Vitamin D Toxicity – My opinion doesn’t count for much, because I only know what I know from reading and through personal experiences. One thing I’ve read over and over is that at some level, Vitamin D can become toxic…..

I think 1,000mcg equals 40,000 IU's and that is the starting point to toxic levels of intake over a period of time by the opinions of most experts, but if I understand it though, toxicity is measured in what is actually stored in your body, not in a level of intake...

So, if I can trust the experts, I'm far from over-doing it, but I'm relying on my personal experiences to guide me, after all the reading is said and done....

As for my personal experience: I went back over some of my blood work from previous tests and found that in the winter of 2008, before I started supplementing with vitamin D, my 25-OH vitamin D test (Calcidiol 25-hydroxycholecalciferol test) level was 25. In the winter of 2009, this year, while supplementing with vitamin D at 1,000 IU’s daily, my level was 32. Just a couple of weeks ago, summer of 2009, my level while supplementing at 2,000 IU’s daily, was 51…. My conclusion is that my current level is good enough for me, and I’ll begin increasing my intake in November seasonal adjustment) and get my next blood work in December, so I’ll have adequate information early enough this winter to make a reasonably appropriate seasonable adjustment of my D3 supplementation for my winter months. I plan to test in the spring of 2010, just before summer, so I can get a view of it at that season also and plan my most likely downward adjustment…

So, I’m simply saying, test first, adjust, test again and adjust supplements as needed to achieve a desired result. I’m satisfied if I see numbers between 32 and 90 or anywhere in between, and yes, I’m aware of what others proclaim optimum levels to be….

Here are some sites that will keep one reading a while, if one is inclined to read all of it:

http://www.lifesteps.com/gm/Atoz/en...in_toxicity.jsp

http://www.ehow.com/about_4577751_v...d-toxicity.html

http://www.peteducation.com/article...=2+1662&aid=710

http://www.answers.com/topic/vitamin-d

But I am sure everyone here is well aware your chances of getting Vitamin D toxicity is about half the risk of your getting water intoxication. If you read the section here on Therapeutic index you will get the risk of Vitamin D toxicity into perspective As more people are harmed annually by water intoxication than through vitamin D toxicity it is out of all proportion to keep on about it when in practice, most people don't in fact consume either a health daily amount of water or indeed vitamin d3.

But as I am sure you are aware no one stores vitamin D3 until their 25(OH)D status is above 40ng/ml and even at 50ng/ml there is only a relatively modest amount stored.
In the same way you cannot save money in a bank account while you continue to spend as much as you earn daily only someone incredibly naive would think you can build vitamin D stores while daily intake remains below daily usage.
So long as you have grasped the basics that will stop you worrying or inadvertently discouraging others with not terribly accurate or up to date references.

Disease Incidence Prevention by Serum 25(OH)D Level shows that 55ng/ml is probably associated with least chronic disease incidence so indeed you've almost made it.

Far better to get up to dated scientifically based information from sources such as Grassrootshealth or The Vitamin D council at least then you will not be perpetuating myths almost as illogical as the prospect of seeing flying, low or even high, fat pigs.

Posted by: Hutchy boy


Ever heard the term "stick it in your ear"...??? I think your insults deserve my comment.... and oh, if the ear doesn't do it for you, try any other location that doesn't absorb vitamin d from the sun....

You disected my comments as though you're uncovering some evil conspiracy...

Anyone reading my post would readily notice I'm expressing only what I've concluded from all of my reading, which is: At some level, vitamin D taken orally can be toxic.

Any intelligent person wouldn't try to refute that as you are seeming to do...

Hutchy boy, you amuse me with you fanatic ways!!!!

NOTE: I supplement with vitamin D and if anyone's vitamin D levels are low, I think it would be a good idea to supplement it...

I noticed you didn't disect my comments about testing, adjusting and testing and adjusting till we get the right amount of vitamin d levels and doing it seasonally. hmmmmmm, can't find research for that one, can you?????

Also, I read somewhere that anyone taking megdoses of vitamins should consult their Doctors before doing so, and I would think that is very good advice, especially when there are some folks putting out information to lead others to believe it can be taken safely at almost any megadose level without ever any fear......

So, Hutchy, relax dude!! Stress isn't good for you. Others have a right to their comments without getting insults from you. Perhaps vitamin d isn't so toxic, but your last two posts are very toxic and ridiculously shows your fanaticism...

Oink Oink

It's rare but it does happen:

J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 1998;36(7):719-21
CASE REPORT: A 77-year-old female nursing home resident was inadvertently administered 50,000 units of oral vitamin D daily for 6 days. The patient presented with lethargy, abdominal pain, and vomiting. The patient's initial serum calcium concentration was 5.25 mmol/L (21 mg/dL). The patient was initially treated with hydration and furosemide but developed congestive heart failure. Pamidronate was used and calcium concentrations normalized by 24 hours after treatment. CONCLUSION: We report a case of the use of pamidronate for significant hypercalcemia secondary to acute vitamin D poisoning. Although evidence of congestive heart failure was evident, dialysis was avoided without significant sequelae. Pamidronate therapy should be considered in patients with hypercalcemia secondary to acute vitamin D poisoning.

Holy Moly.

That set off a bunch of posts!

Good.

I also agree with Cajunboy to stick to the topic and add your experience rather than ragging on someone else's experience.

My experience as a result of my education from Dr. Davis and several folks in the TrackYourPlaque forum of which I am a member is that most people are terribly Vitamin D3 deficient. There are studies that show the further north you are of the equater the more deficient you are and there is a direct correlation to the incidence of cancer.

Secondly, I tested below 30 as I started to take Vitamin D3 gel cap supplements (Carlson's 2000iu capsules). I had my dosage at 8000iu's per day and my second test 25(OH)D came out 48.

I am now dosing at 16000iu's or 8 gel caps of Carlson's 2000iu capsules daily.
I await my next tests, which will come up soon in about another month or so.

It takes about 8 weeks for a new dosage to have its full effect on your blood serum levels according to Dr. Davis.

Toxicity is pretty hard to reach. As was stated earlier something like 50000iu's daily or 25 Carlson 2000iu gel caps might get you close.

My objective is to follow the guidelines presented in the Trackyourplaque forum, which calls for optimizing your 25(OH)D serum levels between 60-90 and I intend to get closer to 90.

There are many benefits to this vitamin with respect to heart disease and contributing to the slowing/stopping of plaque growth, etc., etc.,

My wife tested around 32. I have her trying 12000iu's per day and she will go for another blood test in about three months.

I have also taken 50,000iu's for 3 days when I felt a cold or flu coming on.

Vitamin D3 really helps to boost your immunity.

Also Vitamin D3 dosing is very personal depending on so many different variables for an individual one of which is weight and there are more. So this is a very personal experience in finding the correct dose for YOU!

The real problem is that too many Doctors are not up to date with all the latest findings about Vitamin D3 and do NOT properly advise thir patient base to assure that they have good Vitamin D3 blood serum levels. They check all this other stuff over and over but neglect this critical need.

I also read that there are studies that show that Vitamin D3 reduced the incidence of breast cancer in woman either 40 or 60%; I am forgetting which one, but you get the idea.

I know several forum members at Trackyourplaque that have their Vitamin D3 serum levels near 90 and again this is particularle component of the overall strategy that Dr. Davis has taught us to stop the progression of heart disease.

Best wishes to each of you,

Ralph

My clinic did not think they had a code to cover costs of test for more than one Vitamin D test per year. Anyone know otherwise? I did get an Rx for the 50,000 units, they are kind of expensive even with co-pays so will switch to OTC.

Rob, have you tried to contact your insurance provider and let them know you'd like more than one test per year because you're diabetic and our vitamin D levels apparently change seasonally... I think it should be viewed as good preventive health care, if not outright as just part of good medical care.

Forturnately for me, costs wise, I can get tested up to 4 times annually free. I'm not fortunate in the way I've come about qualifying for all this free stuff and would gladly reverse the hands of time if that were possible and do things differently...

The prescription form of vitamin D is the D2. The D3 form is much better and cheaper.

The point that needs making time and time again is that it is counterproductive to go on and on like a demented moron about vitamin D toxicity when in practice NO ONE taking under 10,000iu/daily has any possibility of seeing the symptoms and in practice it takes well over 40,000iu/daily for many months before levels have been raised to anywhere like those that may cause toxicity, furthermore it's a simple matter to end vitamin D toxicity by simply avoiding the sunshine and supplements for a few days and levels will naturally deplete.

No one goes on and on about the potential of water intoxication, so why go on and on like a demented fool about the even rarer potential for vitamin D intoxication?

It simply doesn't make sense.

Of course you have the right to post whatever you want BUT I also think it is my duty to point out to others when information you provide is so ludicrous that it is dangerously misleading.

I think it is important that people think before they post and should always be in a position to support what they say with reference to up to date peer reviewed scientific information.

If you post myths then I will provide links to science based research that demonstrates the truth of the matter.

If you don't like being reminded of the truth then tough.

World’s Leading Authorities on Vitamin D

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

The Truth about Vitamin D Toxicity

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

Here is what some of the world's leading authorities have to say.....

But let's be honest about this case.
The patient’s medications included furosemide, cephalexin, cimetidine, vitamin D, and calcium supplements. The patient was accidentally given 50,000 units of oral vitamin D rather than the correct dose of 5,000
units.

Originally prescribed at 500 mg daily, calcium was inadvertently
given at a daily total of 3 g for several days.

D2 ERGOCACIFEROL the safety of Vitamin D2 is not as good as D3.
The lack of vitamin D toxicity with megadose of daily ergocalciferol (D2) therapy: a case report and literature review. However, this case shows some people don't react to D2 at all and therefore it is totally useless.

Bear in mind also that although This patient also had more
significant underlying medical disorders. .... and.... The patient recovered successfully and no significant sequelae were ob-
served. The patient was discharged from the hospital with the corrected dose of medication.

There is a major difference between giving doddery old ladies with severe medical problems an excessive amount of vitamin D and calcium (along with a list of other medications) and suggesting to healthy individuals the use of amounts of D3 well below the amounts that would naturally be acquired from full body sun exposure.

The use of higher amounts for Stoss therapy is set out clearly on the Vitamin D Council Website and is very clearly limited to a short 3 day period.

No one has suggested large daily amounts.
I doubt anyone here has posted more links to The world's cheapest source of postal 25(OH)D testing than I have.
Mostly people using 5000iu/daily/D3 will take around 3 months to get to around 50~70ng/mL 125~175nmol/l. If they 25(OH)D test at that point then there is no chance of getting near the 280ng/mL this poor lady achieved.

Similarly I'm not convinced that calcium supplements are risk free.
Food sources of calcium are many and varied
Dietary calcium is superior to supplemental calcium

The vitamin D council suggests that a SMALL amount of vitamin A, magnesium, Vitamin K2 Zinc and Boron[/url] improve the uptake and control of vitamin d/calcium once absorbed.

Thanks to Cajunboy for posting a link that starts by saying

VITAMIN D TOXICITY FEARS UNWARRANTED

http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec01/ch004/ch004k.html.
Merck claims it takes 50000 IU of D3 for several months for toxicity.
Great news!
I've been doing 5000 IU per day.
10000 IU should be fine.
I'll start tomorrow.
Thanks to Hutch and Cajun.
Can't wait to tell my doctor.
<chuckle>
Eddie

Now I've inadvertently become an advocate for vitamin D supplements...

But, the fact remains:

Vitamin D supplements do become toxic

if taken at a high enough level for a long enough period of time. It says so at the same website that Hutchyboy so boldly posted that fears are unwarranted.....................

we can't just read the headlines and run with it, we gotta read the whole story...

But so does WATER.

Only an ignorant stupid hysterical fool would go around putting up
Danger Potential Toxicity from Excess Water
warnings or

Water can become toxic

But real people actually die from water intoxication.

Now find recent examples of people actually dying from excess Vitamin D consumption?

In a situation where we know for certain that lower vitamin D status is partly responsible for the increase in Cancer, Heart Disease, MS, Diabetes etc incidence it is simply unreasonable and unacceptable to raise hypothectical dangers that may discourage people from dealing with their current vitamin D insufficiency status.

Worrying about vitamin D toxicity is like dying of thirst in the desert while worrying about drowning.

Everything taken in excess may prove harmful.

We must have a sense of perspective about what are real and what are imagined risks.

Only an irresponsible fool perpetuates imagined risks.

The dangers arising from vitamin d insufficiency are real.

They affect MOST children and MOST adults at the moment and the consequences are reflected in worsening mental and physical health of all nations.

The potential danger of excess vitamin D from over the counter vitamin D supplements is so remote that perpetuating these fears is the work of cranks and those who have a vested interest in promoting ill health.

The simple answer for those who actually don't understand the science of D3 is to get your Vitamin D3 from full body UVB exposure, either from sunlight when available remember this calculator if or 1000iu and the human bod ideally uses 5000iu/d so multiply these times by 5. or use a UVB sunlamp.
There are no reports of vitamin d toxicity from sunlight.