Condition Afflicts Millions: Do you have “YBS”?

12. May 2014 Lisa G Nutrition (0)
After one of the harshest winters, spring has finally arrived.  The welcomed warmer temperatures and longer daylight hours infuse us with a sense of renewal and new beginnings.   Low and behold we begin to come out of hibernation and start the mad dash to engage in positive lifestyle changes such as eating better, exercising, proper sleep and taking appropriate nutritional supplements.  But invariably, life happens.  

Yep, just when you were about to get started, it happens.  YBS sets in.   I see this “condition” all too often with clients attempting to enter or re-enter into any number of behavior changes.  I will go so far as to say we all have been afflicted at one point or another in our lives.  I call this condition Yeah But Syndrome, or “YBS”.    It is often paralyzing and prevents those afflicted from moving into action, instead remaining in a state of inertia.  

There are many symptoms of YBS but the following are some of the most common.  

• Yeah I planned to go to the gym today BUT, the kids needed a ride to practice.  
• Yeah I really want to eat better BUT I don’t have the time.   
• Yeah I didn’t plan to eat the cake BUT my husband wanted too, so I did also.   
• Yeah I really meant to go to the grocery shopping BUT I was too tired, so I hit the drive- thru.  
• Or this is a good one. Yeah I meant to start today BUT, I’ll start tomorrow.  

But tomorrow never comes.  You get the drift.  We can all come up with a million yeah buts, in other words, excuses.    The good news is the treatment for YBS is simple--just do it!  Take action.  The reality of today’s 24-7 planet is there will always be something.  The kids, work commitments, family obligations and various projects that need your attention will perpetually be present in some shape or form.  The difference to make the difference is to learn to dance in the rain, not wait for the rain to pass.  When will all the stars align so that your world will be “just right” to start?  If not NOW, WHEN will you begin?  

The key word here is begin.   Far too frequently, I coach clients that shoot themselves in the foot before they start.   Instead of consuming yourself with all the barriers to entry, select reasonable, low-hanging fruit that is “doable.”    The art of lifestyle change is to avoid all-or-nothing thinking and begin to appreciate what you CAN do, versus focusing energy on what you can’t do.  What is one action you can do TODAY to move toward your wellness goal(s)?  Start to focus on what you can do in the mist of your existing life demands. This mantra is a friendly reminder: BE-DO-HAVE.  Be committed.  Do what it takes.  And you will have results.  

Lastly, if you think removing cereal from your morning routine it is too difficult and you can’t do it. Guess what-- you’re likely right.   What you think is what you get!   But what if you think instead, “I can do this.  There are many truly healthy options for breakfast to replace cereal such as eggs and veggies that will help me look and feel my best.”  Then guess what--you will!  This simple change in mind-set can start a tidal wave of change and prevent you from abandoning ship when life tosses you into rough waters.  Ongoing support is hugely important to sustain lifestyle changes.  Join the conversations in the Cureality Forum to engage the support of health coaches and Cureality Members to stay on track. 

We Need More.....Kettlebell

8. May 2014 Amber B Exercise (0)
You either love them or you hate them.

When you are in love with kettlebells, like I am, you enjoy the multi-muscle group movements.  Kettlebell workouts are fluid, like a dance, putting together a chain of movements that leave your heart pounding and sweat pouring.  Yes, there’s some sneaky cardio component to a kettlebell workout.   A great blend of aerobic and anaerobic conditioning.

If you hate kettlebells it’s because kettlebell exercises keep you honest with proper exercise execution.  Form is imperative to moves like the kettlebell swing or the kettlebell snatch.  Do it incorrectly and you’ll be either sore or have bruised wrists the next day.  But this is no reason to shy away from the kettlebell.  You have way too much to gain from this odd looking piece of exercise equipment.  

You will get a mega -caloric burn.  The American council on Exercise states that the average kettlebell workout burns 20 calories per minute.  That’s 1200 calories in just one hour.   Kettlebell workouts utilize many muscle groups to give you an efficient, total body conditioning workout.  

If you’re looking for a toned back side get a kettlebell.  The classic kettlebell swing works all the posterior muscles like your glutes, hamstrings, and lower back.  But only if you use correct form.  Otherwise you'll find yourself with nagging back pain, instead of a better butt.  

Kettlebell exercises are functional movements that will allow you to play hard without getting injured.  If you are an athlete, a nature enthusiast, or just want to keep up with the kids then you need to give kettlebells a try.  During a workout, the exercises will target movements that will make getting up and down off the floor easier, as well as bending over to pick something up.

If you are interested in doing kettlebell workouts start with a coach or take class.  You can’t fake form with kettlebell exercises or you could end up hurt.  I’m not trying to scare anyone away because good form is easy to learn.   Your body will memorize the correct movement pattern and you’ll be on your way to a successful kettlebell workout.  

Thyroid and the gut: Hidden health partners

8. May 2014 Chris K Thyroid (0)
Though I have personally dealt with both auto-immune thyroiditis (Hashomoto’s) and several gut issues (wheat sensitivity, gastritis, etc.), it was not until recently that I discovered how close the thyroid and gut work together to keep you healthy – and how problems with one can affect the other along with your overall health.
 
Most of us understand that the primary function of the gut, that 25 to 30 feet of “tubing” that includes everything from your stomach to your large intestines, is to process the food we eat and allow the “good stuff” (essential nutrients) to pass into our blood stream while keeping the “bad stuff” (harmful proteins) out. However, it may surprise some that the gut also holds as much as 70% of all the immune tissue in the body.
 
Now, imagine all the health havoc that could ensue if, suddenly, the gut stopped doing its job – particularly if it failed to stop toxic proteins from entering the blood stream and then mounted an overzealous immune response against them.  Sometimes, those overzealous immune responses reach beyond their intended targets to attack otherwise healthy tissues and organs – like the thyroid gland.
 
Recent studies indicate that thyroid hormones play a significant role in maintaining gut integrity, preventing leaky gut that can, in some cases, lead to auto-immune attacks against the thyroid.  A properly functioning gut also aids the production of thyroid hormones by converting some of the inactive “T4” thyroid hormone into the functional “T3” hormone.  Failure to simultaneously maintain both a healthy gut and a healthy thyroid can create a vicious cycle leading to chronic health problems and declining vitality.
 
What it all means is that to enjoy optimal health, you must promote good thyroid health to promote good gut health and vice versa.  Unfortunately, traditional medicine tends to focus on one issue to the exclusion of others.  A typical endocrinologist may treat your under active thyroid without spending a moment to address underlying gut issues.  A gastroenterologist will work alleviate a gut problem but will rarely address a potential thyroid problem.
 
This illustrates, once again, how our bodies work as a system and why it is necessary to bridge the “healthcare gaps” in traditional medicine by becoming personally responsible for your health.  I encourage everyone to consult the Cureality Program Guide and online Cureality Diet and Thyroid Health Tracks to learn more about how to optimize both your gut and thyroid health on your journey to realizing complete, whole-body health.

Omega-3 fatty acids likely NOT associated with prostate cancer

18. July 2013 William Davis Omega-3 fatty acids (6)
A weakly constructed study was reported recently that purportedly associated higher levels of omega-3 fatty acid blood levels and prostate cancer. See this CBS News report, for instance.

Lipid and omega-3 fat expert, Dr. William Harris, posted this concise critique of the study, exposing some fundamental problems:

First, the reported EPA+DHA level in the plasma phospholipids in this study was 3.62% in the no-cancer control group, 3.66% in the total cancer group, 3.67% in the low grade cancer group, and 3.74% in the high-grade group. These differences between cases and controls are very small and would have no meaning clinically as they are within the normal variation. Based on experiments in our lab, the lowest quartile would correspond to an HS-Omega-3 Index of <3.16% and the highest to an Index of >4.77%). These values are obviously low, and virtually none of the subjects was in “danger” of having an HS-Omega-3 Index of >8%. So to conclude that regular consumption of 2 oily fish meals a week or taking fish oil supplements (both of which would result in an Index above the observed range) would increase risk for prostate cancer is extrapolating beyond the data.

This study did not test the question of whether giving fish oil supplements (or eating more oily fish) increased PC risk; it looked only a blood levels of omega-3 which are determined by intake, other dietary factors, metabolism and genetics.

The authors also failed to present the fuller story taught by the literature. The same team reported in 2010 that the use of fish oil supplements was not associated with any increased risk for prostate cancer. A 2010 meta-analysis of fish consumption and prostate cancer reported a reduction in late stage or fatal cancer among cohort studies, but no overall relationship between prostate cancer and fish intake. Terry et al. in 2001 reported higher fish intake was associated with lower risk for prostate cancer incidence and death, and Leitzmann et al. in 2004 reported similar findings. Higher intakes of canned, preserved fish were reported to be associated with reduced risk for prostate cancer. Epstein et al found that a higher omega-3 fatty acid intake predicted better survival for men who already had prostate cancer, and increased fish intake was associated with a 63% reduction in risk for aggressive prostate cancer in a case-control study by Fradet et al). So there is considerable evidence actually FAVORING an increase in fish intake for prostate cancer risk reduction.

Another piece of the picture is to compare prostate cancer rates in Japan vs the US. Here is a quote from the World Foundation of Urology:

"[Prostate cancer] incidence is really high in North America and Northern Europe (e.g., 63 X 100,000 white men and 102 X 100,000 Afro-Americans in the United States), but very low in Asia (e.g., 10 X 100,000 men in Japan).”

Since the Japanese typically eat about 8x more omega-3 fatty acids than Americans do and their
blood levels are twice as high, you’d think their prostate cancer risk would be much higher...
but the opposite is the case.

Omega-3 fatty acids are physiologically necessary, normalizing multiple metabolic phenomena including augmentation of parasympathetic tone, reductions of postprandial (after-meal) lipoprotein excursions, and endothelial function. It would indeed make no sense that nutrients that are necessary for life and health exert an adverse effect such as prostate cancer at such low blood levels. (Recall that an omega-3 RBC index of 6.0% or greater is associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death.)

I personally take 3600 mg per day of EPA + DHA in highly-purified, non-oxidized triglyceride form (Ascenta Nutrasea liquid) that yields an RBC omega-3 index of just over 10%, the level that I believe the overwhelming bulk of data suggest is the ideal level for humans.

Are statins and omega-3s incompatible?

18. June 2013 William Davis (4)
French researcher, Dr. Michel de Lorgeril, has been in the forefront of thinking and research into nutritional issues, including the Mediterranean Diet, the French Paradox, and the role of fat intake in cardiovascular health. In a recent review entitled Recent findings on the health effects of omega-3 fatty acids and statins, and their interactions: do statins inhibit omega-3?, he explores the question of whether statin drugs are, in effect, incompatible with omega-3 fatty acids.

Dr. Lorgeril makes several arguments:

1) Earlier studies, such as GISSI-Prevenzione, demonstrated reduction in cardiovascular events with omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, consistent with the biological and physiological benefits observed in animals, experimental preparations, and epidemiologic observations in free-living populations.

2) More recent studies (and meta-analyses) examining the effects of omega-3 fatty acids have failed to demonstrate cardiovascular benefit showing, at most, non-significant trends towards benefit.

He points out that the more recent studies were conducted post-GISSI and after agencies like the American Heart Association's advised people to consume more fish, which prompted broad increases in omega-3 intake. The populations studied therefore had increased intake of omega-3 fatty acids at the start of the studies, verified by higher levels of omega-3 RBC levels in participants.

In addition, he raises the provocative idea that the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids appear to be confined to those not taking statin agents, as suggested, for instance, in the Alpha Omega Trial. He speculates that the potential for statins to ablate the benefits of omega-3s (and vice versa) might be based on several phenomena:

--Statins increase arachidonic acid content of cell membranes, a potentially inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid that competes with omega-3 fatty acids. (Insulin provocation and greater linoleic acid/omega-6 oils do likewise.)
--Statins induce impaired mitochondrial function, while omega-3s improve mitochondrial function. (Impaired mitochondrial function is evidenced, for instance, by reduced coenzyme Q10 levels, with partial relief from muscle weakness and discomfort by supplementing coenzyme Q10.)
--Statins commonly provoke muscle weakness and discomfort which can, in turn, lead to reduced levels of physical activity and increased resistance to insulin. (Thus the recently reported increases in diabetes with statin drug use.)

Are the physiologic effects of omega-3 fatty acids, present and necessary for health, at odds with the non-physiologic effects of statin drugs?

I fear we don't have sufficient data to come to firm conclusions yet, but my perception is that the case against statins is building. Yes, they have benefits in specific subsets of people (none in others), but the notion that everybody needs a statin drug is, I believe, not only dead wrong, but may have effects that are distinctly negative. And I believe that the arguments in favor of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, EPA and DHA (and perhaps DPA), make better sense.



DHA: the crucial omega-3

22. May 2013 William Davis (5)
Of the two omega-3 fatty acids that are best explored, EPA and DHA, it is likely DHA that exerts the most blood pressure- and heart rate-reducing effects. Here are the data of Mori et al in which 4000 mg of olive oil, purified EPA only, or purified DHA only were administered over 6 weeks:



□ indicates baseline SBP; ▪, postintervention SBP; ○, baseline DBP; •, postintervention DBP; ⋄, baseline HR; and ♦, postintervention HR.

In this group of 56 overweight men with normal starting blood pressures, only DHA reduced systolic BP by 5.8 mmHg, diastolic by 3.3 mmHg.

While each omega-3 fatty acid has important effects, it may be DHA that has an outsized benefit. So how can you get more DHA? Well, this observation from Schuchardt et al is important:

DHA in the triglyceride and phospholipid forms are 3-fold better absorbed, as compared to the ethyl ester form (compared by area-under-the-curve). In other words, fish oil that has been reconstituted to the naturally-occurring triglyceride form (i.e., the form found in fresh fish) provides 3-fold greater blood levels of DHA than the more common ethyl ester form found in most capsules. (The phospholipid form of DHA found in krill is also well-absorbed, but occurs in such small quantities that it is not a practical means of obtaining omega-3 fatty acids, putting aside the astaxanthin issue.)

So if the superior health effects of DHA are desired in a form that is absorbed, the ideal way to do this is either to eat fish or to supplement fish oil in the triglyceride, not ethyl ester, form. The most common and popular forms of fish oil sold are ethyl esters, including Sam's Club Triple-Strength, Costco, Nature Made, Nature's Bounty, as well as prescription Lovaza. (That's right: prescription fish oil, from this and several other perspectives, is an inferior product.)

What sources of triglyceride fish oil with greater DHA content/absorption are available to us? My favorites are, in this order:

Ascenta NutraSea
CEO and founder, Marc St. Onge, is a friend. Having visited his production facility in Nova Scotia, I was impressed with the meticulous methods of preparation. At every step of the way, every effort was made to limit any potential oxidation, including packaging in a vacuum environment. The Ascenta line of triglyceride fish oils are also richer in DHA content. Their NutraSea High DHA liquid, for instance, contains 500 mg EPA and 1000 mg DHA per teaspoon, a 1:2 EPA:DHA ratio, rather than the more typical 3:2 EPA:DHA ratio of ethyl ester forms.

Pharmax (now Seroyal) also has a fine product with a 1.4:1 EPA:DHA ratio.

Nordic Naturals has a fine liquid triglyceride product, though it is 2:1 EPA:DHA.





Krill oil: Do the math

21. May 2013 William Davis (0)
The manufacturers of krill oil claim that the phospholipid form of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, enhance their absorption. There are indeed some data to that effect:


Here are some representative krill oil preparations available on the market:


MegaRed Krill Oil:
EPA 50 mg
DHA 24 mg
Total omega-3s (EPA + DHA + other forms) 90 mg
Price: $28.99 for 60 softgels

Source Naturals (a fine company otherwise, by the way):

EPA 150 mg
DHA 90 mg
Total omega-3 fatty acids 300 mg
Price: $24.99 for 60 softgels

Alright, let's do some simple math:

Average volume of blood in the human body (all components): 5000 cc
Percentage of red blood cells (RBCs) by volume: 45%
Total volume RBCs: 2250 cc
Percentage of total volume RBCs occupied by fatty acids:

What tests are MORE important than cholesterol?

12. May 2013 William Davis (8)
In the conventional practice of early heart disease prevention, cholesterol testing takes center stage. Rarely does it go any further, aside from questions about family history and obvious sources of modifiable risk such as smoking and sedentary lifestyle.

So standard practice is to usually look at your LDL cholesterol, the value that is calculated, not measured, then--almost without fail--prescribe a statin drug. While there are indeed useful values in the standard cholesterol panel--HDL cholesterol and triglycerides--they are typically ignored or prompt no specific action.

But a genuine effort at heart disease prevention should go farther than an assessment of calculated LDL cholesterol, as there are many ways that humans develop coronary atherosclerosis. Among the tests to consider in order to craft a truly effect heart disease prevention program are:

--Lipoprotein testing--Rather than using the amount of cholesterol in the various fractions of blood as a crude surrogate for lipoproteins in the bloodstream, why not measure lipoproteins themselves? These techniques have been around for over 20 years, but are simply not part of standard practice.

Lipoprotein testing especially allows you to understand what proportion of LDL particles are the truly unhealthy small LDL particles (that are oxidation- and glycation-prone). It also identifies whether or not you have lipoprotein(a), the heritable factor that confers superior survival capacity in a wild environment ("The Perfect Carnivore"), but makes the holder of this genetic pattern the least tolerant to the modern diet dominated by grains and sugars, devoid of fat and organ meats.

--25-hydroxy vitamin D--The data documenting the health power of vitamin D restoration continue to grow, with benefits on blood sugar and insulin, blood pressure, bone density, protection from winter "blues" (seasonal affective disorder), decrease in falls and fractures, decrease in cancer, decrease in cardiovascular events. I aim to keep 25-hydroxy vitamin D at a level of 60 to 70 ng/ml. This generally requires 4000-8000 units per day in gelcap form, at least for the first 3 or so years, after which there is a decrease in need. Daily supplementation is better than weekly, monthly, or other less-frequent regimens. The D3 (cholecalciferol) form is superior to the non-human D2 (ergocalciferol) form.

--Hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)--HbA1c represents glycated hemoglobin, i.e., hemoglobin molecules within red blood cells that are irreversibly modified by glucose, or blood sugar. It therefore provides an index of endogenous glycation of all proteins of the body: proteins in the lenses of the eyes that lead to cataracts; proteins in the cartilage of the knees and hips that lead to brittle cartilage and arthritis; proteins in kidney tissue leading to kidney dysfunction.

HbA1c provides an incredibly clear snapshot of health: It reflects the amount of glycation you have been exposed to over the past 90 or so days. We therefore aim for an ideal level: 5.0% or less, the amount of "ambient" glycation that occurs just with living life. We reject the notion that a HbA1c level of 6.0% is acceptable just because you don't "need" diabetes medication, the thinking that drives conventional medical practice.

--RBC Omega-3 Index--The average American consumes very little omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, such that a typical omega-3 RBC Index, i.e., the proportion of fatty acids in the red blood cell occupied by omega-3 fatty acids, is around 2-3%, a level associated with increased potential for sudden cardiac death (death!). Levels of 6% or greater are associated with reduced potential for sudden cardiac death; 10% or greater are associated with reduced other cardiovascular events.

Evidence therefore suggests that an RBC Omega-3 Index of 10% or greater is desirable, a level generally achieved by obtaining 3000-3600 mg EPA + DHA per day (more or less, depending on the form consumed, an issue for future discussion).

--Thyroid testing (TSH, free T3, free T4)--Even subtle degrees of thyroid dysfunction can double, triple, even quadruple cardiovascular risk. TSH values, for instance, within the previously presumed "normal" range, pose increased risk for cardiovascular death; a TSH level of 4.0 mIU, for instance, is associated with more than double the relative risk of a level of 1.0.

Sad fact: the endocrinology community, not keeping abreast of the concerning issues coming from the toxicological community regarding perchlorates, polyfluorooctanoic acid and other fluorinated hydrocarbons, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PDBEs), and other thyroid-toxic compounds, tend to ignore these issues, while the public is increasingly exposed to the increased cardiovascular risk of even modest degrees of thyroid dysfunction. Don't commit the same crime of ignorance: Thyroid dysfunction in this age of endocrine disruption can be crucial to cardiovascular and overall health.


All in all, there are a number of common blood tests that are relevant--no, crucial--for achieving heart health. Last on the list: standard cholesterol testing.

Cranberry Sauce

21. November 2012 William Davis (3)
Happy Thanksgiving 2012, everyone, from all the staff at Track Your Plaque!

Here’s a zesty version of traditional cranberry sauce, minus the sugar. The orange, cinnamon, and other spices, along with the crunch of walnuts, make this one of my favorite holiday side dishes.

There are 31.5 grams total “net” carbohydrates in this entire recipe, or 5.25 grams per serving (serves 6). To further reduce carbs, you can leave out the orange juice and, optionally, use more zest.

1 cup water
12 ounces fresh whole cranberries
Sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar (I used 6 tablespoons Truvía)
1 tablespoon orange zest + juice of half an orange
½ cup chopped walnuts
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
½ teaspoon ground nutmeg
¼ teaspoon ground cloves

In small to medium saucepan, bring water to boil. Turn heat down and add cranberries. Cover and cook at low-heat for 10 minutes or until all cranberries have popped. Stir in sweetener. Remove from heat.

Stir in orange zest and juice, walnuts, cinnamon, nutmeg, and cloves.

Transfer mixture to bowl, cool, and serve.


Apple Cranberry Crumble

18. November 2012 William Davis (0)
Apple, cranberry, and cinnamon: the perfect combination of tastes and scents for winter holidays!

I took a bit of carbohydrate liberties with this recipe. The entire recipe yields a delicious cheesecake-like crumble with 59 “net” grams carbohydrates (total carbs – fiber); divided among 10 slices, that’s 5.9 grams net carbs per serving, a quantity most tolerate just fine. (To reduce carbohydrates, the molasses in the crumble is optional, reducing total carbohydrate by 11 grams.)

Other good choices for sweeteners include liquid stevia, stevia glycerite, powdered stevia (pure or inulin-based, not maltodextrin-based), Truvía, Swerve, and erythritol. And always taste your batter to test sweetness, since sweeteners vary in sweetness from brand to brand and your individual sensitivity to sweetness depends on how long you’ve been wheat-free. (The longer you’ve been wheat-free, the less sweetness you desire.)


Crust and crumble topping
3 cups almond meal
1 stick (8 tablespoons) butter, softened
1 cup xylitol (or other sweetener equivalent to 1 cup sugar)
1½ teaspoons ground cinnamon
1 tablespoon molasses
1½ teaspoons vanilla extract
Dash sea salt

Filling
16 ounces cream cheese, softened
2 large eggs
½ cup xylitol (or other sweetener equivalent to ½ cup sugar)
1 Granny Smith apple (or other variety)
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1 cup fresh cranberries

Preheat oven to 350° F.

In large bowl, combine almond meal, butter, sweetener, cinnamon, molasses, vanilla, and salt and mix.

Grease a 9½-inch tart or pie pan. Using approximately 1 cup of the almond meal mixture, form a thin bottom crust with your hands or spoon.

In another bowl, combine cream cheese, eggs, and sweetener and mix with spoon or mixer at low-speed. Pour into tart or pie pan.

Core apple and slice into very thin sections. Arrange in circles around the edge of the cream cheese mixture, working inwards. Distribute cranberries over top, then sprinkle cinnamon over entire mixture.

Gently layer remaining almond meal crumble evenly over top. Bake for 30 minutes or until topping lightly browned.
10,000 units of vitamin D

10,000 units of vitamin D

3. August 2010 William Davis (47)
Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments (47) -

  • Pater_Fortunatos

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

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

    http://www.cristianmargarit.ro/

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

    hi Dr. Davis

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

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

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

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

    Thanks

  • enliteneer

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

    I was amazed and confused.

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

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

  • aurelia

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

    Did you call her PCP?

  • steve

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

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

  • Tommy

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

    What about taking Vitamin A to counter balance Vitamin D?

  • Patricia Dillavou

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

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

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

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

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

  • Patricia Dillavou

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

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

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

  • Sara

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

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

  • Pat D.

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

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

  • vlado2020

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

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

  • MissPkm

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

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

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

  • Ned Kock

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

    Hello Dr. Davis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Below are two links with more details:

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

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

  • stop smoking help

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Matthew

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

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Ganesh

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

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

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

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

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

  • Josh

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Jimmy Moore

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

  • Neonomide

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

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

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


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

  • mike V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

    Ted,

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

    Mike

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

    Startling Findings About Vitamin D Levels in Life Extension® Members

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • mike V

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

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

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

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

  • mike V

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Food rep

  • TedHutchinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • mike V

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

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

    IMHO, Ted and Dr Davis have it about right.

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

  • Anonymous

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

    Ted,

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • mike V

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

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

    Mike V

  • max

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

    good article.

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Anonymous

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

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

  • Lynn D

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

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

Add comment

Loading