Quote:
Originally Posted by Lere
So far the rationale for supplementing vitamin D is the same as was the case for supplementing antioxidants, sick people have less. That is exactly what has been found for vitamin D levels, There is one big difference: the trials of vitamin D supplementation have not been done yet.
|
I agree we need more good quality Vitamin D3 supplement trials where rather than concentrating on the amount consumed we concentrate on the 25(OH)D attained and maintained.
Quote:
The main reason I am certain that extra 'D' is bad is the way the body treats it. It restricts the amount in the blood by various mechanisms. So I think you ought to be wondering whether your body's metabolism is so wrong to 'flush it down the toilet' (most of it anyway). To my way of thinking if it was beneficial vitamin D would be treated as such by the body - it isn't.
|
Maybe your way of thinking is flawed. Maybe evolving naked living outdoors our dna evolved to naturally acquire large amounts of D3 from sunlight and maybe our DNA did not evolve to cope well with inflammatory agents such as grains, omega 6, High fructose corn syrup etc. Maybe the mechanisms for stabilizing 25(OH)D levels depend on regular full body sun exposure and lower intakes of inflammatory foods or those foods that
Shorten the half life of D3
Quote:
Low carb eating is natural , ingesting vitamin D year round in the unnaturally massive amounts required to raise serum levels - of just one metabolite - is getting away from what our bodies are designed for. Any time that route is taken there is a price to be paid.
|
Our bodies naturally store
D3 for winter use when circulating levels get above 40ng ~50ng having a reserve of anti inflammatory agent stored may allow better survival through the winter and improved fertility in the spring. The price to be paid for higher vitamin D status appears to be less pain, improved cognition, less chronic illness and reduced risk of death.
Perhaps you can point to the evidence to support your claim that a higher vitamin d status such as 55ng 137.5nmol/l attained and maintained throughout the year has measurable adverse outcomes?
When you produce your evidence then we will consider what you have to say but I read the full text of every vitamin D paper that I can acquire and the abstracts of everything else. Of course time will tell but at the moment the evidence supports the idea that
levels of 25(OH)D around 1378.5nmol/l 55ng are associated with less chronic disease incidence. and the amount of evidence supporting that idea grows daily. If indeed more people are using D3 supplements and the result of doing so were a price in worse health outcomes those should be feeding into the results and we should be seeing, particularly amongst the users of 5000iu/d who are trying to keep status above 55ng year round, greater incidence of chronic disease.
Pay attention to what is happening at heartscanblog and the Track your Plaque sister site.
These people are all reporting better health outcomes. My experience for what it is worth is that the longer I keep my status over 55ng 137.5nmol/l the better I feel, both mentally and physically. I was a mental and physical wreck 5 yrs ago barely able to stand or walk, mentally depressed alternating between manic highs to suicidal lows.
If maintaining the natural vitamin D status that allows human breast milk to flow replete with vitamin D isn't good for me then it's surprising I feel better than ever.