0

votes

Hack my Vitamin D value

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created September 06, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I just got my Vitamin D value but it shows 6 ??g/dL, so i was just wondering if anyone can tell me how much that would be in ng/mL.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:18 PM

Kurt Harris was easily able to achieve levels of 65 ng/ml with regular sun exposure. http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/10/28/vitamin-d-via-insolation-the-natural-route-in-the-north.html

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:16 PM

My understanding is that most folk don't start storing D until their levels are at 50 ng/ml minimum. The Vitamin D Council recommends 50-80 ng/ml. My n=1 experience is that I have had the best health of my life at 91 ng/ml--possibly because I had some inflammatory conditions that were helped by the higher level. I have dropped my supplementation a bit, but feel just fine on the higher end of the range. I don't agree that 80 ng/ml is non-physiological.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:13 PM

My understanding is that most folk don't start storing D until their levels are at 50 ng/ml minimum. The Vitamin D Council recommends 50-80 ng/ml. My n=1 experience is that I have had the best health of my life at 91 ng/ml--possibly because I had some inflammatory conditions that were helped by the higher level. I have dropped my supplementation a bit, but feel just fine on the higher end of the range. I don't agree that 80 ng/ml is non-physiological. Kurt Harris was easily able to achieve 79 ng/ml with regular, but not excessive summer sun exposure in Wisconsin (no supplements.)

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on September 06, 2011
at 10:18 PM

2.5 Nmol/L = 1 ng/nl. Thus, you're level is 35.6 ng/ml, which is about where it should be. You could go slightly higher in my opinion -- like up to 45ng.ml. I would avoid the non-physiological levels some people here advocate (e.g., nothing over 55ng/ml IMO).

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 04:26 PM

Yeah i'm a lightweight... I do eat some sardines and CLO.

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:17 PM

Actually makes me wonder if the Lab is realiable.

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:11 PM

Thanks Dragonfly! I'm actually quite surprised at that value myself. I work indoors and I rarely see the sun. I do supplement from time to time with 2.000 IU but i would never have guessed I had such good results. Hummm

  • F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

    asked by

    (1164)
  • Views
    1K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

2
Medium avatar

on September 06, 2011
at 04:19 PM

It's possible that it's a real value if you, for example, eat a lot of sardines/cod liver oil, have taken 2000IU on/off for a while and don't weigh all that much.

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 04:26 PM

Yeah i'm a lightweight... I do eat some sardines and CLO.

1
Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 02:32 PM

6 mcg/dl = 6000 ng/100 ml so, 60 ng/ml

Nice level!

http://www.unitconversion.org/weight/micrograms-to-nanograms-conversion.html

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:11 PM

Thanks Dragonfly! I'm actually quite surprised at that value myself. I work indoors and I rarely see the sun. I do supplement from time to time with 2.000 IU but i would never have guessed I had such good results. Hummm

F910318b9aa27b91bcf7881f39b9eabe

(1164)

on September 06, 2011
at 03:17 PM

Actually makes me wonder if the Lab is realiable.

0
560821f3e7352455c3ebc2283d424f2e

on September 06, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Just had 89.0 nmol/l from a blood test, how does that sound? The lab said it was adequate! I am surprised!

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on September 06, 2011
at 10:18 PM

2.5 Nmol/L = 1 ng/nl. Thus, you're level is 35.6 ng/ml, which is about where it should be. You could go slightly higher in my opinion -- like up to 45ng.ml. I would avoid the non-physiological levels some people here advocate (e.g., nothing over 55ng/ml IMO).

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:18 PM

Kurt Harris was easily able to achieve levels of 65 ng/ml with regular sun exposure. http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/10/28/vitamin-d-via-insolation-the-natural-route-in-the-north.html

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:16 PM

My understanding is that most folk don't start storing D until their levels are at 50 ng/ml minimum. The Vitamin D Council recommends 50-80 ng/ml. My n=1 experience is that I have had the best health of my life at 91 ng/ml--possibly because I had some inflammatory conditions that were helped by the higher level. I have dropped my supplementation a bit, but feel just fine on the higher end of the range. I don't agree that 80 ng/ml is non-physiological.

Ce41c230e8c2a4295db31aec3ef4b2ab

(32556)

on September 06, 2011
at 11:13 PM

My understanding is that most folk don't start storing D until their levels are at 50 ng/ml minimum. The Vitamin D Council recommends 50-80 ng/ml. My n=1 experience is that I have had the best health of my life at 91 ng/ml--possibly because I had some inflammatory conditions that were helped by the higher level. I have dropped my supplementation a bit, but feel just fine on the higher end of the range. I don't agree that 80 ng/ml is non-physiological. Kurt Harris was easily able to achieve 79 ng/ml with regular, but not excessive summer sun exposure in Wisconsin (no supplements.)

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!