• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Dosage for topical vitamin D

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,293
Location
USA
Ok, so if I am understanding this correctly. We have been doing it backwards! According to this that you posted, we only need 20% of the dosage applied to the skin. According to Ray Peat, only around 20% is actually absorbed through the skin. So, this is completely backwards from what I have been understanding.

Am I seeing this correctly? How do we know which method is the correct one?
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,293
Location
USA
From link above:

Approximately 80% of all nutrition taken orally is excreted from the body. This
creates a load on the excretory organs. The effective part retained in the body is
approximately only 20%. So when we want to convert oral doses to transdermal
ones, we need to only use 20% dose for topical application. If we were to
assume a RDA for oral administered vitamin D to be 400 IUs, it means that you
only need to apply approximately 80 IUs topically to the body. So if presently
your Vitamin D daily dose is 4000 IUs then it would translate to 800 IUs topically
or most probably much lower, since you may be have started off with
malabsorption issues to begin with. This is a strong possibility in view of having
to take such large doses [4,000 to 8,000 IUs] orally.
So the question arises how do we go the transdermal route
 

Wilfrid

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
723
I don't know, Charlie....
But I'll try to contact RP and see what it's his opinion about that.
Because the research about transdermal vitamin is rare and the information in the link I posted seems accurate.
 

charlie

The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
12,293
Location
USA
Thank you, please keep us posted on his response.
 

Wilfrid

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
723
Thanks
I'm french and I'm not familiar with such abbrevation...but I'll making progress.
 

tomisonbottom

Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
907
Wilfrid said:
I don't know, Charlie....
But I'll try to contact RP and see what it's his opinion about that.
Because the research about transdermal vitamin is rare and the information in the link I posted seems accurate.


Did you ever contact him about this?
 

Mittir

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
2,034
Charlie said:
From link above:

Approximately 80% of all nutrition taken orally is excreted from the body. This
creates a load on the excretory organs. The effective part retained in the body is
approximately only 20%. So when we want to convert oral doses to transdermal
ones, we need to only use 20% dose for topical application. If we were to
assume a RDA for oral administered vitamin D to be 400 IUs, it means that you
only need to apply approximately 80 IUs topically to the body. So if presently
your Vitamin D daily dose is 4000 IUs then it would translate to 800 IUs topically
or most probably much lower, since you may be have started off with
malabsorption issues to begin with. This is a strong possibility in view of having
to take such large doses [4,000 to 8,000 IUs] orally.
So the question arises how do we go the transdermal route

This quote is not part of the original article.
That is a strange website. Original paper is written by two PhD holders in
biochemistry and pharmacy. But This guy decided to add his
commentary inside the article in italic. He claims to be a passionate scientist
but does not reveal his educational background.
One website shows he has BS, that probably means bachelor of science.
But he teaches Master's course in some anti-aging organization.
It seems like he is another pubmed googling amateur scientist.
His first assumption is that 20 percent of oral vitamin D is absorbed.
2nd assumption is 100 percent of topical vitamin D is absorbed without citing any study.
That seems extremely unlikely. There are lots of studies to improve
transdermal absorption rate and this varies a lot depending on the compound and it's carrier.
This guy makes lots of strange claims.
It is a waste if time reading materials from garbage websites.
 

Similar threads

Top