This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

WorriedGF wrote:My partners vim D levels are at 42--- above optium range.

It may be within normal limits but not optimum, at least according to my Neurologist. My range is supposed to be between 80-90 anything under that isn't acceptable.

looks like the wires are crossed on the serum d3 units there...

Snoopy wrote:

WorriedGF wrote:My partners vim D levels are at 42--- above optium range.

It may be within normal limits but not optimum, at least according to my Neurologist. My range is supposed to be between 80-90 anything under that isn't acceptable.

Hrmm, odd. According to mine. Anything under 25 is too low, anything over 30, is optimum, anything over 55 he said would be too high? I'm chronically low myself (at ranging 5-18) and need daily 5,000 IU, and a weekly, 20,000 IU dosages. But mine is due to other issues of my own health.

jimmylegs wrote:should be comforting, right? if only there were no flaws in widely used normal/reference ranges, and no issues with health pros' interpretations of tests that use them!

Yes, it is comforting, however... we wished we knew what was causing his issues than. I was hoping it was a simple b12, of vim d3 issue. That would be easily fixed.

good old false sense of security; therein lies the problem.

there are indeed flaws with the reference ranges and their interpretation. often people also misinterpret the meaning of the term 'normal' and conflate it with 'healthy' when often deficiency and symptoms thereof demonstrably occur within a reference aka 'normal' range.

fortunately, researchers have begun to red flag this situation as a failure of ethics in health care.

re the vit d3 back and forth above: units, folks. i very strongly suspect that if you both add units to the d3 figures you're talking about, things will start to make sense.

I dug up my doctor notes...

"25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Optimal Level: 25-100 ng/mL
Deficiency: <10 ng/mL
Toxicity: >150 ng/mL"

Is the notes from your PCP? Most PCP really don't understand Vitamin D. My PCP has told me things about Vitamin D levels that is completely different than the information from my Neurologist. Some labs such as LabCorp allow patients to sign up and see their lab results. Labs list the "normal" ranges and if your numbers are too low or too high. In seeing the Lab report you might have a better understanding. The ranges for D is based on old information specifically for Rickets. It's now know that Vitamin D plays a role in many different conditions/diseases. The low end of "normal" is too low. Those ranges will hopefully be changed in the near future.

42 ng/ml is a solid place to start. many need to work up to 40 as just their starting point. here's why it's not cool to hang out in the 10-40 zone:

a large study examining ms risk in military personnel divided subjects into five groups by serum d3 level. the highest quintile was '40 ng/ml and up'. this group had the lowest ms risk compared to all groups with levels below 40ng/ml.

so even though the SO is comfortably situated between 10 and 150 ng/ml, he is kind of circling the drain in terms of remaining in that lowest risk 40+ group. variation over the course of a single year could have him in a higher risk category for a long period of time.

if other vitamin and mineral cofactors are also in good shape, higher levels could be considered as a potential target. many of us aim for the 50-60 ng/ml neighbourhood for serum vitamin d3. these levels are not associated with toxicity risks such as hypercalcemia - esp if cofactors (eg magnesium and calcium intake ratio for just one example) are properly managed.

devil is in the details!

WorriedGF wrote:I dug up my doctor notes...

"25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Optimal Level: 25-100 ng/mL
Deficiency: <10 ng/mL
Toxicity: >150 ng/mL"

Please compare your doctor's reference range to the chart found in the following article:

https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/testkit/

I think your doctor's range is out of step with most vitamin D experts (certainly with the 48 experts who partner with GrassrootsHealth, http://www.GrassrootsHealth.net, and who recommend that the vitamin D level should be at least 40-60 ng/mL. In the matter of nutrients, it is usually better to be in the high end of the reference range, rather than the low-end.

'at least' sounds like a vague and potentially dangerous assertion to my mind

Hi,

If we go back to your first post, how did you find out he has MS? The "mild form" description is a bit vague.

You do say he won't "get checked out". Why do you think that is?

It's a little confusing to work from this to make a suggestion.

Regards,

Snoopy wrote:Is the notes from your PCP? Most PCP really don't understand Vitamin D. My PCP has told me things about Vitamin D levels that is completely different than the information from my Neurologist. Some labs such as LabCorp allow patients to sign up and see their lab results. Labs list the "normal" ranges and if your numbers are too low or too high. In seeing the Lab report you might have a better understanding. The ranges for D is based on old information specifically for Rickets. It's now know that Vitamin D plays a role in many different conditions/diseases. The low end of "normal" is too low. Those ranges will hopefully be changed in the near future.

It was a note from my endocrinologist and I verified it through my Neurologist. I'll do some more research into it, thanks! And upping his Vim D I think 5,000 IU daily should be good for him

Scott1 wrote:Hi,

If we go back to your first post, how did you find out he has MS? The "mild form" description is a bit vague.

You do say he won't "get checked out". Why do you think that is?

It's a little confusing to work from this to make a suggestion.

Regards,

He has NEVER been formally dx with M/s. However, with all the lab work, and unable to find anything else wrong, and with a history of brain lesions in his family (ans his father's doctor saying his dad's lesions where most likely M/s related) there is a possibility of family history but that wasn't even ever confirmed. I said "mild" because he's still able to hold down and function a full time job (however, is in extreme pain from it).

An Chiro, endocrinologist, neurologist, and eye doctor all brought up the M/s possibility. That's a lot of people :/

We haven't gotten him to see anymore specialist or testing due to insurance cost. And he's worried about going into debt.

jimmylegs wrote:42 ng/ml is a solid place to start. many need to work up to 40 as just their starting point. here's why it's not cool to hang out in the 10-40 zone:

a large study examining ms risk in military personnel divided subjects into five groups by serum d3 level. the highest quintile was '40 ng/ml and up'. this group had the lowest ms risk compared to all groups with levels below 40ng/ml.

so even though the SO is comfortably situated between 10 and 150 ng/ml, he is kind of circling the drain in terms of remaining in that lowest risk 40+ group. variation over the course of a single year could have him in a higher risk category for a long period of time.

if other vitamin and mineral cofactors are also in good shape, higher levels could be considered as a potential target. many of us aim for the 50-60 ng/ml neighbourhood for serum vitamin d3. these levels are not associated with toxicity risks such as hypercalcemia - esp if cofactors (eg magnesium and calcium intake ratio for just one example) are properly managed.

devil is in the details!

Interesting. I'll deffo have to boost him up in Vim D3 and see if it helps him Currently, mine are under 10 and been taking mega shots to try to boost them up. And so, I just bought a bunch of new things. Hopefully we can get it more in the 60 range.

I still don't think the Vim D alone is causing all his issues.

Last night he had pins and needle feeling all over his arms and muscle spams and was so dizzy he couldn't get out of bed.