2

votes

What's the Generally Accepted Optimal Vitamin D Level These Days?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created March 08, 2011 at 1:14 AM

Jaminet and Davis seem to think that around 40 is optimal, while the vitamin d council seem to say above 50ng/ml. I just got my test back and it was 85ng/ml. I've never taken more than 5000IU a day and I supplement with none during the shirtless part of the year (30 mins shirtless during solar noon usually). The range on the test came back as 32-100, which surprised me since I assumed that conventional wisdom would put the upper limit much lower.

Anyway, if you guys tested at 85ng/ml, would you want to leave your supplement amount alone or decrease it? I'm planning on leaving it unless there's some compelling evidence that I'm doomed.

Also, is it safe to assume that my elevated level of vitamin D enables me to safely tolerate more liver consumption and thus more preformed vitamin A?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 07:39 PM

That is why medicine is part art and science. People forget that many times.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 07:38 PM

Jay....true but masterjohn is not a clinician. I am. And my job is to go with the best evidence based upon clinical response. His job is to continue to get me the right answer. I have to go with the responses I see and mesh that with the toxicity data. People on the whole do best 70-100 and that is why I advocate it.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on March 08, 2011
at 06:18 PM

Yeah, I'd like to be eating a 1/4lb of lamb liver twice a week plus natto every day, so I think I may want it to be higher. I may still lower my intake to 4000IU a day.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on March 08, 2011
at 04:23 PM

It was just a dose-response study -- it offers 0 evidence to support the claim that these higher levels result in better protection form cancer. That's just bad science journalism (and maybe some intentional deception on the part of the authors of the study - since they casually assume such high levels are optimal)

5f0158c23fcb5636e57b4ce097784da0

(1386)

on March 08, 2011
at 12:10 PM

i think one of the arguments of jaminet against much higher levels was that apparently higher levels lead to accelerated aging? that would certainly be a good argument against mega-dosing, but i haven't seen/read more details about this mechanism yet - but i'm sure paul is nor just making this up. the question is more "from what level on" this effect may become relevant.

64433a05384cd9717c1aa6bf7e98b661

(15236)

on March 08, 2011
at 03:28 AM

Mine was 85 about a year ago, then sunk down to around 50 with less supplementation. I'd say keep doin what you're doin, Im gonna get mine re-checked and I'm hoping to see 60-80

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:41 AM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110222140546.htm

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:39 AM

and I think what Masterjohn has said is quite responsible given the data. But I think the toxicity data make a case for a higher level given the dose response curve we see clinically for people we treat. Sometimes emperic medicine works......that is why it is both an art and science.

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:52 AM

In this thread I asked that very question: http://paleohacks.com/questions/14117/what-does-the-science-say-about-ideal-vitamin-d-levels#axzz1Fy7rX4V6

  • Size75 avatar

    asked by

    (39831)
  • Views
    4.4K
  • Last Activity
    1380D AGO
Frontpage book

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

5 Answers

4
D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:39 AM

Chris Masterjohn has done a crazy good job covering this. No compelling evidence, you're just in the land of speculation.:

"Lifeguards in the tropics can reach blood levels in the 50???s and 60???s naturally from sun exposure, suggesting these levels are "natural," although lifeguards in Israel have 20 times the rate of kidney stones as the general population. Kidney stones may be the most sensitive indicator of vitamin D toxicity and are a symptom of vitamin A and K2 deficiency. Thus, I suspect these levels are healthful in the context of a diet rich in vitamins A and K2, and if my levels were to reach this high in the summer sun while I were eating such a diet I certainly would not worry.

But if you are trying desperately to maintain year-round 25(OH)D status between 50-80 ng/mL using vitamin D supplements, you have entered the land of speculation. Enter at your own risk."

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/are-some-people-pushing-their-vitamin-d-levels-too-high.html

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/is-vitamin-d-safe-still-depends-on-vitamins-a-and-k-testimonials-and-a-human-study.html

D10ca8d11301c2f4993ac2279ce4b930

(5242)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:52 AM

In this thread I asked that very question: http://paleohacks.com/questions/14117/what-does-the-science-say-about-ideal-vitamin-d-levels#axzz1Fy7rX4V6

2
06d21b99c58283ce575e36c4ecd4a458

(9948)

on March 08, 2011
at 01:38 AM

Dr K on these boards said recently that he wants his patients to be 70-100ng/mL. The vitamin D Council Dr Cannell suggests 50 to 70.

I did see a anedotal account of a patient being given 500,000IU of prescription Vit D2 due to a mistake by the filling pharmacy over 3 months with no apparent harm to the patient. Should have been 50000IU.

And I have seen a report that Southern Cal lifeguards D3 levels can reach 140ng/mL with just sunlight. No apparent adverse effects.

It seems that no one has a hard and fast rule...32 to 100 is a broad range.

For me my 70ng/mL has kept me cold/flu free for 3 years. I started with 10000IU for six months and have been at 5000IU since.

0
4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on March 08, 2011
at 04:24 PM

I'd shoot for between 45ng/ml and 55ng/ml, with the exact target determined by your vitamin A and K intakes. For example, if you eat beef liver occasionally, go for 55ng/ml.

Medium avatar

(39831)

on March 08, 2011
at 06:18 PM

Yeah, I'd like to be eating a 1/4lb of lamb liver twice a week plus natto every day, so I think I may want it to be higher. I may still lower my intake to 4000IU a day.

0
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:14 AM

I did say I shoot for 70-100 and have spoken to Masterjohn about it. A recent study our of Creighton just came out about the IOM and cancer prevention with higher levels of vit D. I think the literature is not complete on vit D levels. But I will say this.....the literature is replete with toxicity data from the 1900's til today and it appears 200-250 is the upper levels of normal. In light of these facts I push as close to hundred as I can and the older and more obese they are the harder I push. In Nov my own vit D was 56 with no supplementation post summer. I started 20K of D3 and 5 mgs of vit K2 and 1000mgs of Selenium a day, 50 mgs of Zinc a day and re drew my blood in Dec. It was 93. I had my blood drawn again today..........I will let you know what it comes out.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 07:39 PM

That is why medicine is part art and science. People forget that many times.

4781cf8ae1bfcb558dfb056af17bea94

(4359)

on March 08, 2011
at 04:23 PM

It was just a dose-response study -- it offers 0 evidence to support the claim that these higher levels result in better protection form cancer. That's just bad science journalism (and maybe some intentional deception on the part of the authors of the study - since they casually assume such high levels are optimal)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 07:38 PM

Jay....true but masterjohn is not a clinician. I am. And my job is to go with the best evidence based upon clinical response. His job is to continue to get me the right answer. I have to go with the responses I see and mesh that with the toxicity data. People on the whole do best 70-100 and that is why I advocate it.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:41 AM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110222140546.htm

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on March 08, 2011
at 02:39 AM

and I think what Masterjohn has said is quite responsible given the data. But I think the toxicity data make a case for a higher level given the dose response curve we see clinically for people we treat. Sometimes emperic medicine works......that is why it is both an art and science.

-1
C9d591fc86931ea09e58b6d769342985

on March 08, 2011
at 04:32 AM

I think the literature is not complete on vit D levels. But I will say this.....the literature is replete with toxicity data from the 1900's til today and it appears 200-250 is the upper levels of normal. In light of these facts I push as close to hundred as I can and the older and more obese they are the harder I push

Answer Question


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