I guess I should probably increase my vitamin D intake to the 7,000 to 10,000 IU a day range. I am only taking 4,000 IU a day.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

Word of caution JK. I was put on 50,000 IU from my doctor and I took 3-4 months to recover from what it did to me. Now this is also related to my problem metabolising, so that would have added to the problem. But because they are not water soluable, they can store and build up and if your body cannot metabolise/detox properly, you can wind up poisoned.

I was poisoned by it. Even a mainstream doctor admitted that my symptoms coincided with vitamin D toxicity and he put it down to me not being able to metabolise properly. However, I also put it down to too much, too soon, of supplemental vitamin D by a previous doctor who should have known better and should have taken the "first do no harm" approach. There are other ways I'm sure to gradually build up vitamn D in the body without taking an extreme approach.

So at least you're not taking things to the extreme dosage wise. I am not the only one who has experienced this. There are others also that have gone through it. So it may not be simply down to my issues with detox/metabolising. May simply be a case of overdosing.

50,000 IU a day of vitamin D is a huge dosage. I would never consider taking more than 10,000 IU a day unless my blood vitamin D levels were monitored very closely. Even then, I would not want to be on such a high dosage for so long.

Even if I did have my blood vitamin D levels checked, and they did turn out very low, I still wouldn't feel comfortable taking more than 20,000 Iu a day. Without blood testing, I will not take more than 10,000 IU a day.

One other thing. I am a 180 pound male. Dosage should be proportional to body weight, so if I think 10,000 IU should be the maximum dosage I should take without blood testing, then for example that would mean a maximum dosage of 6,700 IU for a 120 pound woman without testing.

Yes, the dosage to me is pretty extreme and especially given my weight.

The dosage of 50,000 IU was meant to be taken I think for 5 days straight (to boost the levels quickly) and then tailed off to taking it once or twice a week (if memory serves me) as a maintainance dose. But I never got past the first day or two before it became obvious it was affecting me. I had to lie down because of going off-balance and of course, other symptoms too.

It affected my hearing and eyesight to some degree also. Had nausea, acid reflux, dizziness, etc for months after quitting it. I rang the office to get help and they didn't care at all. Told me they'd get back to me and never did.

Got in touch with another doctor I go to (mainstream) and they were very concerned and got me in fast. He said that the dose is not unacceptable and that they are doing this now in patients, but he said in my case, it hurt me (due to the metabolising problem). But as I said, i don't completely agree. I've seen enough reports now online of what these big doses can do to people and sadly, long term too. Takes a long time to "wear off". If in fact it ever does, as I hear overdosing vitamin D can cause nerve damage?

Of course, it's usually denied that it's harmed other patients in this way. But it's interesting how many you find on the net that have been injured in the same way. They maybe right, but it's possible that not many people are put on such high doses here in nz anyway, so they may not be getting an accurate enough idea of what impact it can have.

So you're being very wise about dosing. I have heard great benefits from vitamin D, as long as one does not go for overkill. As with anything i guess.

For a long time they were telling people not to take more than 2,000 iu a day of vitamin D, but then more recent research showed that 5,000 iu and perhaps even up to 10,000 a day may be safe enough. I am convinced that ny vitamin D levels are low as I don't get much sunlight, and those with mercury toxicity tend to have low vitamin D levels. I also read today that vitamin D boosts NK cell activity which is low in CFS(mercury toxicity).

Yep, I've heard the 10,000 seems to be the one that people take. My levels of vitamin D were appaulling, hence why the doc decided to take a drastic approach, which just backfired, but I think she's been using the same on other patients.

I don't get much sunlight myself, but I'm trying to push myself to go and sit outside for sometime each day. I know I need it! Eating beef liver, eggs, butter, natural cod liver oil etc can also help increase vitamin D too.

One can overdose on vitamin D from cod liver oil. You can't overdose on vitamin D from the sun.

I just read about the interaction of vitamin A(retinol) with vitamin D. I am taking 20,000 IU a day of vitamin A(retinol) to help fight candida, parasites, and other infections. I am going to change this to 10,000 IU a day of vitamin A, and try to get much more carotene in my diet. I might decrease the vitamin A some more later, but for the moment decreasing it to 10,000 IU a day seems prudent.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/2008-december.shtml

As far as I know, it's usually the cod liver oil that has had synthetic vitamins added to it that is the risk, rather than cod liver oil with the naturally occuring vitamins, which is often what happens.

They are saying that fully formed vitamin A(retinol)either from natural cod liver oil or from pills in large amounts can block vitamin D, but that the studies showed the effect doesn't happen with beta carotene.

Many studies showed that up to 20,000 IU a day can be taken by a 150 pund person without a chance of toxicity, however the more recent studies showed negative effects on vitamin D levels at lower levels than this of vitamin A. i just decreased my vitamin A intake to 10,000 IU a day, and plan to get some carotene supplements. I might decrease the retinol further after that. I am afraid to stop taking retinol completely(in case my body isn't converting at least some carotene to retinol).

It also seems like vitamin D may be very helpful in fighting candida, as vitamin D boosts NK cell activity, and candida infection seems to at least in part result from low NK cell activity.

Question for JK, please:

JK posted:
[For a long time they were telling people not to take more than 2,000 iu a day of vitamin D, but then more recent research showed that 5,000 iu and perhaps even up to 10,000 a day may be safe enough. I am convinced that ny vitamin D levels are low as I don't get much sunlight, and those with mercury toxicity tend to have low vitamin D levels. I also read today that vitamin D boosts NK cell activity which is low in CFS(mercury toxicity).]
-
Sorry JK, I still haven't caught on to the 'reply to' thingy!

My question for YOU, if you please is...I had my blood work done a couple of weeks ago. I have the test results in front of me.
JK, as I look at the paper, I see Vit D, 25-Hydroxy

Then it has an explanation of :35 Reference range:30-89
12 Reference range: 30-89 Unit (with a bunch of medical words.

Anyway, my MD typed on the bottom-- "Instructions: Labs ok. White blood cell count above normal, probably consistent with sinus infection she was describing."

It doesn't seem like she diagnosed me correctly according to the explanation in these. Do you know if the " Vit D,25-Hydroxy is alright?"

Thank you and God bless you for all the help you give! I continue taking the Life Enhancement SunPower Vit D/D3 (cholecalciferol) 2,000 IU, one (sometimes 2) a day.

I don't get much sunlight either!

--

"I see Vit D, 25-Hydroxy

Then it has an explanation of :35 Reference range:30-89"

On the vitamindcouncil.org website, they claim that 50-80 is the normal range, so your value of 35 is in fact too low. The lab's claim that as low as 30 is still normal doesn't seem to coincide with what they are saying on the vitamin D Council website.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Perhaps you should be taking 5,000-7,000 IU a day of vitamin D every day, then have your level tested again in 2 months to see if it is higher. If you start sunbathing in the summer or increase the amount of sun you get, then you don't need as much in supplement form.

JK posted:
[On the vitamindcouncil.org website, they claim that 50-80 is the normal range, so your value of 35 is in fact too low. The lab's claim that as low as 30 is still normal doesn't seem to coincide with what they are saying on the vitamin D Council website.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

Perhaps you should be taking 5,000-7,000 IU a day of vitamin D every day, then have your level tested again in 2 months to see if it is higher. If you start sunbathing in the summer or increase the amount of sun you get, then you don't need as much in supplement form.]
----------
Thank you, JK, I did go on the website and printed off the page. I agree with your recommendation. I will take more, perhaps 3 (D3), from this Life Enhancement.
--God bless you for helping so many. Yes, now that we're having longer daylight, I will go outside and work some Word Puzzles! Ha!

Take care. I sincerely DO HOPE you are feeling better.
As Bex so aptly indicated, "What works for one, may not work for someone else."

WOW! the Current 'RESEARCH' implication names a lot of 'bodily health problems' if lacking in this Vitamin!

Each individual is uniquely designed by our Creator. Count our blessings! How would we like to be in Japan right now???

"Other important roles for Vitamin D come from the work of Carl Reich, MD, of Calgary. Insufficient Vitamin D prevents the ionization of calcium and thus makes calcium less able to play it's role in functions in the body. Reich found that this leads to cell energy starvation, causing fatigue, headaches, muscle cramps, allergies, gut problems and other problems. Over time, these can become more serious: asthma, hypertension, osteoporosis, arthritis, etc. Dr. Reich treated this cell energy starvation using diet and nutrients, including doses of Vitamin D of 4800 to 8800 IU (less for children), reducing the dose as patients improved. Using this program for over 30 years, Dr. Reich helped his patients recover from a variety of ailments. "

http://www.vitaminsinamerica.com/news/vitamin_d.htm