Vitamin D3

I have had Meniere's for about 10 years and was having a really bad year with about 3 attacks a week. In May I was going to participate in a clinical trial in Dallas where they put steroids and some other compound into your ear. I have a friend who is a neurologist and I asked her opinion about the trial. She said absolutely not and sent me some information about vitamin D3. She told me to take 20,000 iu's of D3 per day. I know that sounds like a lot, but that was her recomendation. She said to stay on that for 6 months, then try 15,000 iu's for a few months, then 10,000 for the rest of my life. So I thought that sounded like a much better option than sticking a needle in my brain. So my story pretty much ends there as I tried it and one week after trying it I have not had an attack since.
My doctor friend says that your body does not get enough Vit. D and therefore you are not sleeping well or deeply enough. She says that once your sleep is better, your body has the opportunity to heal itself naturally. Good luck, just wanted to pass this on as I know how desperate you can become not knowing what to do for this disease.

 

interesting. I took tons of vitamin D3 for a while - prescription when my dr. found i was low and then now i'm just on 2000 iu a day - wow that sounds like a lot.

is it really good for menieire's did not know that.

chris

 

How do get 20,000 IUs a day? You take 20 pills?

 

when i took 50,000 iu a day they were single capsules - by presription

 

A company named Metagenics makes a D3 5000 IU softgel. There are 120 of them per bottle. I take one everyday.

 

The prescription Vitamin D is D2--much less absorbable/usable than D3, which is why they have to use so much of it. D3 is far better, according to the vitamin D council folks.

 

hmmmm...a "new" member all of a sudden appears on here spreading news about inordinate (unsafe) amounts of Vitamin D....

Does this smell fishy people or is it just me?

 

Perses, you make a valid point. I would be suspicious if this person was trying to sell something that would benefit themself but in the case of vitamin D it is something that has been discussed here many times.

As with any advice here on the forum, one would hope that anyone who was tempted to try such a dosage would first check with a doctor and do their own research to ensure that this dose was not dangerous.

 

not all prescription vitamin d is d2. i have a bottle of it here and it is clearly marked d3, 50,000 i.u.'s. you do have to be careful what you get. i just happen to be lucky that the doctor who prescribed it for me knew what he was doing. i was originally prescribed to take it once a week and then an otc form at 2,000 i.u.'s the rest of the week.

in 3 months that brought my levels from 19 to 45. i'm still taking the supplements hoping to bump that number a little higher. when my levels were at 19, i felt like i had the flu. aches all over, extreme fatigue. that went away quickly with supplementation. however, it hasn't done anything for my meniere's.

 

It's just you. The physician experts at the Vitamin D Council have it all figured out. Read what their research and comments say about vitamin D toxicity.

And if you'd like, give us your comments on the large doses of vitamin D they recommend.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/vitaminDToxicity.shtml

--John of Ohio

 

What's the difference between vitamin D, D-2, and D3? I take only vitamin D. Am I missing out on something that I should be taking to help me?

Thanks.

 

There are two commercial forms of "vitamin D," vitamin D-2, chemically known as ergocalciferol, and vitamin D-3, cholecalciferol.

Ergocalciferol is not naturally synthesized by the human body, and except for a few foods with almost meniscule concentrations of it, this molecule was never encountered by human physiology before its artificial synthesis. It's cheap and does provide some benefits, as the body is able to transform it to some degree, as with vitamin D-3, to the active form the body uses, calcitriol.

The D-3 form has a longer serum half-life and is better absorbed by the body's many vitamin D receptors. The D-2 form is commonly prescribed by doctors because it can be prescribed in large-dose drug formulations, usually in the 50,000 IU form as a commericial or pharmaceutical product.

The D-3 form is a naturally occuring form and yields better absorption. But it is seldom, if ever, available in 50,000 IU doses without a prescription. These large doses are often required for those found to be woefully deficient. Such dosing by a physician should require periodic blood testing, and discontinued down to a more sustainable daily intake of somewhere less than 10,000 IU.

Virtually all of the over the counter forms of vitamin D are now D-3, the preferred form.

One thing to understand, however. Vitamin D, in all forms, is fat soluble. Therefore, softgel forms are better absorbed than pure tablet forms, lacking any consumed oil. It's best to take vitamin D, in any form, with the largest meal of the day.

And there is no need to spread out doses through the day. If you were taking 6000 IU (as I do), you could take three 2000 IU softgels at a single meal, preferably the bigest of the day.

Again, all of this is carefully spelled out at the Vitamin D Council website, www.vitamindcouncil.org.

Go there and learn how adequate intake of vitamin D, usually in the 4000 to 6000 IU/day range, will markedly reduce your chances of suffering from cancers, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and nerve and brain conditions.

Everyone should be taking vitamin D, with a serum target level of at least 50 ng/ml. It's the cheapest health insurance you can buy, at about 8 to 10 cents a day.

--John of Ohio

 

I was taking 4000 iu of D3 per day in two pills until the bottle emptied. Got a new supply at Sam's at 5000 iu and now take one a day. Had my D checked in July and it scored 59. Not the greatest but not dangerously low.

 

Just recently found out that Vitamin D levels < 80 also interferes with your fast twitch muscle re-adjustment that is essential in preventing falls!!!!!

 

The number is less then 75 mmol/L, which is 30 ng/ml.

Vitamin D helps in so many ways.

http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine080110.html

--John of Ohio

 

John and Goomeri, I have a friend who was thrown from her horse, suffered a brainstem injury, was in a coma for 4 months, and eventually partially recovered.

However, she is left with speech and balance problems.

She is able to use an exercise bike for an hour, but can only walk with a walker, and very, very slowly. She says that the problem is partly balance issues, and partly slow reaction time--she is very fearful of falling, as she doesn't react quickly enough to catch herself if she loses balance.

It's very, very sad, as she was an ER doctor before the accident (she can't work, obviously).

By any chance, do you think D deficiency might be a factor? She NEVER goes outside, and she hates pills, having been forced to take so many while in the nursing home where she was sent to recover (she is home with parents now). Are there any studies indicating that D deficiency might be a factor in this sort of thing?

(I am also assuming that cervical misalignment is obviously a factor here, but again, she will not go to a chiropractor, as she is "sick of doctors." Yes, she is extremely stubborn, and was so before the accident too.)

Sorry, I don't mean to hijack the thread, it just made me wonder about my friend and possible D deficiency, especially after seeing Goomeri's post!

 

Thanks so much for the clarification. I am taking the softgels--didn't know they were better, I just bought them by chance. I went to the web site yesterday and it has a wealth of helpful information. --thanks!

 

I'm not familiar with any evidence or experiences showing that vitamin D can facilitate healing after such debilitating injury. But because it has no side effects or toxicities below 20,000 IU per day (and then only after a very long period at higher doses), it would be worth taking. It can at least stop or reduce so many other modern debilitations, such as heart disease, cancers, obesity, diabeties, and neurodegenerative diseases, it's worth taking.

And lastly, and most importantly, vitamin D is known to markedly reduce or suppress depression, which would be understandable in this case. That, alone, would be a good reason to take, say, 6000 IU per day.

--John of Ohio

 

I got my Vitamin D level checked for the first time in my life. My doc called and said I was at 30 and I should be on a supplement. So I'm looking at types of levels and what is normal, she said 32 would be good, and I see a wide leeway of what is considered acceptable levels anywhere I look. I am taking 4000 IU of Vitamin D each day now (liquid, cholecalciferol). She has patients with seriously low levels of D that she recommends up to 7000 a day, which she says is safe, but says I don't need to do that. She says 800-1000 should be fine but if I chose more within the safe levels I will be fine.

I have noticed that what is considered "normal" D levels varies greatly. Some would suggest my level at 30 to be dreadfully low, and other sources make it seem only mildly less than ideal. Does anyone understand why the opinions vary so greatly?

 

The opinions vary because there is a diversity of what constitutes reality in medicine. Serum (in the blood) vitamin D levels is a classic case.

First, there is the common presumption that most people are "normal," and therefore we should all strive for "normalcy." When large populations of Americans are tested for serum vitamin D levels, a "normal" range was between 24 and 30 ng/ml (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090323161111.htm). When physicians get blood tests back from testing labs, those read-outs almost always indicate a "normal" range.

Most physicians unfamiliar with (or dismissive of) the latest vitamin D research will simply use the blood-lab read-out numbers. They are seldom questined.

You had a reading of 32 ng/ml, and your doctor said that was "good." It's not. It is normal. The real question is "normal" or "average" really healthful? Could it be that the vast majority of Americans (and moderns in non-tropical parts of the world) are actually deficient in vitamin D? Dozens of recent studies and articles in medical journals indicate this to be the case (http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/research.shtml).

Should a person strive for normalcy or healthfulness? The best modern research indicates that for the best health a serum level of >50ng/ml is required. The phrase I use is, "Fifty is Nifty." Your 32 ng/ml is surely better than 20 or 25, but it's clearly not ideal.

The second reason for the wide variance among medical professionals about what constitutes either "normalcy" or "healthfulness" is that many doctors rely primarily on what they learned in medical school. The textbooks and older "experts" all proclaim that a serum level of 30 ng/ml is entirely adequate, if not even on the high side. But that's not what modern research reveals.

The real issue and question should not be "normalcy." It should be "healthfulness." Who cares what the average range of vitamin D is, especially when the average or normal range is inadequate? The only real question should be, "What should my serum vitamin D levels be to enjoy the best health?" The answer to that question cannot be accurately found in references to older published sources and data.

It's even worse for vitamin C. The standards of normalcy, at least in reference to the published RDA for ascorbic acid (vitamin C), are rediculously low. The RDAs are set only to prevent deficiency diseases, which in the case of vitamin C is scurvy. Consume enough ascorbic acid each day to prevent your teeth from rotting out of your jaw (a symptom of scurvy), and all is well. That's a mere 60 mgs or so.

But vitamins have far more significant uses and functions than to merely prevent well-known vitamin deficiency disease such as scurvy, beri-beri, pellagra, and the like. For good health, you need much more. Strive for levels of vitamins that prevent not only deficiency diseases, but chronic diseases and promote general good health (http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/).

In the modern world, "normal" is sick. How many today live to 70 or 80 without enduring or suffering from any of the Modern Big Five, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and neurodegenerative conditions? Healthful ingestion of appropriate VMSs, especially vitamins C, D, and E, along with a few minerals (selenium, magnesium, and others) can stop, reduce, or prevent each of these. Interestingly, very few people in the tropical latitudes of the world, even among the poorest, suffer much from the Modern Big Five. Surely, they suffer and die of other debilitations, but these people generally photosynthesize adequate amounts of vitamin D, year-round.

In summary, normal's not nice. It's unhealthful.

--John of Ohio