Vitamin D3

This is interesting: http://pagingdrgupta.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/19/indoor-tanning-linked-to-addictive-behaviors/

 

When I have taken vit D I have taken it with calcium and it constipated me horribly. Is the the VitD or the Calc?

 

It's the calcium, it has that affect on some people.

In JOH program, he lists magnesium which would help move things along.

I take 800mg of Magnesium Malate per day but not everyone needs that amount. I take it to help with muscle spasms and as a side benefit, it helps the other area, too.

Benefiber is a good addition. No grit or taste but helps tremendously with constipation.
Most people don't drink enough plain water. You can live weeks without food but only a matter of days without water.
It really helps with digestion and elimination.

1. proper water intake
2. magnesium, the wonder supplement!
3. Benefiber to help with regularity.

 

Does anyone get nausea from the D3? I've been having nausea lately and i cut back on the vits and now i'm fine. When i started back today, i only took JOH lite and D3 and the nausea started again. Trying to figure out if it's a VSM or just coincidence.

 

My thoughts exactly.

You could smoke cigarettes -- known to greatly increase the risk for lung cancer –– would you take that up in moderation?

The advice on the vitD site reminds me of the recommendations in the 50s to spark up a cigarette to help your asthma symptoms.

S

edit
______________________________

Curiously the vitD Council website says the following:

"Current research has implicated vitamin D deficiency as a major factor in the pathology of at least 17 varieties of cancer..."

Yet, using a tanning bed which presumably produces lots of fabulous vitamin D, has done nothing to prevent a 75% increased risk in developing melanoma.

 

Smoking & using tanning beds in moderation isn't the same thing. I'm not talking about the good or bad points of cigarettes. And I'm not interested in recommendations pertaining to health issues from 50 years ago or your attempts to use them to discredit anything you don't agree with.

RE "If they recommend this known dangerous practice, then how credible is the rest of their material?"

Sarita & I have not always agreed on things - in my opinion some of the not-agreed-upon things are extremely important. HOWEVER there ARE things she's said (especially lately) that I agree completely with. Should I disregard ALL of her comments because I don't agree with SOME of them?

 

Should we disregard facts if they are associated with someone we don't like? Should we force ourselves to be exiled to the world of make believe if someone we don't like discovers a fact before we do?

 

It appears to work for some people. I hope you & I aren't arguing here, June. If so ... I humbly back out of this topic.

 

Not at all, I intended my comment as an agreement and extension of your point but I should have made that more clear. I'm trying to say, that if we (people in general) can't accept a fact unless it comes from somebody we like/approve of etc we are going to miss a whole lot of facts. I have learned some of the most important things in my life from people I considered PITA and did not agree with on many things.

But let me hasten to add, you are not among that group even though I have learned from you!

This just keeps coming out more and more convoluted. To summarize, I like you and agree with you on this matter

 

It'd be a lot easier to get our points across if we could look into eyes instead of screens. Glad we're okay.

 

You must not know Joy very well then

 

AAAAAH!! ???

Welllllll ... PHOOEY on YOU!!
;D

 

How is this not a fair comparison? Please articulate. They are two different acts but both can take years of use or even a small amount of use to greatly increase the risk for types of cancer that are lethal; taking up either in moderation is no answer. Some only need second hand exposure to smoking and they're finished off while some smoke their whole lives and may never get cancer. Likewise with the skin's exposure to UVA and UVB. The more fair the skin, the more risky.

For that vit D site (the council) to have this recommendation on the front page for receiving adequate vit D is negligent in my opinion.

 

Studio,

I believe you questioned my notion of millions of Americans taking large daily doses (2000 IU or greater) of vitamin D. Here's a report on the actual sales of vitamin D in the US in 2009, last year, not including substantial annual gains this year.

"According to data published in the Nutrition Business Journal, overall sales of vitamin D in 2009 totaled roughly $425 million, which is ten times the amount spent on it in 2001."

At a price of about 8 to 12 cents per 2000 IU, that's a lot of vitamin C for those choosing to take it. But still, not a single discovered or published report of any kidney problems from vitamin D ingestion in the US, contrary to the prognostications of your vitamin D experts.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030261_vitamin_D_deficiency.html

--John of Ohio

 

Once upon a time there was a man named John. John found a terrific treatment plan for a dreaded malady called meniere's. John decided the best thing for him to do would be share this wonderful news with the world. So he did. And some people found the terrific treatment plan to be, well, terrific. Then one day a man named Scott came to John's neighborhood. Scott didn't agree that John's terrific treatment plan was all that terrific. So he argued ... & argued ... & argued. And nothing was ever accomplished except that people got tired of all the arguing & stopped reading his posts altogether. So all the really helpful information that was contained in Scott's brain built up until one day ... ... ... his brain EXPLODED & got really helpful information gook all over his computer keyboard & monitor & it took a really long time for him to clean everything up ... but the really helpful information was sadly gone forever ... & nobody ever benefited from it ... except for the mouse who snuck out & snagged a piece of Scott's brain gook & dragged it back to his mousey wife & mousey kids & they grew big & strong from it & eventually the oldest mousey son decided he would keep eating Scott's brain & eventually TAKE OVER THE WORD!!!!

The End.

Oops! I forgot - Moral of the Story: Do not under any circumstances eat brain gook if you're a mouse. It will cause you to have delusions of grandeur ... I mean, really - what clear-thinking mouse would want to be the King of the world anyway, with the economy the way it is & all the wars & famine & diseases - not to mention all the people trying to build better mouse-traps ...

Footnote: (so I'm not mistaken for a thread hijacker) Don't forget to take your vitamins, especially plenty of Vitamin D.

 

So THAT'S where "Pinky and The Brain" came from!!!! (http://www.warnervideo.com/pinkyandthebrain/)

(Oh, you left out the part where the man named Scott went to many other neighborhoods and argued and argued and argued with all the OTHER people who shared terrific information about treating Meniere's symptoms and diagnosing other problems that can cause them....)

 

I hear ya! JOH is a saint. He and his regime are infallible. To even consider questioning ANYTHING about it is sacrilege. Come on ladies. Your sniping and sneering is no better than that which you accuse him (Scott) of.

Maybe I'm missing something but I really cannot understand the resistance to holding JOH or ANY other treatment up to scrutiny. I get that JOH is trying to help. I applaud that. But asking questions about his regimen's validity, reliability or efficacy is NOT questioning JOH's intent. JOH is himself a scientist. He gets that.

 

Joy, that was the most entertaining thing I've ever seen you write. You made me laugh. Maybe Fawlty Towers has rubbed off on you.

I've never said JOH's regimen was a dud, only the homeopathy. Vit D is not part of his official regimen.

 

The part where there's always arguing & arguing & arguing. Why can't it just be "your opinion is valid & I'm sincerely glad this treatment method works for you" without the additional "but it won't because there's no proof or etc. that it can/has."

We're not talking about scrutiny. We're talking about what seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing. Nothing is accomplished with that ... except maybe that people simply stop listening/reading the person's posts entirely.

Come on - questioning for the purpose of gaining knowledge is one thing. Questioning for the sake of cutting down & crushing is another. You can say Scott doesn't do that, but his past posts are proof that he does. He doesn't need to prove he's a smart guy by constantly dissecting & de-valuing opposing opinions.

 

hear hear!