Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:25 pm
This is all very confusing.
I looked thru old bloodwork of mine. Calcium, magnesium and Vitamin D levels were all within normal limits. Because if I have normal magnesium levels, then it shouldn't be messing up the calcium levels, right?
So I wonder if I'm fine then?
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:18 am
Again, Drury, what blood parameter did your daugther's dr measure re: the blood calcium? Was it just the normal serum level that is measured routinely with the CBC?
Eric, it is extremely important to maintain the serum calcium level within a small range--so your body works hard to keep it in this range--lots of other things go wrong way before the serum calcium would show a problem.
For ex, in order to keep the blood ca level within range-- even if you are not eating or absorbing any calcium, you body would take the calcium from your bones in order to keep the serum level stable. So the serum level is not indicative of much re: ca, mg, D etc interactions. You could have severe osteoporosis, yet have a normal ca serum level.
Re: magnesium--again, you would want to measure the redBloodCell magnesium to get a better picture of where your magnesium levels are, and its functioning. The serum level will not reveal much.
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 3:55 am
The intake of vitamin D, calcim, magensium and other supplements should be tailored for each person's needs and properly monitored with regular tests.
Excess of calcium is associated to many diseases, including cancer and calcification of veins/arteries. Lack of calcium is also associated to diseases like osteoporosis. We need a right balance.
If you are taking blood thinners please ask your doctor whether you can take vitamin K as they interact. Vitamin K helps blood to clot.
Honestly, I think doctors don't know much about the importance of taking adequate vitamins/minerals. They don't take enough courses on the importance of nutrition in med school
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 10:03 am
yes, high d3 intakes over long time need to be carefully balanced with minerals or there can be consequences - which i've learned by experience.
hypercalcemia and hypomagnesemia are both potential consequences of straight D3 supplementation. (i can't find research on the hypomagnesemia side of things but i have experienced it and learned about it from a pharmacist). also, if you have low zinc status and correct it, your vitamin D3 dose response could improve (again i can't find a study - yet - but this is my personal experience).
high vit D intake without magnesium supplementation actually drove down my magnesium status until i developed frightening symptoms. that pharmacist turned me on to magnesium and i felt he quite literally saved my life. at that stage i hadn't had tests, but after this experience i started reading more and getting lab work done.
as for the kind of test (from mgwater.com):
A.1. Limitations of Serum or Plasma Magnesium Levels
A.1.1. What is the Normal Range?
Serum magnesium levels are normally maintained within a very narrow range, with a coefficient of variation of only 10% to 20%, unless there is a profound deficiency... Thus, the serum or plasma magnesium level is not a reliable index of magnesium deficiency.
About the Misdiagnosis of Magnesium Deficiency
•Patients with symptoms that can be part of the Mg deficiency syndrome should have their Mg serum values determined.
•In patients with Mg serum values lower than 0.9 mmol/l Mg, magnesium supplementation is recommended; for patients with values lower than 0.8 mmol/l, starting Mg supplementation is necessary. We recommend that a mMg serum value of 0.9 mmol/l Mg be considered as the lower reference limit, in evaluating symptoms or diseases suspected as being associated with Mg deficiency. In this case, Mg has to be used as a first choice therapy. When symptoms of the MDS are found, patients with serum values of less than 0.8 mmol/l Mg, or better 0.9 mmol/l Mg, ought not be erroneously declared normomagnesemic.
•When Mg substitution is started, the minimum dose to be applied is 600 mg Mg per day.
•The therapy should proceed for more than one month, and then continue with a dose that holds the serum value not lower than 0.9 mmol/l Mg.
so i'd assert that the serum magnesium test is useful if you have results below 0.91 mmol/L. i have had serum magnesium tested at two labs and one (mcmaster) says the range is 0.60-1.10 (my result was 0.88 ), and at a later date, a different local lab's range was 0.70-1.00 (i had read the 0.90 info above and by this date had obtained a level of 0.94). note that both those results count as 'normal' in the lab's and in my doctors' eyes.
, what were those levels if i may ask? the normal range is so bogus it should be illegal to make decisions about patient health based on whether or not they are under that curve.
i also failed to supplement zinc early in my learning curve. eventually i asked my doctor for a test and came back at 8.6 umol/L. healthy control zinc levels sit in the high teens. i corrected the deficiency and at next D3 testing my absorption had skyrocketed to 271 nmol/L. patients with levels over 250 nmol/L have increased risk of hypercalcemia.
you're right about the docs, tmrox, they might not know about nutrition, but at least some of them are receptive to the science once you show it to them.
my doctor has always been very helpful with my nutrition testing ideas, i began by presenting lots of peer reviewed literature, and at this stage my doc has taken things i've been investigating, and how i'm dealing with them, and made related recommendations to other patients.
also, TIMS member Mirry took the info i posted for her to her specialist (this man - http://www.cnsnevada.com/germin.html
) and apparently he is now investigating his MS patients for nutrient levels and making sure their status is optimized. i am looking forward to hearing more news on that!
Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 2:42 pm
Sorry I did post a while back (for some reason it does not show) that I do not know what tests the doctor ordered as he did a lot for various issues. She has still not had the results to date and will let you know as soon as she gets them.
I agree with you that doctors do not know much about vitamins and it is scary.
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:58 pm
Again, Johnson, many many thanks!
got my blood results for D1,25 and D 25-OH:
had stopped supplementing the D for a few weeks prior to testing:
1,25 is HIGH at 74 (range is 19-67)
25 OH is down to 44 (range is 30-100)
So, conforms to the view that should not be taking so much vit D just on measuring the 25-OH. Quite necessary clearly to be measuring the 1,25.
My arteriosclerosis in arteries showed up on xray and ultrasound ONLY AFTER had taken such hugh amts of Vit D to bring it up to the high amts being recommended for MS patients (esp by the Vitamindcouncil.com group).(And was taking Mg with the D). My brain lesions were prior to taking the hugh amts of D, but were after taking large amts of calcium (for osteo) along with "only" 800 IU's of Vit D. So maybe many of our MS brain lesions are from taking the Ca and D so highly recommended-- see in 2007 research cited in above post by TMrox http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 115230.htm
So, am decreasing Calcium supplemental intake, and stopping all supplemental intake of vit D.
And taking Vit K2 to try to get the Calcium out of the arteries.
And will talk to my dr to see if a parathyroid test is warrented; who knows if its action could have been interfered with by this excess supplementation.
Will post in 5 months when get new ultrasound of carotids and abdominal arteries done.
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 4:54 am
Based on your lab results of Vitamin D I'm not sure whether you should stop taking vit D altogheter.
Your vitD 25-OH are not high. According to the ZRT lab range, the optimum levels should be around 50-80ng/ml.
I found this, that might explain your results
"1,25(OH)2 vitamin D [1,25-D] is more difficult and expensive to measure than 25(OH)D; moreover, it is not a good measure of vitamin D status.
When patients are vitamin D deficient, the parathyroid hormone increases and drives the renal 1-alpha-hydroxylase, so that 1,25-D levels increase. Only in severe deficiency, when substrate is depleted, does the 1,25-D become low. Partially treated vitamin D deficiency also results in marked elevations of 1,25-D levels.
Some doctors, thinking they are sophisticated because they know that 1,25-D is more active, order the wrong measurement. Do not fall into this trap and waste money on this expensive but often misleading test! There are only a few situations where you would actually want to know the 1,25-D:
unexplained hypercalcemia (looking for granulomatous disease or lymphoma),
suspected genetic childhood rickets,
suspected tumor-induced osteomalacia,
some cases of nephrolithiasis or hypercalciuria. "
If you are concerned about your calcium/magnesium levels, then a more direct approach will be to test these. Dr Sam Kabbani who has triggered this discussion, found that his patients in Kuwait had excess of calcium and low magnesium. Since Vit D absorbes calcium into the body he suggested to stop taking vit D for a while, but only for a while until calcium/magnesium levels get back to normal.
He tested his patients for calcium/magnesium using hair tissue analysis.
You can see here why you might want hair tisse analysis and not blood test:
Vit D is so important for many diseases. Look for instance this article
Annals of Neurology 2010: Clinically we find that raising 25-OH-D levels by 50nmol/l could halve the hazard of a relapse.
Higher 25-OH-D levels were associated with a reduced hazard of relapse. This occurred in a dose-dependent linear fashion, with each 10nmol/l increase in 25-OH-D resulting in up to a 12% reduction in risk of relapse. Clinically, raising 25-OH-D levels by 50nmol/l could halve the hazard of a relapse. ANN NEUROL 2010;68:193-203."
http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseact ... ageid/1334
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 5:19 pm
be careful when you give advice--I am in the US, and according to the article you quote, the Us uses ng/ml, whereas you in the UK use nmol/L--and for ng/ml, my 44 is in the optimal range, which is 25-60. (your optimal is 50-150).
also, a number of futher quotes from the article, that would indicate I am actually a bit too high with the 44:
Michaelsson K found that in elderly men the mortality rates were increased at both high and low vitamin D levels, and the lowest mortality was seen with vitamin D between 24 and 34 ng/mL.
Another study (Dobnig H) from Germany found lower mortality in people in the top 25% of vitamin D levels, compared to those with the lower 25%. The overall levels, however, were quite low; almost everybody was lower than 33 ng/ml.
....The Vitamin D Pooling Project included 10 cohorts around the world, and studied between 500 and 1300 cases of less common cancers: endometrial, kidney, lymphoma, ovarian, upper GI, and pancreatic. There was no benefit of higher vitamin D in any of these cancers. Of concern, however, was an increased risk of pancreatic cancer when the serum vitamin D level was greater than 40 ng/mL (100 nMol/L).
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:13 am
I got tested for vit D levels in the USA with the ZRT lab (vitamin D council).
My vit D levels are 29ng/ml and according to my lab report the optimal vit D level is 50-80ng/ml.
For optimal levels of Vit D according to ZRT lab see:
https://www.zrtlab.com/view-document-de ... min-d.html
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 5:52 pm
ZRT labs is an independent lab--potentially out to make money I would think--and they are using Vitamindcouncil.org as their mentor.
I would not take their reference range as my guide--established scientific data would be my reference--unfortunately, I got swayed by the newer scientific data from Vitamindcouncil.org, en eclectic group of scientists standing alone, and NOT backed up by established data.
the NIH data you post is NOT good in forming a reference range:
≥15 ng/ml Generally considered adequate for bone and overall health in healthy individuals 
Consistently >200 ng/ml Considered potentially toxic, leading to hypercalcemia and hyperphosphatemia, although human data are limited. In an animal model, concentrations ≤400 ng/mL (≤1,000 nmol/L) demonstrated no toxicity [11,14].
way too broad.