Supplement Fact Sheet Shows No Vitamin D Toxicity

[Islander]

From the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements comes Dietary Supplement Fact Sheet: Vitamin D
Health Professional Fact Sheet


I found their observations on toxicity interesting, but the page itself is a valuable resource.

http://dietary-supplements.info.nih....itamind.asp#h8

[mellowsong]

I don't agree that those amounts of Vitamin D are adequate for the vast majority of the population. If they were there wouldn't be an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency admitted even by allopathic medicine. Even my endocrinologist cited several studies where the absolute bottom number for Vitamin D is 32 for adults and in anyone who has or is at risk for osteoporosis, they recommend a level of 50. There is good info here, but a lot of it is hedged in "more studies are needed" or flat out out-dated.

[Aaltrude]

Originally Posted by mellowsong

I don't agree that those amounts of Vitamin D are adequate for the vast majority of the population. If they were there wouldn't be an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency admitted even by allopathic medicine. Even my endocrinologist cited several studies where the absolute bottom number for Vitamin D is 32 for adults and in anyone who has or is at risk for osteoporosis, they recommend a level of 50. There is good info here, but a lot of it is hedged in "more studies are needed" or flat out out-dated.

Normal range for vitamin D in New Zealand labs is 50 - 150 nmol/L
I assume you are talking about different units here mellowsong.

[Islander]

Originally Posted by mellowsong

I don't agree that those amounts of Vitamin D are adequate for the vast majority of the population. If they were there wouldn't be an epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency admitted even by allopathic medicine. Even my endocrinologist cited several studies where the absolute bottom number for Vitamin D is 32 for adults and in anyone who has or is at risk for osteoporosis, they recommend a level of 50. There is good info here, but a lot of it is hedged in "more studies are needed" or flat out out-dated.

I agree that the recommendations are too low — which is interesting since there seems to be a lot of latitude on how much is too much. That was what caught my attention.

[mellowsong]

Originally Posted by Aaltrude

Normal range for vitamin D in New Zealand labs is 50 - 150 nmol/L
I assume you are talking about different units here mellowsong.

Yeah, here it is ng/mL

[Aaltrude]

Originally Posted by mellowsong

Yeah, here it is ng/mL

What is the normal rqange in ng/ml?

[Islander]

50-60 ng/mL s the latest recommendation I've heard for optimal levels.

[Aaltrude]

Originally Posted by Islander

50-60 ng/mL s the latest recommendation I've heard for optimal levels.

I'm interested in knowing the normal range so I can compare the figures mellowsong gave to the units we use here.

[Maurya]

Here is the conversion factor that I obtained from a web site called onlineconversion.com

For example: 50 mn/mL x 2.496 = 124.8 nmol/L which is about in the middle of the 50 - 150 nmol/L range that was mentioned. To convert in the opposite direction, just divide by the factor of 2.496, rather that multiplying by the factor.

Hope this helps.

[mellowsong]

Originally Posted by Aaltrude

What is the normal rqange in ng/ml?

Normal with most US labs is now 30 to 80. Some still actually have 20 as the bottom of the range but it is changing. I do believe everyone is different and I've discovered that I cannot raise my level above 40. I managed to reverse osteoporosis with that, so I'm happy. Also, in my reading about CFIDS/ME, apparently the body cannot tolerate high levels of Vitamin D. I think most alternative doctors/sites want to see at least 50 and I know there are some recommendations of 80 to 100 for cancer patients.