Interesting article on ideal vitamin D levels - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 7 Old 01-28-2010, 11:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
amcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know I've read on here that 50 - 75 (or was it 50 - 100?) was ideal.

I just found this article that says 35 - 40 is actually ideal. Any thoughts?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

And here's the interesting part of the article related to ideal blood levels:

Quote:
The "Ideal" Vitamin D Blood Level
Over the past few decades, the "normal" blood level of vitamin D (25-OH vitamin D) was based on the amount needed to keep PTH from becoming abnormally high. Again, PTH at high levels can cause calcium loss from the bone, so this would make sense that vitamin D could maintain or improve bone health at these levels. However, PTH can change due to renal function, exercise level, the time of day, or even diet. There has been no consensus on the optimal level of vitamin D intake to reduce PTH, and this is why many laboratories report the normal range of vitamin D to be so wide (20 to 40 ng/ml, or in some cases, 50 to 100 nmol). However, this is tantamount to saying a normal total cholesterol level is between 100 to 500.
What is the best blood level of vitamin D? Several prominent experts reviewed a large number of past studies to arrive at an answer to this question (Bischoff-Ferrari, Giovannucci, Willett, Dietrich, & Dawson-Hughes, 2006). Their findings were satisfactory in this author's opinion. A variety of health changes not specific to bone health were evaluated, and the researchers sought to determine what level of vitamin D could maintain muscle strength, prevent falls, improve dental health, and prevent cancer (especially colorectal cancer). Weaker evidence for vitamin D includes preventing multiple sclerosis, other cancers, arthritis, hypertension, and tuberculosis, as well as solving insulin problems (diabetes mellitus). These researchers also reviewed a variety of other areas apart from keeping PTH normal and looked at studies that included a variety of ethnic groups. These experts found a consistent answer, which is that most clinical studies in a variety of health areas point toward a blood level of vitamin D that is between 90 to 100 nmol/L, or 35 to 40 ng/ml, for preventive health.
Why not surpass the number of 35 to 40 ng/ml as some experts have suggested? Unfortunately, higher does not mean better. Medical research is replete with examples of where a little higher helped, but more was not necessarily better. Supraphysiologic levels beyond what is now recommended in this manuscript is not yet supported in medical literature. It is interesting that some studies (for example, in the area of prostate cancer) have not yet found considerable benefits to achieving such higher vitamin D levels (Mucci & Spiegelman, 2008). In fact, it has been suggested that long-term significant increases in vitamin D could be detrimental. Thus, some experts suggest that there is no harm of carrying high vitamin D levels (70 ng/ml or more for example), but this recommendation is based on acute and not chronic observations. Not long ago, this same philosophy was applied to selenium or vitamin E, and ample evidence now exists to suggest that toxicity can occur when these nutrients are given chronically in mega-doses to achieve higher-than-normal blood levels of these nutrients.
amcal is offline  
#2 of 7 Old 01-28-2010, 11:41 PM
 
KimPM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"Upon reaching the goal, most individuals need to supplement with 800 to 1,000 IU per day to maintain this level."

I have found that 1000 IU daily is a maintenance dose for me.

Kim sewmachine.gif mama to DS autismribbon.gifreading.gifblahblah.gif12/2005, Pepper kitty cat.gif, and angel1.gif 10/03, angel1.gif 1/05; homeschool.gif

KimPM is offline  
#3 of 7 Old 01-28-2010, 11:58 PM
 
tanyalynn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: TX, but anticipating one more move
Posts: 11,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't see the article, it's a login page for me.
tanyalynn is offline  
#4 of 7 Old 01-29-2010, 12:17 AM - Thread Starter
 
amcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TanyaLopez View Post
I can't see the article, it's a login page for me.
Hmm, that's weird. It's a log in page for me now too.
I quoted the part about the blood levels above. I found the entire article here:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
amcal is offline  
#5 of 7 Old 06-25-2010, 03:49 PM - Thread Starter
 
amcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,729
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just wondering if anyone read the above article and if you have any thoughts?

I was diagnosed with melanoma last year so I've been very, very careful about my sun exposure over the past 12 months.

I just had my levels tested and I was at 43.5 ng/ml. I'm thinking this is ok based on the above research???

Sigh - it's all so confusing.
amcal is offline  
#6 of 7 Old 06-26-2010, 03:19 AM
 
luminesce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In a perpetual 2WW
Posts: 2,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This is an interesting chart:

Disease Incidence Prevention by Sereum 25(OH)D Level

Me (37) ~ DH (39) ~ DS (3) ~ TTC #2 since 4/10
luminesce is offline  
#7 of 7 Old 06-26-2010, 03:43 AM
 
Ammaarah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,378
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
amcal, I read the article. I get my vitamin D checked regularly, along with a ton of other labs. These include calcium and parathormone/parathyroid hormone, aka PTH. When my vitamin D was in the high 30s, my PTH was elevated (higher is NOT better for PTH), indicating my body was taking calcium out of my bones to keep my blood calcium level stable. Now that I've gotten my vitamin D into the high 50s, my PTH has dropped back into the normal range. I think it's good not to look at test results individually if they are related to other issues, you know? For me personally, a vitamin D level in the 30s or 40s might be detrimental.

I should add that I have had a malabsorptive weight loss procedure performed, so it's possible those with normal systems might not have PTH problems with lower D values, but it's worth asking for PTH to be tested even if you are not a WLS patient, IMO.
Ammaarah is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off