all things vitamin D

Post by **jimmylegs** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:18 pm

ps the first time i megadosed D3 i knew my starting level was 72 (after months of supplementing at 3000-4000IU daily)
i did 50,000IU per day for 10d, per consultation with local hospital.
i had a followup test at 149nmol/L which was great as far as i'm concerned.
i kept up the 4000IU per day and eventually got sporadic about it.
at later tests i was down to 119, then 78.
this winter i have taken 25,000IU every week or two.
had the blood taken last week and in a couple of weeks will call the doc's office to hear if the results are in.
recently my roomie had to wait 2 months for her d3 numbers to come back (incidentally she was at 119 nmol/L which is also great!)
so, i may have to wait a while... the system is getting a little bogged down by all this newfangled preventative medicine!

Post by **jimmylegs** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:29 pm

px you make a good point but i am initially doubtful that momma went from seriously deficient to 414 nmol/L (166 ng/mL) on the regimen described, unless perhaps after the week-long megadose, the weekly 50K went on for quite some time.

i am however quite willing to believe that the average doc who's been telling people they're fine in the 70-80nmol/L range for the last couple of decades, would be freaked by a 166nmol/L result - unless they are right up on things, and also tested the calcium situation.

that said, mommasan, what's your units? did they do any calcium testing? how long were you on the 50K/wk after the initial megadose?

Post by **jimmylegs** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:36 pm

With the consideration that it was only a 12 patient/28 week trial, I'm not sure how conclusive I would consider that evidence.

i have a great table comparing various studies of some truly idiotic d3 daily intakes over weeks months and years, with associated serum levels of d3, and where it was measured, the calcium level as well. these are not studies with big n values, but when you look at them side by side it's pretty interesting.

Then again, to date nothing has ever shown conclusively that there is a direct link between low Vit D levels and MS and if there were a provable direct link, that it's a causative factor and not secondary result of the ongoing MS disease process.

there are certainly statistical studies of risk in ms, for instance the military study, where the subjects in the highest quintile ie levels over 100 nmol/L had the lowest risk of ms.

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:47 pm

mommasan · Post by **mommasan** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:31 pm

Hi Jimmy. I don't know what my calcium levels were. But, I only did the additional 50,000 i.u. 1X per week for 2 weeks.

dignan · Post by **dignan** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 3:48 pm

I agree with everybody. Now let's sing cum baya. At the upcoming AAN conference, there is another update on the vitamin D/MS study that involves a few more patients, over a slightly longer time, and even higher vit D doses (with no adverse effects):

http://www.abstracts2view.com/aan2009se ... 110&terms=

Lyon · Post by **Lyon** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:06 pm

mommasan · Post by **mommasan** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:18 pm

I don't know about units, but the nurse said the normal range was 20-100 and she seemed pretty alarmed.

chrishasms · Post by **chrishasms** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:30 pm

Holy wowser!!! I know for a fact lifeguards in HA, which my wifes doctor used to be, was around 100 in the middle of summer!! 166 is just huge. I'm glad they got you fixed Sandy.

patientx · Post by **patientx** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:41 pm

jimmylegs wrote:px you make a good point but i am initially doubtful that momma went from seriously deficient to 414 nmol/L (166 ng/mL) on the regimen described, unless perhaps after the week-long megadose, the weekly 50K went on for quite some time.

That's the problem with stating these numbers without units, especially on a site like this with an international audience. Here in the U.S., the vitamin D test results are usually given in ng/mL (at least that's what it was on my lab report0. (I know you already know this JL, but for the record, 1 ng/mL is approximately 2.5 nmol/L). That's why a reading of 166 would stand out like crazy. However, at least one lab has had issues with vitamin d testing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/busin ... .html?_r=1

Don't know if Hopkins uses them or not.

patientx · Post by **patientx** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:44 pm

mommasan wrote:I don't know about units, but the nurse said the normal range was 20-100 and she seemed pretty alarmed.

Given that this was done in the U.S., I'm assuming that the units are ng/mL. Though the normal range might be 20, from what I've read, the usual minimum quoted for good health is 32.

Post by **jimmylegs** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:53 pm

what units was that 100 chris?

to compare to my handy dandy "table 7.1" which is now out of the file...
the lowest d3 incidence on this particular sheet, showing hypercalcemia, is this one:

schwartzman and franck 1987 describe 50,000IU per day for six weeks

ending up with serum d3 320 nmol/L and serum calcium 3.75 mmol/L

and the craziest one, rizzoli et al 1994, 300,000IU per day, for 6 YEARS, serum d3 1692 nmol/L, and serum calcium 3.30 mmol/L (clearly they were running out of calcium in their skeleton by this point)

so anyway, 320 nmol/L is clearly outside the ballpark, and that converts to
128 ng/mL.

so yep, it really depends on the units momma, whether 166 is scary (ng/mL) or really, pretty ideal (nmol/L). i've been quite happy about getting up to 149 nmol/L myself, but most docs (especially at the time, a whopping 3 years back) would have said i was fine in the 70s or 80s.

so what's the deal, they decided you were d3 deficient without any baseline bloodwork at all?

mommasan · Post by **mommasan** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:05 am

Yup, Dr. Kerr said I must be deficient by just looking at me and told me to take the D without pre-testing what my levels were before treatment.

mommasan · Post by **mommasan** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:09 am

OK..This question is for Jimmy (mostly) Should I be taking in tons of calcium at this point or next to none?