XPlus said:haidut said:I don't know what Ray's specific guidelines on daily intake of vitamin D are, but I have seen him express opinion that 400 IU - 800 IU is likely too low to make a difference. This study claims that the current guidelines are underestimated by a factor of 10, so a person should really be ingesting north of 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 daily.
If true, this may explain why most studies with vitamin D did not see effects with doses of less then 3,000 IU.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/scient ... ar-too-low
There's something I wanted to get your opinion of, Haidut.
Although I'm supposedly deficient, vitamin D is the least effective of the fat soluble vitamins in my experience.
I feel indifferent to taking it.
Why do you think is that?
Couple of possible reasons I can think of.
1. Your PTH may already be low enough that you don't get any benefit from extra vitamin D.
2. Impaired conversion of vitamin D into calcitriol (the active vitamin D capable of activating the VDR).
3. Insufficient intake or imbalance in the other fat-soluble vitamins, especially vitamin A and K. For instance, if vitamin A is too low or too high it would either make vitamin D toxic or block its action altogether. Also, low vitamin K decreases the ability of calcitriol to activate VDR.
4. Many people deficient in vitamin D experience no relief until their levels reach at least 35. Some people with diabetes and heart disease need levels of 50+ to feel better. Again, achieving these levels is not easy and potentially harmful if vitamin D is taken on its own. Always combine with A and K, unless you have blood tests showing A and K are high and do not need supplementing.
Just my 2c.