1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
Nitric oxide and its possible implication in ME/CFS (Part 2 of 2)
Andrew Gladman explores the current and historic hypotheses relating to nitric oxide problems in ME/CFS. This second article in a 2-Part series puts nitric oxide under the microscope and explores what it is, what it does and why it is so frequently discussed in the world of ME/CFS....
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The Times: Vitamin D boost for all 'will treat national health shame' and CFS/ME

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Firestormm, Feb 12, 2012.

  1. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    244
    Hi mellster, thank you for your earlier compliment, your right a lot of people do have absorption problems weather it is from one of the malabsorption illnesses or a lack of cofactors, which stops them from getting the benefits. The point is these are unusual reactions that show that there is something wrong, which in most cases could be diagnosed and treated. I think also a lot of people are not aware that the reference ranges used by the lab are over a 100% lower than they should be, so people get their levels up to where the out of date reference ranges say that they should be and dont notice much difference and give up, my initial tests results said that I was just above deficiency level and the doctors thought that there was no need whatsoever to treat it, and Im so glad I ignored them!!

    I think because CFS is made up of so many different conditions you are always going to find some people that it works great for and others that it doesnt, but as I see it, it is a cheap treatment and all that is being recommended is to get vitamin D levels to where nature intended them to be, as you say if nothing else it will give people protection from all the other illnesses that they could develop if they dont get their vitamin D levels up.

    All the best
  2. Chris

    Chris Senior Member

    Messages:
    578
    Likes:
    175
    Victoria, BC
    Vit D research

    Hi; I can suggest a few interesting pieces on the issue of Vit D supplementation. First I would put Stephanie Seneff's "Sulfur Deficiency" on the Weston Price website, which contains a section headed "Is the skin a solar-powered battery for the heart?"; she shows that the Vit D we make from UV is not the same as the D3 we ingest, and has powers that the latter lacks. This is supported by an interesting little essay by Colby Vorland, "Mouse MS: UVB but not Vitamin D reduced incidence-April 2010"-- http://www.vitamindwiki.com/tiki-index.php?page_id286 .

    There is a good interview with Krispin Sullivan, who wrote a book on Vit D and the sun, "Naked at Noon: Understanding the Importance of Sunlight and Vitamin D", in an issue of the "In Focus" magazine on www.nutricology.com site. I won't attempt to sum up and advise beyond saying that it does appear that UV can do things pills and food can't, and that taking huge amounts of D3 at one shot may not be wise.

    I have been using a lamp that gives both UV A and B, on the grounds that while B produces Vit D in the skin, A also has functions, one of which appears to be integrated with the nitrite /nitrate story behind the magic of dark green vegetables and beets (see Terry Wahls story). Of course it is important not to get too much in one exposure.
    Best, Chris
  3. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,261
    Likes:
    1,658
    Australia
    Thanks rlc.

    My personal experience is that a few years back in winter I had my levels tested and they were very low, 39 nmol/L. I since took a somewhat high dose of vitamin D initially and my levels went up 89 nmol/L. I didn't notice any change in my health, though I continue to keep my levels higher since I suspect there may be long term benefit.
  4. Sallysblooms

    Sallysblooms P.O.T.S. now SO MUCH BETTER!

    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes:
    327
    Southern USA
    Yes, long term is important, immune system is just one reason to get it up.
  5. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,018
    Likes:
    10,794
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Just to add to the view that many ME epidemics have been far from the equator. There are two documented ME epidemics in Australia that I am aware of, and both were in Adelaide which is on the south end of the main island. Bye, Alex
  6. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    3,948
    Likes:
    800
    Concord, NH
    Do you have a link to a lamp? Do you know about how much they cost?

    GG
  7. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    3,948
    Likes:
    800
    Concord, NH
  8. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    244
    Hi snow leopard RE My personal experience is that a few years back in winter I had my levels tested and they were very low, 39 nmol/L. I since took a somewhat high dose of vitamin D initially and my levels went up 89 nmol/L. I didn't notice any change in my health, though I continue to keep my levels higher since I suspect there may be long term benefit.

    The new research shows that the minimum amount of Vitamin D that a person should have is between 125 nmol/l and 200 nmol/L (50-80 ng/ml for the people in countries that use the different units of measurement), so at 89 nmol/L your still considerably under that, in my personal experience my first tests said I was 56 nmol/L, I then took supplements and got it retested after a while and it was 88nmol/L, so basically the same as yours, but I didnt notice much improvement, but because I had read the new research I kept going, and it wasnt until I had reached the levels that the new research recommends that I noticed the dramatic improvements, cant promise anything as everyone is different, but at 89 nmol/L your still 44 nmol/L about a third under the recommended minimum amount needed, so maybe if you were interested, getting your vitamin D up to the new recommended levels may lead to improvement in your symptoms.

    All the best
  9. Chris

    Chris Senior Member

    Messages:
    578
    Likes:
    175
    Victoria, BC
    Hi, Ggingues, here is the ULR of the company that sells the lamp I bought--I chose the "Tanning lamp" rather than the Vit D lamp, since it covers both UV A and B, and there is a small abstract somewhere showing it does raise Vit D levels: http://www.sperti.com It is an American company, so I had to pay more buying it in Canada. It seems OK, though the instruction booklet is woefully inadequate.
    Best, Chris
  10. ggingues

    ggingues $10 gift code at iHerb GAS343 of $40

    Messages:
    3,948
    Likes:
    800
    Concord, NH
    Thanks. did you research other products. $400 dollars, ouch! Although I have read it is better to get it "naturally" than to take supplements. Not sure this would be the same as the sun, will have to research it some time.

    GG
  11. Waverunner

    Waverunner Senior Member

    Messages:
    992
    Likes:
    836
    I love your signature. As long as government prevents new companies from entering the market by implementing gigantic entry barriers we will not see any fast progress like we see everywhere else.
  12. Chris

    Chris Senior Member

    Messages:
    578
    Likes:
    175
    Victoria, BC
    GG, yes, I did some checking, but if you find anything cheaper that looks as if it would do the same job please let us know. Chris
  13. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    244
    Hi Chris, You put up a link showing that UVB not vitamin D reduced MS in Mice, however human studies have been done that do show that vitamin D supplementation does reduce MS lesions as measured on brain scans, they found that by supplementing with vitamin D and raising vitamin D levels from a mean of 31ng/ml (which would not normally be considered deficient under the old reference ranges) to 154 ng/ml after 28 weeks ( a very high level that should not be attempted by people without medical supervision) they found that the number of MS lesions on brain scans dropped from an initial mean of 1.75 to a mean 0.83 at the end of the 28 week study. See http://www.ajcn.org/content/86/3/645.full

    Agreed nature is best, but proper sun exposure is just not possible for some people, especially in areas where there is no vitamin D producing UVB in the sun for the winter months, I very much doubt that any lamp is capable of doing everything the sun does, If Im following the link that you put up correctly the tanning light that you selected produces 70% UVA and 30% UVB, it certainly doesnt reproduce the effects of the sun, because a certain amount of UVC does get through the earths ozone layer.

    UVA is the one mainly responsible for tanning, and is therefore believed to cause a lot of skin cancer, a large amount of the medical community wants tanning beds banned because of this, UVB is also linked to skin cancer, but UVB at the right frequency is the only UV that leads to the creation of Vitamin D in Humans.

    Anyone using UV lamps to treat vitamin D deficiency needs to realise that getting burned with it gives them a risk of malignant melanoma, and they need to know that regular UV exposure from these lamps puts them at risk of non melanoma skin cancers and ageing skin. The other problem with these lamps is that you dont know exactly what amount of vitamin D you are getting, which can make working out treatment difficult. They do raise vitamin D levels, but they do come with risks, and they dont exactly reproduce the effects of the sun. The other thing is that they are expensive, and vitamin D3 is dirt cheap, someone with a significant vitamin D deficiency could need up to a million IUs to treat it, I can get 100,000 IU in 1000 IU tablets for 13 dollars at my local shop, I can get 500,000 IU in 50,000 IU tablets prescribed by my doctor for $3. So its a lot cheaper.

    Like I say Im sure the sun does produce other effects that we dont fully understand, but UV lamps are not the sun. When it comes to just vitamin D it has been well studied, and vitamin D3 supplementation does produce the same vitamin D in the body as the sun does, supplementation with D3 has been shown to cure all the known symptoms of vitamin D deficiency when given in sufficient amounts, and it does increase vitamin D levels in the body so it does work.

    Not trying to tell anyone what to do, but UV lamps dont 100% percent reproduce the effects of the sun, they come with potentially fatal health risks, they are expensive, and its hard to work out the amount of treatment your getting, but they will increase vitamin D levels as long as they produce sufficient amounts of UVB at the right frequency.

    Supplementation with D3 however is very cheap, doesnt have the skin cancer risks, is easy to work out the amount of treatment needed, and has a proven history of working to cure vitamin D deficiency.

    Obviously its everybodys own choice which methods they use, but I felt it important to point out the potential risks. It is for the reasons that I have outlined that the experts in vitamin D treatment say that vitamin D3 treatment should be the treatment of choice.

    All the best
  14. FunkOdyssey

    FunkOdyssey Senior Member

    Messages:
    143
    Likes:
    10
    The risk of excessive levels of 25OHD is underappreciated. In fact there is a U-curve, where both low and high 25OHD levels are associated with increased all-cause mortality rates (the most important bottom-line metric out there). Optimal levels from this perspective appear to be about 40ng/mL. This is one of the reasons the Institute of Medicine rejected the Vitamin D Council's cries for large increases in the RDA value for Vitamin D -- evidence did not support it.
  15. Chris

    Chris Senior Member

    Messages:
    578
    Likes:
    175
    Victoria, BC
    Hi, Ric-thanks for an interesting response. I am currently caught up in several projects, and have the usual lack of energy, but your info deserves a thoughtful response, and so I will take a couple of days or so to answer properly. In the meantime, thanks for the link to the Toronto study, which I did not know, and of course warnings are appropriate--for both such lamps and the sun itself. And I assure you that I prefer the sun--but it won't be warm or sunny enough here for quite a while yet!
    Best, Chris
  16. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    244
    Hi all interested in vitamin D, although I have put links to relevant modern research, I do realise that a lot of these are very long and technical articles, which, as a lot of people here are very tired and have trouble with brain fog etc, I thought Id try and write a briefer and simpler explanation of what the science means in the hope that it may help someone.

    Ill start from the beginning way back last century they discovered that vitamin D was needed to absorb calcium and without it people got weak bones, (rickets, and osteoporosis). They then worked out at what level of vitamin D deficiency people started to get weak bones, and then set the level of the reference ranges which define what vitamin D deficiency is, that are still used today, at a level that prevented week bones, which is where we have got the reference range that is still used today, that say levels should be greater than 50 nmol/L (20ng/ml) (different countries use different units of measurement for vitamin D, some use nmol/L some use ng/ml, one ng/ml equals two point five nmol/L.)

    They also in the past wrongly named vitamin D a Vitamin, it isnt a vitamin it is a hormone.

    However they thought that this was pretty much all vitamin D did, more recent research mainly in the last decade has started to make some very startling and previously unthought-of discoveries.

    What they have found is that almost every single kind of cell in the human body has receptors for vitamin D, which means that almost every cell in the human body needs vitamin D to function properly!!!

    They have found that it is needed for the proper function of almost every single bodily function e.g. immune system, lungs, brain, liver, kidneys etc, etc, and they have found that a lack of it plays a role in a large number of diseases, Cancer, MS, Diabetes, Asthma, Auto immune diseases, susceptibility to infections, etc, etc.

    They then worked out that all these problems were still happening in people who according to the old reference ranges werent vitamin D deficient, but that people in parts of the world that have far higher sun exposure people didnt get these kinds of diseases and came to the conclusion that the reference ranges must be wrong!

    After a lot of research what they found is this, when vitamin D reaches a certain level in the body, the body starts to store the vitamin D, so it has reserves for times of limited sun exposure, And that the level where the body starts to store vitamin D is 125nmol/L (50ng/ml) which is 75nmol/L (30 ng/ml) above the old reference ranges.

    What this means is that at levels below 125 nmol/L the body doesnt have enough vitamin D to function at 100% efficiency, it is only when 125 nmol/L has been reached that the body starts storing vitamin D so therefore has spare vitamin D that isnt needed to be used.

    Which has lead these researchers to go OMG the reference ranges are over 100% lower than they should be, no wonder so many people are getting sick!!
    However all the labs in the world are still using the out of date reference ranges that are over 100% lower than they should be and almost all doctors are completely unaware of this issue!

    What this means for you the patient is if you get tested by a doctor who is unaware of this staggeringly important issue, which almost all of them are!! Is that if you are found to be deficient by the older reference ranges 50 nmol/L (20 ng/ml) you will receive treatment that will get you just above this level and the doctor will say you are fixed, and you will notice hardly any difference, if any at all, because you will still be severely deficient according to the modern science. If you are tested and your results are just above 50 nmol/L (20ng/ml) you will be told that you dont have vitamin D deficiency and get no treatment even though you will still be severely deficient according to the modern research.

    Remember vitamin D recptors are found in almost every single cell in the body, any level below 125 nmol/L (50 ng/ml) means that there are cells in your body that dont have enough vitamin D to work properly.

    The sad reality is that very few doctors check vitamin D levels no matter what the reference ranges!!

    So the modern research shows that if you have a test done and it says any level below 125 nmol/L (50 ng/ml) you are vitamin D deficient! If your level is say 62 nmol/L which almost every doctor in the world will tell you is fine, you have 50% less vitamin D then you need, which means cells in your body will be functioning 50% below the level they should be and if anyone is going to get better from anything then they need all their cells working properly!!

    People also need to remember that vitamin D levels will drop in winter, so effort has to be made to maintain this all year round.

    Estimates of how many people in the world have vitamin D deficiency, run as high as one billion, i.e. one in every seven people on the planet.

    There are several reasons why this is occurring, some obvious, some not so, Nature evolved humans in Africa to spend almost all of their daylight hours outside without clothes, but recently we have been bending the rules of nature and are paying the price for it.

    The UVB sun rays that produce vitamin D in the body are blocked by being inside and by glass, and in the western world people now spend most of their time inside and therefore are not getting the vitamin D they used to, we have in the last few decades been told to avoid the sun and use sunscreens all the time in an overreaction to the risk of skin cancer, so even when we are outside we dont get vitamin D, sunscreens are now routinely put into a lot of makeup, these things are the obvious ones.

    Less well known is that air pollution, car exhausts industrial pollution etc, block UVB light, in the same way as clouds do, so if you live in a big city with air pollution you can be outside in the sun in the middle of summer and not get any vitamin D.

    Another less well known cause is called the Vitamin D winter, this happens because of the curvature of the earth at higher latitudes for the winter months there is no UVB and therefore no vitamin D, so you can be out in the winter sun and you will get no vitamin D whatsoever. For example Boston at latitude 42.2 degrees north has a vitamin D winter lasting 4 months, Edmonton Canada 52 degrees north has a six month vitamin D winter. But the UVB doesnt just turn immediately back on it starts slowly in the middle of the day and increases the length of time it is available over a few months, So if people follow the sun safe advice and stay out of the sun between the hours of 11 and 3 they will increase the length of their vitamin D winter and get no vitamin D.

    The latitude where the vitamin D winter effect stops and UVB is available all year round is 34 degrees, this means that in the US that only places south of a line going from roughly Los Angeles to south Carolina dont get a vitamin D winter, All of Europe even southern Spain and Greece have a vitamin D winter, in the southern hemisphere everywhere from a line below from roughly the middle of Argentina, to roughly just above Sydney Australia has a vitamin D winter.

    The other thing that we humans have been tinkering around with recently that is making that situation worse, is are diets, for the body to be able to use Vitamin D it has to have the right amount of the cofactors magnesium, zinc, boron, vitamin A and vitamin k, studies show that people eating a modern western diet are normally deficient in all of these things, so if you dont have enough of these co factors it doesnt matter how much sun you get because you wont be able to absorb it anyway. The end result of all these things is that we humans have created an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency, in people who follow western life styles.

    When it comes to treatment what does all this mean? Well obviously previous levels of recommended treatment are not enough!

    Vitamin D levels rise kinetically not linearly which means if someone has very low vitamin D levels smaller amounts will lead to a quick rise in Vitamin D levels but only to a certain point, and higher doses are needed to achieve the higher levels.

    The vitamin D council site recommends 10,000 iu a day for up to six months or until the right levels are achieved. This may sound a lot, but the average healthy male will use 5000 iu a day. So taking anything below 5000 iu for an average male is not keeping up with demand if vitamin D is not coming from any other source.

    Studies have shown that injections of 600,000 iu raise vitamin D levels by 50nmol/L (20ng/ml) ( in some countries injections of this amount a routinely given to the elderly to prevent winter drops in vitamin D levels)

    So doing a rough calculations from that if someone has a very low vitamin D level of say 25nmol/l (10 ng/ml) they would need about 1,200,000 iu to achieve the minimum level of 125 nmol/l, Its not an exact science but it gives you some idea of what kind of high levels of treatment are needed to achieve optimum vitamin D levels.

    In my case although treatment was interrupted by having to sack a couple of useless doctors, over the course of a year I would have taken about a million iu in supplement form, plus I live in a country with reasonable amounts of sunshine which I have tried to get a lot of, my starting level was 56 nmol/L. A million ius might sound a lot but an iu (international unit) is a very small unit of measurement. One iu is 0.25 mg

    Vitamin D can however be toxic at very high doses and although it is very rare and the amounts need to achieve toxicity are extremely large. When taking large doses of vitamin D people should have their calciums levels monitored by a doctor, it is a simple and cheep blood tests, too much vitamin D causes toxicity by raising calcium levels to high, and this test will pick it up, there are some diseases which if people have they shouldnt have vitamin D, because vitamin D with these diseases causes calcium levels to rise very quickly, but the calcium tests will pick this up, and the doctor can then investigate to find the disease, this occurs in diseases such as Parathyroid disorders, Sarcoidosis, lung cancer, non Hodgkins carcinoma and tuberculosis.

    The type of vitamin D that must be taken is Vitamin D3, a lot of vitamin companies have started adding other things to the vitamin D like calcium and boron etc, do not take these supplements!!!!!! With the amount of vitamin D that is needed you will end up overdosing on the added supplemental calcium etc, Do not try and achieve these levels by taking things like cod liver oil!!!! It contains large amounts of vitamin A and you will end up with vitamin A poising if you try and take enough cod liver oil to get your vitamin D levels as high as is recommended.

    Some people experience bad reactions to taking vitamin D even at small doses, this is a sign that there is something else wrong, it is not a normal human reaction to vitamin D. The causes of these kinds of reactions is, having one of the diseases above that hasnt been diagnosed yet. Not having enough of the co factors magnesium, zinc, boron, vitamin A and Vitamin K, Magnesium is normally the main culprit as increasing vitamin D brings on the symptoms of a magnesium deficiency, muscle cramps, muscle and bone pain, depression etc.

    Another cause of these kinds of reactions is the vitamin D reacting with certain medications that people may be taking; a list of the medications that can react to vitamin D can be found here http://www.drugs.com/drug-interactions/cholecalciferol,vitamin-d3.html

    People who are having a bad reaction to sun exposure may also have one of the above diseases or deficiencies in the co factors, bad reactions to sunlight may also be caused by diseases like Lupus and Porphyria.

    If someone has the right cofactors and has had a large amount of vitamin D treatment and yet their levels have not improved as they should, then they should be investigated for malabsorbtion illnesses the most common of these is Celiac disease.

    If someone has adequate cofactors and more than enough sun exposure, but still has low vitamin D malabsorbtion illness should be investigated as the possible cause.

    I would advise anyone having bad reactions to vitamin D to talk to their doctor immediately to see if they have been tested for all the above illnesses, and if they are having trouble with the cofactors to see a good naturopath to sort out these imbalances, taking too much of one mineral can cause a deficiency in another and if people are having troubles it is best to get an expert to sort out these issues.

    Sorry this synopsis isnt that brief after all but its a complicated issue, but it does give people a good description of the relevant issues without being too technical I hope.

    So how does all this apply to CFS and ME, well simple answer is nobody has studied it, so we are getting into the realms of supposition, regarding CFS well that is made up of a lot of fatigue causing illnesses, but vitamin D deficiency is so common, and has the same kind of symptoms as CFS and doctors either dont check Vitamin D levels or use the out of date reference ranges, so it is very likely that there are considerable numbers of people diagnosed with CFS that really have a vitamin D deficiency and can be cured if optimal vitamin D levels are achieved. There will also be a lot of other people who have vitamin D deficiency and another condition, and treating the vitamin D deficiency will relieve some of their symptoms, if the other condition is one that is helped by having high vitamin D levels it may lessen the symptoms, or cure it, if they have a vitamin D deficiency and a disease that vitamin D wont treat like hemochromatosis (genetic iron overload) they will not get better until that is treated, but the good thing about getting rid of the symptoms of vitamin D deficiency will help to reveal what is going on, because a doctor will have far less symptoms to deal with when trying to find the cause. If a patient has no vitamin D deficiency and another illness then obviously it is a waste of time taking vitamin D.

    When it comes to ME, we hit a bit of a snag in that we dont know what the cause is, or if everybody who fits the description of it has the same illness, all we have is a group of people with a similar set of symptoms that match those of ME and nobody has found another known explanation for those symptoms, even Dr Hyde who takes a lot of effort to rule out all other disease, believes that ME is a spectrum of different illnesses which are caused by different things, he believes that the majority and there is a lot of other research to back this up are caused by members of the Enterovirus, could vitamin D help with this possibly without it your immune system doesnt work, so maybe raising vitamin D levels would help the immune system fight the infection? He believes that the rest are from vaccinations mainly hep b being given to people who already have an infection, and high levels of heavy metal and pesticide poisoning, Vitamin D may be useful for helping someone recover from a vaccination injury, but this is not known, probably wont do much for a heavy metal poisoning and pesticide poisoning, as the heavy metals and pesticides have to be removed, but may help in some way to reduce the symptoms. But what we do know is that ME is bad enough by itself and nobody wants to have vitamin D deficiency as well!!!!

    From the people who post on this forum and from other sites, what I do know is that there are significant numbers of people who have experienced improvement taking vitamin D, and that there are large numbers of people who have vitamin D deficiency even using the old reference ranges, but what I am also seeing is not many if any with vitamin D levels that are as high as the new reference ranges recommend, and a lot of people who are not being given doses of vitamin D that are high enough to make a significant difference to someones vitamin D levels according to the new research.

    My own personal view is that if people are below the new recommended reference ranges for vitamin D, it is a possible opportunity to do something that might improve your health, start slowly, with help from a doctor, and try and get them up to the recommended levels and see what happens, it might be great, it might do nothing, but it is cheap and youre only getting the levels to where nature intended them to be, and it will protect you from a whole host of other diseases that are being proven to being linked to vitamin D. And if it does help spread the word.

    Personally it has helped me immensely, Im not cured yet, but Im well on the way and Im continuing to make improvements, I have taken other supplements like magnesium, so Im not saying its all vitamin D, but the combination has worked well. Have I had ME? I wouldnt have a clue, I have over the years been tested extensively for a lot of other possible illnesses that could cause my symptoms, which has always in the end lead nowhere, I had a sudden acute onset, that was believed to be viral by the doctors at the time, my symptoms have matched those of all the ME definitions, and have had the likes of low NK cells etc, so I qualify for the diagnosis, but the reality is that without a diagnostic test, a diagnosis of ME is always going to be somewhat of I guess and I just dont know and nor does anybody else exactly what my illness has been or what has caused it.

    Obviously it is everybodys personal choice what they do, but the science is there showing that vitamin D levels are supposed to be a lot higher than previously thought, and that vitamin D is needed by just about every cell in the body. It has personally been great for me, and I would imagine that with proper medical supervision, it will help a lot of other people.

    All the best
    Sallysblooms likes this.
  17. rlc

    rlc Senior Member

    Messages:
    822
    Likes:
    244
    Hi FunkOdyessy, there is still a large amount of debate going on in this area and a lot of people are holding on to out of date information, so there is no consensus, However the stance of the institute of medicine does not even begin to make sense when compared to the modern research, optimal levels of vitamin D cannot be achieved with the current RDA levels. The science is new and is still being discussed but even at 40 ng/ml not 50 ng/ml, this is a 100% increase to the previous recommended level of 20 ng/ml, obviously for everybody to achieve that the RDA level must be increased from where it was, as so many people are deficient even by the old reference ranges. We are in the middle of a vitamin D epidemic after all.

    Something that the Institute of Medicine needs to get their heads round is that in perfect conditions with lots of sunlight Human beings dont just keep making vitamin D from the sunshine, there comes a point where the human body stops making vitamin D from sunshine because it is full, this happens at levels above 50 ng/ml, my personal feeling is that nature knows best and if we are not full and still making vitamin D at 40 ng/ml then we obviously need that extra vitamin D.
    All this research is very new and it is probably going to take the medical community a long time to get its heads around it, they never move very fast on any subject, but thats just the medical community for you.

    All the best
  18. Marlène

    Marlène Senior Member

    Messages:
    441
    Likes:
    210
    Edegem, Belgium
    The interesting thing about vitamine D is that it activates an antenna on the lymphocytes. Without the antenna, the lymphocytes cannot detect intrudors (and then eliminate them). Without vitamine D, the lymphocytes are jobless.
    Sallysblooms likes this.
  19. Sallysblooms

    Sallysblooms P.O.T.S. now SO MUCH BETTER!

    Messages:
    1,767
    Likes:
    327
    Southern USA
    Good post Ric. It is one very important step in better health and I get mine checked twice a year. I take D3 drops.
  20. mellster

    mellster Marco

    Messages:
    799
    Likes:
    178
    San Francisco
    I agree with rlc, also keep in mind that we used to be outside most of the day and getting plenty of sunshine, nowadays we are office bees in artificial light settings and especially since the awareness of skin cancer increased MDs have been telling people to avoid sunlight wherever possible. I had a skin doctor telling me that I should wear sunscreen on my 15 minute walk to work (in between high rises and other office buildings) at that time, no wonder nobody gets any Vitamin D anymore and while supplements are good nothing compares to Vit D naturally formed on (preferrably sweaty) skin from sunlight. While I wish I could have avoided some of the sunburns as a kid, these days I use every opportunity I get to go outside and tan without sunscreen for 20-60 minutes. A lot of docs have shifted now and recommend daily sun exposure without sunscreen, like my endocrinologist and - amongst the more "radical" - Dr. Mercola.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page