After many months of procrastination I finally got my Vitamin D test done about 10 days ago. It's actually a D3 test called 25 hydroxy test and in India it costs about 25$. I was shocked that the level had dropped to 18.30 nmol/L and the normal is about 75 and the excellent level is 250. I started on uprise-D3 60K tabs (cholecalciferol) one a week for 2 months then another test to check levels. I should say that after the second dose all my nagging pains muscular, joints, and fatigue have just vanished, thinking and concentration is improved many folds. I think if you feel you're not exposed to sunlight at least one hour everyday and have any symptoms like what I had you should get the test done and start the supplements. There is no serious overdose problem if your test indicate less than 50 you can straight away start the supplement without going to a doctor. Guys believe me it works like magic and regret not having got it done earlier. I am feeling a lot more horny. Hope this helps someone. Good luck.

i doubt im deficient but would love something to relieve aches and pains

 

sounds great might try some?

I supplement with Vitamin D currently.

 

Vitamin D seems to be the rage these days, and it's an amazing supplement.

 

I supplement twice a week with 35,000 IU's each time:

 

Raise Levels to 32 ng/ml (Standard Units used in U.S.) or 80 nmol/L (International Units)
If you’re levels are below 32 ng/ml, it's recommended to use a dosing protocol to initially raise your vitamin D levels.

For some physiological reason yet to be fully explained by science, a large bolus dose twice a week seems to work better for raising vitamin D status than taking the same dose divided over 7 days.

 

In other words, taking 35,000 IUs twice a week works better than 5,000 IUs every day for 7 days. Interestingly, the biweekly bolus dose appears to be more effective than even a much larger daily dose such as 10,000 IUs every day for 7 days.

 

 

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/875/Five_Steps_To_Manage_Your_Vitamin_D_Levels_.aspx

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/Tips/tabid/130/entryid/410/25-Excellent-Reasons-to-Take-Vitamin-D.aspx

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/951/Optimize_Your_Vitamin_D_Level_To_Lose_Fat_Gain_Mus.aspx

I ought to get going on V-D supplements too.  I live a bit of a vampire's existence here in the Land of Smells.

 

If lethargy and lack of libido has anything to do with it - I'm in!

 

Any decent suggestions of recommended brands to obtain here in Pattaya?

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by fishybob

 

After many months of procrastination I finally got my Vitamin D test done about 10 days ago. It's actually a D3 test called 25 hydroxy test and in India it costs about 25$. I was shocked that the level had dropped to 18.30 nmol/L and the normal is about 75 and the excellent level is 250. I started on uprise-D3 60K tabs (cholecalciferol) one a week for 2 months then another test to check levels. I should say that after the second dose all my nagging pains muscular, joints, and fatigue have just vanished, thinking and concentration is improved many folds. I think if you feel you're not exposed to sunlight at least one hour everyday and have any symptoms like what I had you should get the test done and start the supplements. There is no serious overdose problem if your test indicate less than 50 you can straight away start the supplement without going to a doctor. Guys believe me it works like magic and regret not having got it done earlier. I am feeling a lot more horny. Hope this helps someone. Good luck.

 

Some scientists are questioning the receive wisdom around low D.

 

Anyway one hour a day of sunlight exposure is far more than is healthy pretty much everywhere except northern Europe, Canada - especially in summer.

Edited April 10, 201511 yr by sinbad5

Can't you just pop a multivitamin??

Nutritionists and dermatologists will butt heads on this in a serious way...

The sun is deadly with respect to cancer.. UV light induces thymine dimers in your DNA, fucking it up and causing mutations.  Your body of course has light repair enzymes to deal with this, but on the rare occasion that it doesn't catch it - cancer.

 

Conversely a lack of sufficient vitamin D (and there is currently no scientific consensus as to how much you need) will cause piles of health problems itself..

 

For white people, 15-20 minutes in the sun ought to be enough for MOST people, though some people will require more, and the darker and more pigmented your skin, the less effective sunlight is.  D3 supplements (seemingly better than D2) are probably the safest way to go..  

Quotaman- I'm interested in that article- where can I read it? As I'm currently on 10,000ius pd........Be interesting to see if the 35,000 twice per week would be more effective.  

 

Taylor1975-  A multi vit, offers very little vit D, and certainly nowhere near the 10,000ius you'd need when not exposing yourself to the sun.

I supplement with Vitamin D currently.

 

Vitamin D seems to be the rage these days, and it's an amazing supplement.

 

I supplement twice a week with 35,000 IU's each time:

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/875/Five_Steps_To_Manage_Your_Vitamin_D_Levels_.aspx

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/Tips/tabid/130/entryid/410/25-Excellent-Reasons-to-Take-Vitamin-D.aspx

 

http://www.poliquingroup.com/ArticlesMultimedia/Articles/Article/951/Optimize_Your_Vitamin_D_Level_To_Lose_Fat_Gain_Mus.aspx

.

.. these articles are very informative, and easily readable to laymen.

 

.. the US' Institute of Medicine publishes minimum daily recommended vitamin D allowance of 600 IU.

 

.. these articles are talking 5,000 IU daily.

 

.. a lot appears still uncertain about this vitamin .. all sources, however, agree on lengthy lists of its wide-ranging effects on health.

 

.. because of its control over so many other minerals and vitamins and much of the body's chemistry, one refers to it as more of a hormone.

 

.. good stuff here, guys.

.

.. these articles are very informative, and easily readable to laymen.

 

.. the US' Institute of Medicine publishes minimum daily recommended vitamin D allowance of 600 IU.

 

.. these articles are talking 5,000 IU daily.

 

.. a lot appears still uncertain about this vitamin .. all sources, however, agree on lengthy lists of its wide-ranging effects on health.

 

.. because of its control over so many other minerals and vitamins and much of the body's chemistry, one refers to it as more of a hormone.

 

.. good stuff here, guys.

 

Supplements may be a waste of money, unless under medical supervision.

 

From Forbes:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2014/01/13/the-top-six-vitamins-you-shouldnt-take/

 

The evidence against supplements continues to pile up.

 

Recently I created a list of The Top 5 Vitamins You Shouldn’t Take. Now I’m expanding that list to include vitamin D, which is taken by almost half of older adults. Now, two new studies in latest issue of The Lancet show that most of these people are wasting their money.

 

The first study is a large review by Philippe Autier and colleagues, who found that taking supplemental vitamin D has no effect on a wide range of diseases and conditions. After looking at over 450 studies, the authors conclude:

 

“The absence of an effect of vitamin D supplementation on disease occurrence, severity, and clinical course leads to the hypothesis that variations [in vitamin D levels] would essentially be a result, and not a cause, of ill health.”

 

So it appears that we’ve been getting cause and effect backwards, at least as far as vitamin D is concerned.

 

Autier looked at non-skeletal disorders, including heart disease, weight gain, mood disorders, multiple sclerosis, and metabolic disorders, all of which have been linked to lower vitamin D. In trial after trial, supplemental vitamin D had no beneficial effect on any of these conditions. Autier et al concluded that:

 

“associations between 25(OH)D and health disorders … are not causal. Low 25(OH)D [vitamin D] could be the result of inflammatory processes involved in disease.”

 

Instead, the researchers found, in study after study, that low vitamin D was the result of poor health, not the cause.

 

The Autier study didn’t look at the biggest supposed benefit of vitamin D: protection against osteoporosis. We’ve long known that vitamin D is associated with bone health. Fortunately, in the same issue of The Lancet, Ian Reid and colleagues looked closely at this question. They reviewed 23 studies with 4082 participants, all designed to determine at whether supplemental vitamin D improves bone density. Their findings? It doesn’t help. They concluded:

 

“Continuing widespread use of vitamin D for osteoporosis prevention in community-dwelling adults without specific risk factors for vitamin D deficiency seems to be inappropriate.”

 

Vitamin D supplements, to put it plainly, are a waste of money.

 

[Article continues]

Edited April 11, 201511 yr by sinbad5

Quotaman- I'm interested in that article- where can I read it? As I'm currently on 10,000ius pd........Be interesting to see if the 35,000 twice per week would be more effective.  

 

Taylor1975-  A multi vit, offers very little vit D, and certainly nowhere near the 10,000ius you'd need when not exposing yourself to the sun.

 

It's in the link I provided.

 

.

.. these articles are very informative, and easily readable to laymen.

 

.. the US' Institute of Medicine publishes minimum daily recommended vitamin D allowance of 600 IU.

 

.. these articles are talking 5,000 IU daily.

 

.. a lot appears still uncertain about this vitamin .. all sources, however, agree on lengthy lists of its wide-ranging effects on health.

 

.. because of its control over so many other minerals and vitamins and much of the body's chemistry, one refers to it as more of a hormone.

 

.. good stuff here, guys.

 

I enjoy reading Poliquin. His articles are easy to read for everyday people.

 

As for Sinbad5's links, here is a different opinion:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/on-vitamin-d-the-so-called-experts-have-it-wrong-u-k-researcher-says

 

 

However, The Lancet, the world’s best-known medical journal, recently suggested in an editorial that most of the benefits of vitamin D advanced by scientific studies are a “myth.” It says people tend to have low vitamin D when they are ill because they do not go outdoors very much.

 

This was also the view presented in papers published in The Lancet by two teams, Philippe Autier of the International Prevention Research Institute, Lyon, and Mark Bolland of the Department of Medicine, University of Auckland.

 

They argue that clinical trials of vitamin D have failed to show any clear benefit. However, most of the trials have used low doses of the vitamin. Professor Michael Holick, pioneer of vitamin D research at Boston University, says 4,000 units per day is required to give an optimum level of the vitamin in the blood, enough to prevent disease. A number of clinical trials relied on by The Lancet editorial and its authors used a daily dose of just 400 units.

 

The Lancet and its authors have also, in my view, used defective scientific reasoning based on what statisticians call a “type 2 error.” They have over-generalized a result that has only a narrow basis in fact. A negative result in a clinical trial of vitamin D supplementation in adults cannot be generalized because it cannot rule out damage caused by vitamin D deficiency many years earlier that is irreversible. Adult disease may be caused by deficiency of vitamin D occurring in childhood or teenage years and such disease may not be remedied by taking in more of the vitamin later in life.

 

This is the case with rickets, a bone deformation in children caused by lack of both sunshine and vitamin D. Rickets may be corrected if vitamin D is given to a child. But once bones stop growing in adulthood, deformities become fixed and cannot be changed by giving vitamin D. I have explained these errors in more detail in a peer-reviewed article in Public Health Nutrition.

 

There is good evidence to suggest that a shortage of vitamin D in the womb and early life may be a cause of three serious diseases: multiple sclerosis, type 1 (juvenile) diabetes, and autism. Heart disease and a number of cancers are also linked to insufficient vitamin D at various life stages.

 

It can be difficult to decide where the truth lies when experts disagree, but not when, as in The Lancet’s vitamin D articles, the argument depends upon a basic statistical error.

 

 

http://pandemicsurvivor.com/category/vitamin-d-research/

 

It's in the link I provided.

 

 

I enjoy reading Poliquin. His articles are easy to read for everyday people.

 

As for Sinbad5's links, here is a different opinion:

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/on-vitamin-d-the-so-called-experts-have-it-wrong-u-k-researcher-says

 

 

 

http://pandemicsurvivor.com/category/vitamin-d-research/

 

Okay fine, but Olivier Gillie is a journalist, and that is a newspaper article, not a peer reviewed paper in the Lancet.

 

People would do well to carefully consider the claims made by the supplements industry and the studies they fund in the light of their self-interest.

 

With regard to Vitamin D you can also throw the indoor tanning industry into the mix. Also very active in pushing the Vitamin D barrow, cherry picking research and selective reporting.

Okay fine, but Olivier Gillie is a journalist, and that is a newspaper article, not a peer reviewed paper in the Lancet.

 

People would do well to carefully consider the claims made by the supplements industry and the studies they fund in the light of their self-interest.

 

With regard to Vitamin D you can also throw the indoor tanning industry into the mix. Also very active in pushing the Vitamin D barrow, cherry picking research and selective reporting.

 

I agree, whether you take supplements or not, best thing to do is to research all sides and information before deciding a course of action. 

I have been taking 1x5000ui everyday since watching this scientist on the Joe Rogan Podcast early last year. After reading this I'm going to try the 35000ui twice a week.

You don’t need to tan or to burn your skin in order to get the vitamin D you need. Exposing your skin for a short time will make all the vitamin D your body can produce in one day. In fact, your body can produce 10,000 to 25,000 IU of vitamin D in just a little under the time it takes for your skin to turn pink. You make the most vitamin D when you expose a large area of your skin, such as your back, rather than a small area such as your face or arms.

There are a number of factors that affect how much vitamin D your body produces when your skin is exposed to sunlight.  These include the time of year and time of day, where you live in the world and the type of skin you have.

The amount of vitamin D you get from exposing your bare skin to the sun depends on:

• The time of day – your skin produces more vitamin D if you expose it during the middle of the day.
• Where you live – the closer to the equator you live, the easier it is for you to produce vitamin D from sunlight all year round.
• The color of your skin – pale skins make vitamin D more quickly than darker skins.
• The amount of skin you expose – the more skin your expose the more vitamin D your body will produce.

https://www.vitamindcouncil.org/about-vitamin-d/how-do-i-get-the-vitamin-d-my-body-needs/

For white people, 15-20 minutes in the sun ought to be enough for MOST people, though some people will require more, and the darker and more pigmented your skin, the less effective sunlight is.  D3 supplements (seemingly better than D2) are probably the safest way to go..  

Careful with the generalisations... It depends. You can get your daily dose of D3 within about 15 min on a sunny mid-day in Patts on the beach whereas in, say February in Manchester, you can stand outdoors on a nice sunny day all day and won't get any vitamin generated. You also tend to store some D3 in the liver so a bit more than you need that day is always ok. As long as you don't get a sunburn it's all fine.

 

With regard to Vitamin D you can also throw the indoor tanning industry into the mix. Also very active in pushing the Vitamin D barrow, cherry picking research and selective reporting.

Principally yes but do check your tanning salon and what type of tubes they use. It's not that "UV light" or even "UVB radiation" generates D3 in the skin but only a very narrow band of radiation at the low end of UVB (~295-315nm). If the tubes don't put that out, it won't generate any D3, no matter what they tell you.

Taylor1975-  A multi vit, offers very little vit D, and certainly nowhere near the 10,000ius you'd need when not exposing yourself to the sun.

 

something like this is what folk are taking?

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00PLPXTH0/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0031BQN10&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1HMAYX5DY0P0WETJ0CW4

...

Principally yes but do check your tanning salon and what type of tubes they use. It's not that "UV light" or even "UVB radiation" generates D3 in the skin but only a very narrow band of radiation at the low end of UVB (~295-315nm). If the tubes don't put that out, it won't generate any D3, no matter what they tell you.

Can't check anymore - (UV) tanning salons are banned here!

After listening to a Dr on the radio saying everyone should have a blood test for Vit D deficiency

I went along to my Dr to request the said test.

 

It came back that i was low and was prescribed D3 20,000 iu to be taken EVERY day for 20 days- ( BTW, the box said the 20,000 iu capsules should be taken ONCE a WEEK unless otherwise prescribed)

-when i should go to pharmacy and purchase Vit D3 1,000 (valupak £1 - 60 tabs) to take indefinitely .

 

And was advised to retest in 2 months time.

 

I can endorse what a BM wrote earlier - I also feel hornier and i'm experiencing more erections than usual.

Edited September 6, 201510 yr by The Falang

Also, Vitamin D is one of the cheapest supplements you can buy. One data point. First year after moving to Toronto, I had a tough winter health wise. After starting vitamin D supplements in the winter, I have yet to catch a major cold that last's more than a day or so, for over 5 years.