 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
curiousguy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 13:29 |
|
Hi all. Have read quite a bit about MP (thanks!), but am still puzzled as to what "normal", healthy people should be doing with respect to vitamin D intake.
Should vitamin D3 supplementation be avoided by everyone? What about those with little exposure to sunlight? Is there a "safe" level of vitamin D intake? And why is vitamin D from sunlight better than from supplements? (for healthy individuals)
I suspect that the response will be that we should all stop taking D3 supplements in any form, but that's such a radical thought, I guess I need to understand the biochemistry/logic behind that to go to such an extreme. thanks, curiousguy
|
Dr Trevor Marshall
Research Team
|
Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 13:53 |
|
All the science you need to know (and I suspect even more) is discussed in the new paper, and the thread at URL
http://www.marshallprotocol.com/forum39/11053.html
Summary: the human body can produce all the 25-D it needs. Exogenous intake which forces the serum 25-D level above about 20 ng/ml is immunosupressive.
The big problem is finding the "normal healthy" person, as you never can tell whether a "normal healthy" person will have a stroke or a heart attack the following day...
The D-metabolite tests can give a clue of such impending problems, however...
|
curiousguy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 21:48 |
|
Hi Trevor. I had read the paper and thread (and other material on these forums), but was still not sure what to do about vitamin D for "normal healthy" people, especially in the case of someone who is not getting much sun exposure. I guess I should try asking more specific questions.
My wife, for example, is post-menopausal, in her 50s, has mild osteopenia, and recently tested 1,25-D of 56 pg/ml, after having been taking about 1200 IU of D3 for a few years. She also gets little sun (especially in winter, working indoors at a computer all day). Just after the 1,25-D test she started taking low-dose estrogen, and we also take K2-7 supplements (and calcium, magnesium, etc.), and walk for exercise - all of which will help with her bone strength, independent of vitamin D effects.
Unfortunately, we don't have a 25-D number for her, but she seems to be "healthy", so I guess the elevated 1,25-D you would associate with the D3 supplements, and would recommend stopping these altogether? The theory being that the elevated 1,25-D just contributes to more bone loss, and that the likely excess 25-D is reducing her immune response, which may lead to problems later. Is that correct? And is there no role for D3 supplemenation for her under any circumstances?
|
Dr Trevor Marshall
Research Team
|
Posted: Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 22:11 |
|
1,25-D is regulated by the body independent of the 25-D level. If her 1,25-D level is as high as that, then she is suffering from Th1 inflammation. It may not be clinically obvious yet. Many folk don't know they are in trouble until it is too late.
You need to get the 25-D measured. It is a simple, low-cost test. Only then can you determine the full significance of the 56 pg/ml 1,25-D. This is because the 25-D is immunosuppressive, and the unsupplemented 1,25-D may be even higher. So we need the 25-D value as well.
Figure 1 shows that the relationship between the D metabolites is not a first-order system. The body regulates each of them based on a number of inputs and feedback variables.
|
curiousguy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 01:53 |
|
Okay, we'll get the 25-D test done.
In research that I did before running into your work, however, it seemed pretty clear that 1,25-D and 25-D varied roughly together, with the ratio between them (as pg/ml and ng/ml) varying between 1.0 and 2.0 for most people. So I guess what you're implying above is that it may be the case that reducing her vitamin D supplementation will result in reducing her 1,25-D levels too (if her 25-D level is also elevated and the ratio to 1,25-D is normal), but that this won't help (or isn't the real problem) if her 25-D level is actually low (and the ratio is way too high), implying Th1 inflammation. I guess this is one of the things that's confusing to me about your paper: given a high 1,25-D, what exactly are the implications of then having a low, normal, or high 25-D levels?
I suspect that our doctor is unaware of your work, so it will be interesting to see what she has to say about all this. It's unfortunate that there is no middle ground here: the competing theories point to either very high or very low vitamin D supplementation.
Michael Eades (of Protein Power fame, http://www.proteinpower.com) is someone whose opinion I respect, but last I heard from his blog is that he's working on a presentation in which he'll push 5000 IU per day D3 for everyone (and is already selling such tablets in his on-line store). It would be helpful if you could engage him on this subject before he makes his big push for D3. He's a very reasonable fellow, and I'm sure he thinks he's got the evidence together for the benefits of high D3 supplementation. It would be very helpful to all of us on the fence to see the evidence for each case presented by 2 such respected authorities. curiousguy
|
Dr Trevor Marshall
Research Team
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 07:03 |
|
The 25-D level will allow us to make sure that the measured 1,25-D may not be even higher in the absence of supplementation. This is important, as the immune suppression provided by Vitamin D may be masking symtoms which will return as the patient weans from their Vitamin D intake.
There are many physicians who are pushing 2000 IU of vitamin D on their unsuspecting patients right now. I have had letters from Biologists who had no idea that this was happening, and that they needed to speak out, as we have done. Please feel free to send a copy of our paper to anybody who might be interested in it. Most will be qualified to join our Professionals' forum, and that is the best place for them to discuss the detailed scientific issues.
|
curiousguy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 2nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 09:51 |
|
Thanks Trevor for the info.
I see now that someone has very recently added a reference to your paper as well as Amy Proal's review as a comment to one of Eade's vitamin D posts, so we'll see what he as to say about all of this:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/supplements/new-york-to-dallas-and-more-on-vitamin-d/#comments
His blog posts like this, and the accompanying comments, exemplify what you're up against with respect to very reasonable people having a very different point of view. I truly hope that we can get this sorted out soon, since the recommendations are so wildly different with respect to this key vitamin/hormone.
Edit: This post by Eades more clearly lays out his point of view, and where he's headed. Thanks to Trevor, I can now see the folly in thinking that "reduction of symptoms" is a logical basis for justifying vitamin D supplementation...
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/supplements/dispatch-from-the-wilds-of-new-york/
Last edited on Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 10:01 by curiousguy
|
Dr Trevor Marshall
Research Team
|
Posted: Sun Feb 3rd, 2008 15:51 |
|
Yes, we have an entire thread at the study site devoted to people who are "Weaning from Steroids."
Steroids are so terribly addictive because they often do make you feel better (for a while).
|
Current time is 12:38 | |
|
|
|
|
