So, my level was 29. The dr gave me the D2 prescription, but after a couple of days that made my stomach upset. So, I got to wondering is it really something I'm taking internally or it is the sun/time of year.

So, I now take 800 Vit D3 daily in 3 separate doses, and I was making sure I got a little bit of sun even though I'm fair skinned and I can't get too much.

Now, I will keep this up all year and then ask her to test again in October/November so I can see if it really is the ingestion of the D3 or if it's all about the sun or a mixture. If it's a mixture or only the sun, I should see a drop in the levels. If it's only the pills, then they should remain stable.

That's probably not nearly enough. People usually require at least 2000 iu sometimes even a lot more to get their levels into an optimal range 50-70.

For a condition such as Fibromyalgia, particularly where it has been in existence for many years, it's reasonable to suppose that all the cells in your body were made in vitamin D deficient status. We know with omega 3 that it takes about 2 yrs to end up with 50% of them with a reasonable omega3 <>omega 6 ration and it could take 5 yrs before most cells would be constructed as our DNA evolved to function with.

As vitamin D is required by all cells in a similar manner I think we have to think of being in positive Vitamin D3 balance (that is always having more daily than the body uses daily) for that length of time before we can say for certain that D3 isn't a factor in FMS in any particular case.

We know the body uses between 3000 and 5000iu/daily and for most people taking a 5000iu/d supplement achieves a status around that at which least disease incidence is found.
So to be sure we are consuming sufficient to deal with daily needs 5000iu/daily needs to be accounted for.
To make good the deficiencies that have been built in over the years requires a little more.
While you are continuing to experience pain it's reasonable to deduce your body has a greater inflammatory burden than most and thus a greater requirement for natural anti inflammatory agents.
In the latest Vitamin D Council newsletter Dr Cannell explains that those with existing chronic illnesses should try to keep status at 65ng year round. 65 - 29= 36ng

Oh, I forgot the most important part...DOH!

my levels are now at 48...with 50 being optimum according to my doctor.

That's why I'm going to continue what i'm already doing...

Ever since I started taking vitamin D3 about 6 months ago I have stopped getting colds or even flu. I take Carlson's solar gems which provide 4,000 units per gelcap. Prior to this I was getting a cold nearly every month or so! Within the last couple of months I have been exposed to my grandchildren who had H1N1 and I never got it, either....this with them coughing in my face (as babies and toddlers will do since they don't know any better). My husband recently had a terrible cold and I didn't get that, either. Since I live in Florida I have been trying to get in the sun as much as possible, but have been away from there for a couple of months, so I am only supplementing with the D caps these days, not being in the sun, and still, no colds.

I'm going to start the 50,000 iu once a week as soon as it gets here. I have had Fibromyalgia for 5 yrs. I do have lest day of painful areas, my collor bones and wings in my back, but other days is not very good. Heat is my enemy. More days of pain when temp reach 90, then in the winter. I am interested to see how long the Vit D3 takes to get up to 60-70 and if the Fibro improves more.
I sure will let everyone know

Why does your doctor think 50 is optimum?

Does your doctor really believe that the NATURAL level your body NATURALLY attains and maintains if you live near naked in the sun isn't an optimum level?

Does your doctor really think that it's best to be below the level at which least incidence of cancer, heart disease and other chronic illness occurs?
If so why? What motive would your doctor possibly have to keeping your level below the level that has been shown to be associated with the least incidence of Breast and Prostate cancer?

Think about human breast milk. Does you doctor think that human babies evolved to have Vitamin D from a dropper or could it possibly be that if we lived naked in the sun and achieved a natural optimum vitamin d status we would find that human breast milk flowed naturally replete with D3?
If you want to go natural you have a choice, either spend every day naked in the sun or take and EQUIVALENT amount of vitamin d. For breastfeeding Vitamin D replete milk that requires over 6000iu/daily.

Perhaps your improved status reflects some input from sunshine that people in Virginia are blessed with, however at latitude 35 you are on the threshold of Winter sun UVB availability and I am certain a higher daily D3 input is best advised. I don't think your doctor is sufficiently aware of the evidence supporting higher levels for those with chronic conditions. I don't think 50 is optimum for anyone.

I doubt it is the natural level our DNA evolved to thrive best with nor do I think it provides an adequate reserve of stored D3 in muscle/fat tissue that we can draw on should swine flu or similar challenge come upon us.

If your house is on fire do you want the fire service to arrive with sufficient reserves of water to completely deal with the inflammation or will you be satisfied if the fire is only 50% extinguished?

Mercola has a calculator in his current newsletter for amount of time of sun exposure under conditions you plug in to achieve manufacture of vitamin D to the tune of 1,000 IU. For where I live and my skin color I have to be in the sun for about an hour. So you see, we indeed would have to run around naked all day to get enough D, apparently! The calculator is easy to use and he gives reference to finding all the values you need to plug in. It only took me a few minutes.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...-You-Think.aspx

I know you have pointed up the fact that this calculator is for 1000iu but I do feel we need to flag up the fact that our body uses a minimum of 4000iu/daily and that doesn't allow any for storage or to deal with chronic conditions or obesity.
So you need to exposure ideally FIVE times as much skin as they say for that calculation or stay outside for 5 times as long.
Do remember that bodies laying down in the sun receive more UVB than upright bodies.
Another complication is that Vitamin d synthesis is a self limiting process so once the D3 is made if it isn't absorbed straight away the process continues and the surplus D3 is converted to products the body does not use. So by the time your skin gets to burning there is no D3 near the surface of the skin to control the repair process.
That's why I think the full body skin exposure allows a shorter time and is generally more effective because least tanned skin makes most D3.
Also be aware that there is a huge difference in the response to UVB.
The higher your 25(OH)D the less new D3 your skin makes.
So it pays to get a 25(OH)D test regularly at least at first, to be sure you know that you are above 55ng and you understand how well your skin responds to sunlight.

Yes, Hutchinson, as I said "So you see, we indeed would have to run around naked all day to get enough D, apparently! " And seriously, who has time to spend 5 or so hours a day in the sun? Yes, from what I have read the minimum daily requirement is far, far too low for health. And yes, you are right, people have to realize that they need more D3 than our conventional doctors would generally recommend. Thanks for all your knowledgable input.

the level of 50 is the minimum optiumum amount shown to help prevention of disease etc. (not 50%, but 50 for the 25(OH)D level)

But that's not why I take it.

I initially started taking it to battle SAD. Then I found it helped with my fibromyalgia.

Then I was diagnosed with osteopenia and started taking it all year round to help build bone.

I am going to have my levels taken in about a month to see if the level remains in the winter what it was in May or if I need to take more this time of year.

Excluding food sources and sun; I am currently taking 1,000 iu of D3 a day.

Do I take my Vit D all at once or spread thru the day. Taking gel 1000, usually just take all at once. Thanks.

It doesn't matter. D gets stored until it is needed. You could take it once a week if you wanted. I'm starting to do mine once a month because I have some really high dose pills.

Wow. Thanks I would be afraid that would do my tummy in once a month.

For pregnant or breastfeeding mothers in order to keep and even supply flowing to the baby DAILY vitamin d supplementing is best and plenty of them.

Vitamin D Researcher Dr. Bruce Hollis says “I’m telling every pregnant mother I see to take 4,000 IUs and every nursing mother to take 6,400 IUs of vitamin D a day.

I think it is medical malpractice for obstetricians not to know what the vitamin D level of their patients is. This study will put them on notice.”

but apart for everyone else up to monthly intervals is OK
However I use daily and if I thought I had cancer I would prefer to keep my body levels both high and stable.

Daily rather than monthly supplements would prevent seesawing of status from low to high and avoid the body having to keep fine tuning immune function.
But Nancy is quite right that the difference between daily, weekly, fortnightly and monthly supplement regimes is so slight it's difficult to measure, so unless you are pregnant, breastfeeding or have cancer it probably makes no difference.