or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › If you tested your Vit D levels......
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If you tested your Vit D levels...... - Page 2

post #21 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanSimplicity View Post
wow - did anyone test and actually have good levels of 50-65?
It is shocking isn't it? But what we see here is consistent with every single study I've seen on vitamin D levels. Almost everyone (even high sun exposure people) are deficient. I wish vitamin D levels were routine medical tests.
post #22 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BookGoddess View Post
Not directly answering your question but I have to admit I did a wow when I heard my results. I live in Hawaii. Hawaii! I was sure I was getting Vitamin D from the sun. I was wrong. If I can have low Vitamin D levels living in Hawaii then people in colder climates should really take it upon themselves to check their levels. It's a simple blood test.
There was a very well designed study of those in Hawaii with very high sun exposure. Almost all of them were under 50 and over half were under 30. The study put forth several thoughts that all boiled down to not everyone makes adequate vitamin D from sun no matter the amount of exposure.
post #23 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanyaLopez View Post
You did those at about the same time? That's not impressive for the blood spot version. Bummer! I read a little on the blood spot version but didn't see actual data comparing it to a regular blood draw.

eta: do you know what company did the whole blood test? Maybe it IS good if it was Quest. (hope springs eternal)

eta2: I did the math, 43/1.3 = 33 (close enough to me).
I did a little bit of leg work surrounding the conflicting results. My whole blood lab was processed by LabCorp. The spot test was done by ZRT Labs. There is no easy answer about why the results were so different. This, sums up a lot of it, however (and honestly, I'm not sure which I trust to be more reliable):

http://www.zrtlab.com/download-docum...vitamin-d.html

In general, however, there has been quite a bit of variability in Vitamin D testing. I was told that even blood draws at the same time from the same person done by the same lab can sometimes vary by 25%.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/07/bu....19168971.html

I used to think all blood test results are reliable but now I realize the science is not as exact as we like to think. For Vitamin D, I really recommend screens and re-screens, which unfortunately gets a little expensive. I'm still using ZRT labs because it is convenient to do the finger stick.

(It is a bit like the hair element tests I see so many people doing. I keep wanting to do one for DS but I've read so much about environmental contamination, conflicting results received by people by different labs, poor quality control, no REAL evidence that what is in the hair analysis is actually in the body, etc. that I haven't yet.)
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgrace View Post
The study put forth several thoughts that all boiled down to not everyone makes adequate vitamin D from sun no matter the amount of exposure.
Yup. I think that has been me. All my life. And I have an autoimmune condition now to show for it.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naturalyst View Post
Less than 1 - unmeasurable. No joke. I was tested and retested by different labs.

I had been in so much pain (muscle aches) for so long before a doctor thought to test.

After a couple of months, it got up to 15. Going for a retest again, soon. Hoping to hit within the normal range soon.
This is exactly where I think I was about six months before being diagnosed with MS. I was in so much muscle pain I literally thought I had cancer or something horrible going on! In retrospect, I am now pretty sure that I was likely completely devoid of Vitamin D. Good luck getting your levels corrected! I'd like my levels to be 50-60!
post #26 of 45
148.

Seriously.

I just drew blood for a retest as that is a toxic number.
post #27 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandme View Post
148.

Seriously.

I just drew blood for a retest as that is a toxic number.
are you supplementing?
post #28 of 45
and i thought above 200 was POTENTIALLY toxic.
post #29 of 45
I don't think that's toxic? I agree you need to reassess supplements assuming you were supplementing. But I don't think that's toxic under any measurement.

Was it a ng/ML or an nmol/L? Either way not toxic in my understanding. http://dietary-supplements.info.nih....s/vitamind.asp Govt. issued toxic levels information.

How much were you taking? Given how quickly I went up I keep wondering about the variability of dose levels.
post #30 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgrace View Post
I don't think that's toxic? I agree you need to reassess supplements assuming you were supplementing. But I don't think that's toxic under any measurement.

Was it a ng/ML or an nmol/L? Either way not toxic in my understanding. http://dietary-supplements.info.nih....s/vitamind.asp Govt. issued toxic levels information.

How much were you taking? Given how quickly I went up I keep wondering about the variability of dose levels.
No supplements, unless you count the 400 IUs in my prenatal. I was 38 weeks pregnant at the time and eating a ton of dairy, cottage cheese, etc. because I was trying to follow a more GD-based diet (didn't have GD though). I was trying to do a lot of non-sunscreen outside time but I am really pale. Perhaps I just need less sun?

I don't know any of the details of the test, just that my midwives gave the result to my primary care doctor and they called me and told me it was too high and to retest in 6 weeks (which I did 2 days ago).

My kid's ped thinks it's a fantastic number though, lol.

eta: thanks for the reassurance on toxicity. I thought anything over 100 was toxic but I read that online somewhere and have no idea about the reliability. I feel absolutely fine, though! Best part is I avoided PPD though I had it last time and I have a much screamier baby this go round.
post #31 of 45
Now I read somewhere that you can't bath with in 24-36 hous of sun exposure or your body could not absorb the vitamin d, has anyone else heard this?
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandme View Post
No supplements, unless you count the 400 IUs in my prenatal. I was 38 weeks pregnant at the time and eating a ton of dairy, cottage cheese, etc. because I was trying to follow a more GD-based diet (didn't have GD though). I was trying to do a lot of non-sunscreen outside time but I am really pale. Perhaps I just need less sun?

I don't know any of the details of the test, just that my midwives gave the result to my primary care doctor and they called me and told me it was too high and to retest in 6 weeks (which I did 2 days ago).

My kid's ped thinks it's a fantastic number though, lol.

eta: thanks for the reassurance on toxicity. I thought anything over 100 was toxic but I read that online somewhere and have no idea about the reliability. I feel absolutely fine, though! Best part is I avoided PPD though I had it last time and I have a much screamier baby this go round.
Just curious -- have you ever had symptoms of sarcoidosis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis

Vitamin D is a critical factor in many auto-immune illnesses. Deficiency is typical in such diseases (like with MS, which I have) but some people can have too much due to systemic dysregulation of Vitamin D. Off of the top of my head, the only auto-immune condition I'm aware of that is associated with high levels is sarcoidosis (but there may be others.) In any case, if my level was that high without supplementing, I'd get further bloodwork done, particularly calcium and parathyroid levels. I'd also have a conversation with someone about the possibility of auto-immune dysfunction/disease and keep that possibility in the back of my head. Sarcoidosis, like other autoimmune illnesses can be rather vague in some people.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenitii View Post
Just curious -- have you ever had symptoms of sarcoidosis? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcoidosis

Vitamin D is a critical factor in many auto-immune illnesses. Deficiency is typical in such diseases (like with MS, which I have) but some people can have too much due to systemic dysregulation of Vitamin D. Off of the top of my head, the only auto-immune condition I'm aware of that is associated with high levels is sarcoidosis (but there may be others.) In any case, if my level was that high without supplementing, I'd get further bloodwork done, particularly calcium and parathyroid levels. I'd also have a conversation with someone about the possibility of auto-immune dysfunction/disease and keep that possibility in the back of my head. Sarcoidosis, like other autoimmune illnesses can be rather vague in some people.
Nope. That was not a very reassuring link, though.
post #34 of 45
49 last April...had been taking 2000iu/day. I have upped it to 5000. My 18mo old is taking 2000/day.

I am signing us both up for the Vit D study where we will have the ZRT test done every 6 months.
post #35 of 45
I was supplementing with 4,000 IU/day then had my D tested a month ago - came back at 77. My doc of course said it's slightly elevated, but I was very glad it was up there.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pandme View Post
Nope. That was not a very reassuring link, though.
I didn't mean to scare you; I would just keep it in the back of my head. You might just be lucky and synthesize it well from the sunlight. Who knows - maybe people with naturally high vitamin D levels are the ones who live to be 120.
post #37 of 45
I would never have know anything at all was wrong if I hadn't decided to get the test done to see if I was low.

Something is probably wrong, though. Realistically speaking, that is a high number and I really have no explanation for it. I am prone to forming kidney stones too....lots of people in my family are. It's been about 7 years since I had one.

Just what I need with a new baby screaming in my ear all day. I wonder if all the tests they recommend for this stuff (chest X-rays, etc.) will require me stop BFing.
post #38 of 45
Pandme, if you haven't already gotten your blood calcium tested, I'd do that. sbgrace will probably be back to this thread, but if not, you can search her old posts for parathyroid, I think it's involved in calcium regulation and I'd think vitamin D would be involved there (sbgrace says serum calcium shouldn't be >10--she has good links, obviously I just follow along ). It _is_ odd to have it so high, I'd want to keep looking to figure out a reason.
post #39 of 45
yeah, I suppose once these results come back in a week or so, they'll tell me what further tests to have. Hypercalcemia was mentioned to me, so I'm sure they will want to test calcium levels.
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post
49 last April...had been taking 2000iu/day. I have upped it to 5000. My 18mo old is taking 2000/day.

I am signing us both up for the Vit D study where we will have the ZRT test done every 6 months.
Do you have more information on this study?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Women's Health
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › If you tested your Vit D levels......