Should we be taking Calcifediol instead of D3?

[Martin]

Is calcifediol better than cholecalciferol for vitamin D supplementation? - Osteoporosis International

"First, oral calcifediol results in a more rapid increase in serum 25OHD compared to oral cholecalciferol.
Second, oral calcifediol is more potent than cholecalciferol, so that lower dosages are needed.
Third, oral calcifediol has a higher rate of intestinal absorption and this may have important advantages in case of decreased intestinal absorption capacity due to a variety of diseases. A potential additional advantage of oral calcifediol is a linear dose-response curve, irrespective of baseline serum 25OHD, whereas the rise in serum 25OHD is lower after oral cholecalciferol, when baseline serum 25OHD is higher.
Finally, intermittent intake of calcifediol results in fairly stable serum 25OHD compared with greater fluctuations after intermittent oral cholecalciferol."


Found this from a new product by d.velop™ claims to be 3x more potent and more efficient than vitamin D3. Seems to make sense but I was curious because no one seems to talk about it.

 

[DiabloQueso]

claims to be 3x more potent and more efficient than vitamin D3. Seems to make sense but I was curious because no one seems to talk about it.

Considering how easily D3 is taken up... it's probably because it doesn't matter. Even if the claims of it being 3x "more potent" were true, you know what else is 3x more potent? 3x the dose. Which is generally pennies. I'm sure this other formulation is quite a bit more expensive to produce. They'd need to show me something like "2,000 IUs of our calcifediol have the following effects not found in 10,000 IUs of D3:"

Instead it says

. Indeed, when using dosages ≤ 25 μg/day, serum 25OHD increased by 1.5 ± 0.9 nmol/l for each 1 μg cholecalciferol, whereas this was 4.8 ± 1.2 nmol/l for oral calcifediol.

The absorption efficacy of cholecalciferol/ergocalciferol is good but not complete, as the mean absorption is about 79% (62–91%) in normal subjects as determined from recovery of labelled cholecalciferol in feces [27]. The intestinal absorption of radiolabelled calcifediol is 93% in normal subjects and (nearly) equally efficient in patients with severe fat malabsorption due to celiac disease or pancreatectomy and only slightly decreased in patients with short bowel disease

Cool. So why not just up the dosage?

It just keeps harping on "When you take tiny amounts of both - calciferol is better!". It doesn't appear to ever examine the pretty obvious comparison of just... taking more D3. Maybe calciferol does something a higher dose of D3 does not do. But the study's author doesn't provide any insight into this. The one study they cite where there is an observable difference in effect between calciferol and D3 is a pig study on lactating mothers, indicating it can preserve higher blood calcium levels.

I'd say the biggest claim it makes is the following

There are in general about 50 metabolites of vitamin D identified from either in vitro or in vivo experiments [68]. Most of these compounds are believed to be degradation products, whereas only 1α,25(OH)2D is believed to be the active hormone able to bind with high affinity to vitamin D receptor (VDR). 25OHD itself is considered to be the precursor for the active hormone and most of the other metabolites. Due to its lower affinity to VDR and higher affinity to DBP, in comparison with 1α,25(OH)2D, one may reasonably assume that 25OHD is a poor agonist. 25OHD is therefore only able to activate VDR when serum concentrations are > 150 ng/ml and thus far exceeds normal concentrations as found in adults even when living in equatorial areas of the world with plenty of sun exposure [69].

But this is not further explored or any suggestion as to what positive impact this may have.

When you get down to page 8-10 where they really dig into the volume of studies, you see the same thing over and over. Tiny doses of both. By far the most given to a subject in any of the studies was a paltry 2400 IUs of D3. We already know the body easily absorbs and utilizes 10,000 IUs. So every one of these studies is examining something that borders on useless. It's like studying the effect of drinking 2 oz of water with some salt added, vs drinking 3 oz of water without it. Yeah... that has some mild value. But it's not really telling you much about peak hydration. You'd need to examine the effects of drinking a gallon of lightly salted water a day vs a gallon of pure water. When you're doing this with tiny doses, you're not learning much in a practical sense.

Based on this fairly comprehensive study I'd say there is no evidence provided that calciferol does anything that a higher dose of D3 cannot provide.

 

[Kayaker]

I would not use any form of exogenous vitamin D since people react badly to it. It's different from endogenous vitamin D. Peat uses mercury vapor bulbs to stimulate natural synthesis.

Mercury Vapor Lamps For Vitamin D

Dr. Peat has mentioned in an interiew that he uses a mercury vapor lamp to obtain his vitamin D. Mercury vapor bulbs are an interesting technology because they give off UVA and UVB light. They are often used to provide UV to reptiles living in aquariums and can be found in pet stores or even...

raypeatforum.com

 

[Amazoniac]

The conversion of killciol to killcidiol shouldn't be an issue for most people, I remember reading that it can occur even in severe liver disease. An advantage is the lower solubility in fat for those with compromised absorption, but its storage must be inferior and it's less regulated for advancing one metabolic step. Being less prone to storage can be good if you need it immediately. The fact that it's already partially metabolized might make it worse for someone with hypersensitivity.

It's not stunt-friendly:

- Killcidiol | Vitamin D Wiki
↳ A pilot-randomized, double-blind crossover trial to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of orally administered 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 and vitamin D3 in healthy adults with differing BMI and in adults with intestinal malabsorption

Spoiler

On taking more killciol to make up for an impairment, this is considering that the ingested molecule leaves the body intact, I'm not sure if this is always the case. Since it's possible for other asteroids to be transformed into problematic compounds by fungus, why wouldn't it apply to killciol as well?

Nevertheless, it would be interesting for @Jorge to offer it for a while with his research products.

 

[Martin]

Considering how easily D3 is taken up... it's probably because it doesn't matter. Even if the claims of it being 3x "more potent" were true, you know what else is 3x more potent? 3x the dose. Which is generally pennies. I'm sure this other formulation is quite a bit more expensive to produce. They'd need to show me something like "2,000 IUs of our calcifediol have the following effects not found in 10,000 IUs of D3:"

Instead it says

Cool. So why not just up the dosage?

It just keeps harping on "When you take tiny amounts of both - calciferol is better!". It doesn't appear to ever examine the pretty obvious comparison of just... taking more D3. Maybe calciferol does something a higher dose of D3 does not do. But the study's author doesn't provide any insight into this. The one study they cite where there is an observable difference in effect between calciferol and D3 is a pig study on lactating mothers, indicating it can preserve higher blood calcium levels.

I'd say the biggest claim it makes is the following

But this is not further explored or any suggestion as to what positive impact this may have.

When you get down to page 8-10 where they really dig into the volume of studies, you see the same thing over and over. Tiny doses of both. By far the most given to a subject in any of the studies was a paltry 2400 IUs of D3. We already know the body easily absorbs and utilizes 10,000 IUs. So every one of these studies is examining something that borders on useless. It's like studying the effect of drinking 2 oz of water with some salt added, vs drinking 3 oz of water without it. Yeah... that has some mild value. But it's not really telling you much about peak hydration. You'd need to examine the effects of drinking a gallon of lightly salted water a day vs a gallon of pure water. When you're doing this with tiny doses, you're not learning much in a practical sense.

Based on this fairly comprehensive study I'd say there is no evidence provided that calciferol does anything that a higher dose of D3 cannot provide.

I think the benefit seems to be that you raise your vitamin d level much faster than you can with D3. Some people have trouble raising their levels or may also have sensitivity to D3 so this may be a decent alternative. It would be interesting to see @haidut perspective on this.

 

[jasieltego]

How about this link?
I'm interested in trying it

1mg oral calcifediol immediately repletes 25-hydroxyvitamin D, for COVID-19, sepsis, Kawasaiki disease, Mulitisystem Inflammatory Disorder etc. - now calcifediol is available via online ordernig, without need of prescription

 

[Martin]

How about this link?
I'm interested in trying it

1mg oral calcifediol immediately repletes 25-hydroxyvitamin D, for COVID-19, sepsis, Kawasaiki disease, Mulitisystem Inflammatory Disorder etc. - now calcifediol is available via online ordernig, without need of prescription

Agreed, it seems to be much faster acting as it does not need to be converted. Ideal for people that need quick vitamin D or struggle with vit d3 supplementation.

 

[serling78]

I think the benefit seems to be that you raise your vitamin d level much faster than you can with D3. Some people have trouble raising their levels or may also have sensitivity to D3 so this may be a decent alternative. It would be interesting to see @haidut perspective on this.

I'm of the same mindset. I'd be curious to try it. I'm one who has issues with D3 at "tiny doses" (2k IU) as someone said. And my body does not easily absorb 10k IU. I may look into this just to give it a try.

 

[Martin]

I'm of the same mindset. I'd be curious to try it. I'm one who has issues with D3 at "tiny doses" (2k IU) as someone said. And my body does not easily absorb 10k IU. I may look into this just to give it a try.

Just tried 600 IUs. Super small dose but so far I've noticed a mood and temp boost I never got with D3. Thought it was placebo but my temps are at 98.5 which I rarely see. I plan to double the dose soon and get tested 2 weeks after that so I'll keep reporting here.

 

[Riesensackteil]

Just tried 600 IUs. Super small dose but so far I've noticed a mood and temp boost I never got with D3. Thought it was placebo but my temps are at 98.5 which I rarely see. I plan to double the dose soon and get tested 2 weeks after that so I'll keep reporting here.

Still high temps from taking calcifediol?

 

[Martin]

Still high temps from taking calcifediol?

Yeah I'm 98.7 right now so mood and temps are still improved. I'm taking it in the morning and measuring at noon with no other supplements. I was vitamin d deficient so if you aren't vitamin d deficient you may not have the same results. I would recommend taking smaller doses to start. I started at 600 iu and now am up to 1200 iu and feel pretty comfortable here.

 

[Comstock]

Yeah I'm 98.7 right now so mood and temps are still improved. I'm taking it in the morning and measuring at noon with no other supplements. I was vitamin d deficient so if you aren't vitamin d deficient you may not have the same results. I would recommend taking smaller doses to start. I started at 600 iu and now am up to 1200 iu and feel pretty comfortable here.

Have you continued taking calcifediol? Any thoughts?