And I suck at remembering to take it, so I generally only wind up with 1000 IU a day...

I'll try 6k and see if there is any difference.

What does vitamin D do for the body?

(I plead ignorant - truly don't know)

but how does one "feel" that?

nonexistant due to hitting menopause at 38.... Lack of collagen means I can't convert enough sunlight into my own Vit D.

It was making me Hyper...didn't like the effect.

*too high*?

and if this story is true, what does that say about "science"? because current recs have been in place for a while. years, I believe.

The process isn't instantaneous, but it's a hell of a lot quicker to adapt than traditional medicine, for instance.

obtain more information," it's a mistake, and a huge one, as the RDA recommendations are formulated by a panel of scientists.

I presume you understand the difference between a math error and a judgment about where to set the recommendations based on the available science?


In a letter1 published last week in the journal Nutrients the scientists confirmed a calculation error noted by other investigators, by using a data set from a different population. Dr. Cedric F. Garland, Dr.P.H., adjunct professor at UC San Diego’s Department of Family Medicine and Public Health said his group was able to confirm findings published by Dr. Paul Veugelers2 from the University of Alberta School of Public Health that were reported last October in the same journal.

“Both these studies suggest that the IOM underestimated the requirement substantially,” said Garland. “The error has broad implications for public health regarding disease prevention and achieving the stated goal of ensuring that the whole population has enough vitamin D to maintain bone health.”


http://www.newswise.com/articles/scientists-confirm-institute-of-medicine-recommendation-for-vitamin-d-intake-was-miscalculated-and-is-far-too-low

An error that isn't immediately caught says nothing at all about science and speaks instead of human fallibility, but I suspect that that isn't the answer you were hoping to get.

What kind of answer do you think you were seeking?

caught by multiple panels of scientists is a big deal and speaks to the quality of today's 'science,' which is polluted by monetary & power considerations much more than in the past.

And as these recommendations have been in place for some time, I believe for years, it's a little worse than "wasn't immediately caught".

And what do you propose as an alternative to the polluted "science" that you decry with scare-quotes?

emphasize the importance of Vitamin D, folic acid, and other nutritional factors much more than most "traditional" M.D.'s.

European study about blood levels of vitamin D.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529102346.htm

Do you know how many thousands and thousands of IUs you would have to take to get to 140...they have tested doses up to 19,000 per day without toxicity...

An ideal is 50-70 and it takes around 4-5000 daily for a long time to get there...and if you have a serious disease, 10,000 per day for a month is a good start...

They did a large study on cancer patients and found that over 90% had low level (below 20) when they were diagnosed...

So for health and immunity, it is important to take enough of this cheap supplement which is a hormone as well as a vitamin...

Thanks to Dr. Richard Becker, i have become a Vitamin D disciple lol

Thanks for posting.

If you struggle with depression ask your doctor to test your Vitamin D levels. Mine were low and they prescribed me 50,000 IU weekly for 4 weeks(pill was same size as 1000 IU.)
It got me on the road to recovery quickly.

Why does science make such a think about what appear to others to be redundant study and analysis?

Well, go back to the OP, the answer is pretty much sitting there.

but my blood levels still were too low. I need to take 6-8K a day to have the levels where my doctor wants them. So it's not that I'm freakish -- it's just that the current recommendations were too low.

Taking the slow release form with meals is better. Sometimes those Vit-D pills just pass through our guts without being fully dissolved and absorbed.
Some doctors think of Vitamin D (the name is a common generalization) as a prehormone and it does have a steroid chemical base that is found in 3 forms; D2, D3 and calcitriol which is an active form that is finally finished in the kidneys.
Sun light can change a cholesterol in Your skin into a precursor of active Vit D, cholecalciferol, by opening a hydroxyl ring. Vit D helps regulate calcium in our bodies; our blood and bones and other tissues.

So often it is how You take the precursor of Vit D and when. Take the supplement with foods that have natural fats--its why milk is required to have Vit D added. Milk is a natural fat solution. And try to get some sun light--not too much is You have a skin cancer risk.

But I live in a part of the country where it isn't always easy to get it from the sun. And I have to be especially careful about skin cancer because I have a relative who had melanoma.

So I've been taking the amount that the UC doctors now say I should be taking. And it's been resulting in the blood levels that my doctor wants to see.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.htm

But welcome to DU, anyway!

http://www.nwrunner.com/new/index.php/stay-healthy/nutritionwellness/82-vitamin-d-deficiency-a-special-problem-for-northwest-runners

A problem for Northwest runners?

Most people living in the Northwest spend limited time outdoors during the winter months. Even disciplined athletes who run outdoors get little sun exposure and unless they eat salmon every day, most likely don’t get enough vitamin D from their diet. So the next time you visit your healthcare provider, plan to have a discussion regarding your vitamin D status. With all the accumulating evidence regarding its health benefits, it is one nutrient you don’t want running in short supply.

I know perfectly well what overcast days are like and yes, I have gotten sunburn on an overcast day. But they are not the same as the heavy clouds we get here in the winter -- and we have much shorter days because of the latitude.

I'm curious where you find your more trustworthy research.

Denying it's valuable. Doctors are recommending at least 2000 a day.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/vitamin-d-useless-lowering-blood-132835368-cbs.html;_ylt=A0LEViQZ2g1V.7wAMpglnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByNW1iMWN2BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--

Irritating interview.

are looking at studies where they gave dosages that were much too small to have any effect (for example, a study of blood pressure involving dosages of only 400 IU's.)

D us fat soluble.

And the website for this article looks like an industry promotional group rather than a scientic organization.

I agree 600 may be too low, especially for women and especially in winter. I couldn't find any news articles (admittedly, quick google search, not exhaustive Internet research) backing this claim.

Just saying overdosing isn't harmless, so supplement this article with further research before acting on it.

The way to make sure you're not getting too much is to have your doctor check your levels with a blood test. Mine was too low still, even with 4000 units, so she raised my dose.

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/health/02-22VitamanD.asp

"We found that daily intakes of vitamin D by adults in the range of 4000-8000 IU are needed to maintain blood levels of vitamin D metabolites in the range needed to reduce by about half the risk of several diseases - breast cancer, colon cancer, multiple sclerosis, and type 1 diabetes," said Cedric Garland, DrPH, professor of family and preventive medicine at UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center. "I was surprised to find that the intakes required to maintain vitamin D status for disease prevention were so high – much higher than the minimal intake of vitamin D of 400 IU/day that was needed to defeat rickets in the 20th century."

SNIP

"Now that the results of this study are in, it will become common for almost every adult to take 4000 IU/day," Garland said. "This is comfortably under the 10,000 IU/day that the IOM Committee Report considers as the lower limit of risk, and the benefits are substantial." He added that people who may have contraindications should discuss their vitamin D needs with their family doctor.

..and my body can produce Vitamin D with the help of Sunlight.
I go from 4000 to 2000.

Science used to not know about bacteria and disease. Science discovered the relationship, knowledge about bacteria changed. Was keeping wounds clean 100 years ago woo? No, science fact changed with knowledge. Just because science said that man could not go faster than the speed of light did not mean it would always be that way.

Unless you know something different ...

This gets more interesting...

and while his theories have been shown to be able to make accurate predictions, there is the possibility that someone in the future can supplant him like he supplanted Newton.

Of course, science is revised all the time due to research.

Should really get a Vitamin D toter

Did you not read the OP?!

After Mom had lumbar compression fractures from super bad osteoporosis, doctor put her on a once per month D pill...it seemed really high at the time, something like 50,000 IU. So she was on it for a few years and then...Medicare wouldn't cover it any more. Then after that, doctor just didn't seem interested in having her take it. Granted she was basically doing ok and was in her 90's but now I'll wonder if she should have continued to supplement.

I'm living in SoCal and am outside a LOT but am going to ask my doctor about my levels anyway.

Thanks for posting.

and he said the two things he recommends are Vitamin D (enough to get my blood levels into a good range) and magnesium.

This was the third doctor who said it was important to get my Vitamin D levels tested and to supplement as needed.

Prompted by this thread, I checked my multivitamin and found it contained 400 IU, stated to be 100% of the DV. Because the OP says that the RDA is 600 IU, my guess was that the manufacturer was misrepresenting the product.

It turns out that there's a complication I didn't know about. The U.S. Department of Agriculture sets a DV (Daily Value), which is indeed 400 IU. By contrast, the RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowance) is 600 IU, according to the NIH website.

Perhaps a detailed investigation of this difference would produce an explanation we've seen in other contexts: "Follow the money."