in graph:

1.Nissen S et al. N Engl J Med 2006;354:1253-1263.
2 Tardif J et al. Circulation 2004;110:3372-3377.
3 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2006;295 (13):1556-1565
4 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004;292: 2217–2225.
5 Nissen S et al. JAMA 2004; 291:1071–1080

Comments (12) -

  • J Michael Nicholls

    4/13/2008 6:49:00 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,
    I have read your blog for some time now, and I consider it to be the no 1 in the nutrition-health-cardiology field. A couple of years ago I became interested in the “cholesterol theory” and I have studied the development of the statins in detail. Having a background in the “hard sciences” I am appalled at the lack of sound science in this field in particular, as well as in some other areas of medical research.

    To my knowledge there is zero evidence that the lowering of any of the cholesterol levels has anything to do with preventing heart disease or reversing plack. On the contrary, an anti-inflammatory mechanism is probably the reason for the little protective effect there is, while the lowering of the cholesterol levels probably causes more harm then good (as can be suspected from the extensive list of side effects).

    Reading this post and the statement, “LDL cholesterol reduction achieved with statin agents does correspond to increasing degrees of plaque reversal”, I couldn’t help feeling that some readers would get it all wrong, especially since “cholesterol lowering” is the healing mantra that is being communicated to the market (and even most doctors seem to advocate).

  • Anonymous

    4/13/2008 11:50:00 PM |

    "Having a background in the hard sciences"? In the "hard siences" they call plaque "plak" ? That was a dead give away that you have no idea what your talking about even before you made the ridiculus statement"to my knowledge there is zero eveidence that the lowering of any of the cholesterol has anything to do with preveting heart disease or lowering plak(sic)" You should read some of the studies, they're easily found on the internet or in journals. By the way did you look at the pictures Dr. davis put up in the article? As Dr. davis always says I don't work for the drug companies and statins certainly aren't miracle drugs but they do have a place. Ever hear of the Framingham Study, just a small study thats been going on for over 60 years now and has studied over 10,000 people( now in its third generation) and they have NEVER had a recorded heart attack in ANYBODY with a cholesterol level under 150. So much for "your knowledge"

  • Anonymous

    4/14/2008 4:40:00 AM |

    Dear Dr. Davis,

    In reading this and about vitamin D, if you have a plaque problem, but your HDL is high and your Vitamin D level in normal, would it still be helpful to take the suppliment?

  • J Michael Nicholls

    4/14/2008 1:56:00 PM |

    Dear Anonymous, there is no need to be so sarcastic, and I apologize for spelling plaque plack. Do you mean to say that all of medical science is of high quality, and that it shouldn’t be questioned? Most of the serious critique against the cholesterol hypothesis comes from medical researchers by the way. I am waiting to be enlightened, please show me the evidence that the LOWERING of cholesterol by it self (per se) is the protective mechanism of statins.

    From your writing it appears that you still believe in the old dogma of high cholesterol CAUSING atherosclerosis. Only a few of the fiercest statinators in the research community still maintain that, and probably so for financial reasons (most statin-advertising is doing its best to communicate just that). Most GPs seem to believe that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis too. It is trivial that in any academic context “correspond to”, “linear relationship” or “associated with” do not mean “direct effect of” or “directly caused by”. With this simple understanding we would have better doctors and better scientist in the medical field, and consequently less treatment of SYMPTOMS such as high cholesterol, high blood pressure and high blood sugar. By the way, is there any proof that atherosclerosis is not causing the higher cholesterol levels instead of the other way around?

    The problem with many defenders of the cholesterol dogma is that they don’t read the scientific literature in a scientific way. I personally don’t know of anyone still believing in the cholesterol hypothesis after having studied it in depth from strictly scientific principles. There is simply no evidence to motivate all the “lowering” of “levels”. It is nothing more than a highly profitable market concept ($30 billion in 2007).

  • Anonymous

    4/14/2008 2:25:00 PM |

    Great write up.

    As  a diabetic, with all of my numbers under very good control, I have been on statins for 8 years and my last two heart scans (5 years apart) had a score of 0 plague.  My question is the following:

    Are you saying that statins are good and should be part of a comprehensive approach?

    Many websites that push your blog are against the use of statins in any approach.  How do you respond to that type of thinking?

    Should you continue taking drugs to reduce your plague if your score is zero?

    Thanks for your time

  • Anonymous

    4/14/2008 6:23:00 PM |

    Playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure if science has proved cholesterol to be a cause of heart disease. What if it's a marker and not a cause?

    Those in the Framingham study with low cholesterol values might not get heart attacks due to lifestyle/genetics, and their low cholesterol is a reflection of their overall good health?

    Those who take high dose statins obtain benefit from less inflammation, but not because of cholesterol reduction?

    I'm not saying the above two statements are true, but it could be possible. It could also explain why statins, as a single treatment, usually don't work for most people, and why the Vytorin/Zetia/Torcetrapib trials failed so miserably.

    Or it could be that the reduction in LDL wasn't enough to matter, or that particle sizes for LDL/HDL wasn't taken into account, or some other factor? It appears that  right now, there isn't hard data that proves what causes heart disease exactly, but simply a lot of risk factors and disease markers instead.

  • Anonymous

    4/15/2008 1:52:00 AM |

    I never suggested that Cholesterol by itself caused heart disease. Clearly many things do, inflamation, CRP, Lp(a)... On the other hand to suppose that cholesterol has NOTHING to do with heart disease is foolish. Show me a cardiologist that believes cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease and I'll show you a quack. It may not even be the main cause of heart disease in most people but the fact of the matter is reducing LDL lowers the the chance for heart attack in a good number of people. Have you ever heard of Dr. Agagston ? He of the South Beach Diet fame, a cardiologist in South Florida, who by the way the way of scoring calcium scans is named after. See what he thinks of statins and reducing cholesterol levels. and as Im sure you know it gets much more complicated than that when you get into particle size. Take a person who's scans keep going up because he has small LDL and nothing in Dr. Davis program has worked for him 9I am such a patient of the good Dr.s) The best you can do for such a person is lower his LDL as far as you can since its all going to be small particle anyway. I would also refer you to Dr. Greg Browns HATS Study for examples of lowering cholesterol and lowering heart disease or Dr. Davis' example that started this discussion. I apologise if I came off a bit sarcastic in my earlier comments I think this is an important issue to get all points of view on.

  • Anonymous

    4/16/2008 3:32:00 AM |

    Great thead.

    So what are you really saying about statins?  Is there value taking statins in combination with other treatments for men and women?

    How do you address the comments that states statins don't work?

    Thanks for your time.  Your comments are really appreciated.

  • Anonymous

    4/16/2008 6:14:00 PM |

    There is NO DOUBT that statins reduce the chances of a person having a heart attack, NONE. There is question as to what about the statins does that, is it lowering LDL, is it stablising plaque, is it reducing inflamation . . .? Or is it all of these ? And there is no doubt statins have side effects, some serious, but the fact that they reduce heart attacks, that argument has been settled.

  • J Michael Nicholls

    4/16/2008 7:26:00 PM |

    I will not go deeper into the science of atherosclerosis except to say that it has been known for several years now that cholesterol per se does not initiate atheroma, or plaque. You find cholesterol in the lesions but you also find calcium. We find cholesterol and calcium because it is available in the bloodstream. Cholesterol does not have a mind of its own, and it doesn’t one day decide to develop plaque by raising “the level”. Neither does calcium.

    We need cholesterol for many important processes in the body, and it is a part of almost all of our cell membranes. Mother’s milk is packed with it because the baby needs it. Eggs are full of the stuff “because it takes a hell of a lot of cholesterol to make a chicken”. The body has the level it needs at all times, and a higher level could indicate that something is wrong, i e, it is a marker, like someone said. Lowering of levels makes no sense at all.

    It is just dumb luck that the cholesterol lowering statins happen to be anti-inflammatory and therefore have some preventive effect, and may reverse plaque in some cases. The higher the dose the more anti-inflammatory effect, and reversal of atheroma. The higher the dose the bigger the lowering of the cholesterol level, because that is exactly how statins are designed to work. However, there is NO evidence in the scientific literature that the lowering of the cholesterol level has a protective effect, and I am very sorry if this upsets anyone’s religious beliefs. Dumb luck, as I said, the rest is coincidence and correspondence. Big Pharma will do its best to uphold the “religion” though, since it is so profitable. Levels will always be too high, and everybody should be statinated. Statins should be distributed in the drinking water, no less.

    So, why bother, the statins seems to work in a few cases? Well, statins are really poisonous substances, and there are many indications that they cause harm to the human body, particularly by the lowering of cholesterol levels. Side effects are plentiful and it is probable that we will witness statin induced cancers in large numbers in the near future.

    The point to be made here is that there are other and better methods to avoid atherosclerosis and to reverse plaque. Dr Davis is one of the leading proponents of such methods. I personally think it is interesting to se the results of the statin study presented here; I just wanted to stress the point of what statins really do. By all means, we should keep an eye our cholesterol levels. But many people having a hearth attack do not have high cholesterol. But did you know that 90% of them have diabetes or in some other way a pathological sugar metabolism? So what level is the more important?

    About the quacks, who don’t buy the cholesterol dogma, there are thousands of them. Some of them can be found at If you are interested in how the cholesterol religion was developed and how science was corrupted to that end, I can recommend Gary Taubes latest book Good Calories – Bad Calories.

    By the way, CRP is just another marker for hearth disease, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there will soon be talk about lowering the level Smile

  • Anonymous

    4/18/2008 1:13:00 AM |

    Well by your klogic there is no scientific proof the lowering inflamation is what cause stsatins to lower your risk of a herat attack, the only thing we do know is that ststins DO infact lower your risk, we just all keep guessing as to why. Well heres another piece to the puzzle: double blind study releasesed this week follow groups of people on statins or placebos and by a slight BUT significant margin the statin takers blood oressure was lowered ! So besides all the other things we think statins do we now KNOW they lower blood pressure. 2 ver5y interesting points for all of our paranoid readers 1. Not one of the study members recieving the statins in the 2 year period had to leave bececause of side effects and 2. this study was NOT paid for by the big bad scarry Drug companies, so there goes your default response.

  • buy jeans

    11/3/2010 4:55:07 PM |

    I am no supporter of drug companies, nor a defender of their policies and practices. But I do believe that their data can serve to teach us a few lessons. For instance, here is an (cherry-picked, to be sure) example of intracoronary ultrasound cross-sectional images before and after two years of rosuvastatin, 40 mg daily: