I remember reading about how the current recommended dose of Vitamin D was a statistical error in a study and has since been corrected to the tune of 10-11x higher.
"The recommended daily intake of vitamin D has a long history, originally set at 400 IU/day in the early-to-mid 20th century, including the 1970s, primarily to prevent rickets in children and bone disease in adults. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) updated the recommendation to 600 IU/day for most adults and 800 IU/day for those over 70. However, a major statistical error in the IOM’s analysis was later uncovered by researchers, who showed that the calculation underestimated the amount needed to achieve sufficient blood levels of vitamin D in 97.5% of the population. Their corrected analysis suggested a required intake closer to 7,000 IU/day, an order of magnitude higher. Despite this, most official health organizations have not revised the RDA, and the 600–800 IU/day guideline remains standard." [chatgpt summary]
It should be said that there are experts that still argue strongly that we shouldn’t casually take large doses of Vitamin D. It’s not actually a vitamin. It’s a steroid hormone.
You can easily be misled about how much vitamin D you need because the skin makes a huge amount of it when exposed to sunlight.. but it does that as part of the process of protecting itself from sunlight, not because the body necessarily needs that much vitamin D.
Before you take large doses you should read and understand these articles.
I thought follow up work also showed it's questionable whether dietary vitamin D actually has any of the benefits that you get through solar vitamin D?
Nonesense. It's well established that dietary D3 (or D2, but D3 is better) clearly incleases 25(OH)D serum levels. It is that serum biomarker whose deficiency (levels below 20ng/ml or 30ng/ml) that has the largest association with higher risk of dozens of diseases as well as all-cause mortality. You can defend your phrasing by saying that "not well" just means one has to take a lot of it. Yes, there is a wide variety of dose response, which is why it's best to test blood levels to titrate supplementation amount.
Is the blood level diagnostically significant with vit D? Or is this something like magnesium where serum levels can be normal while having a magnesium shortage? IIRC vit d is fat soluble, does the body store any excess quickly, or does it linger around?
The goal of this study was to investigate whether the relationship between body composition, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD), vitamin D in subcutaneous (SQ) and omental (OM) adipose, and total adipose stores of vitamin D differ among OB and C. ... In summary, although OB had significantly greater total vitamin D stores than C, the relationship between serum 25OHD and fat vitamin D and the overall pattern of distribution of vitamin D between the OM and SQ fat compartments was similar.
As for the criticism against vit d supplements because of the extreme variability of actual vit d between brands, regardless of the supposed IU they advertise (there is very little objective, independent quality control being done, which makes it a bit of a wild west, but I guess that goes for _all_ supplements).
I don't think it's necessarily a problem. Ignore the prescribed dosage by the brand. This sounds like bad advice, but it's not reliable cfr. the variability. Just get your bloodwork done first. Then start experimenting with consistent dosages and stick to one brand. Get your bloodwork checked again after a month and proceed from there. Aim at a value between 40 and 70 (according to Gominak, which I concur doing my own research/experimenting).
Disclaimer: I am not a doctor, please do your own research and preferably consult with a medical advisor
Other than the value you are aiming for (I personally aim for the upper edge of the normal range), I agree with the immense variability in dosage, and also would like to mention imprecision in vitamin D bloodwork tests as well.
Thankfully throughout my Vitamin D research, I found low risk of overdose, and cases of immense accidental overdose that appear to have been treated successfully (mainly by stopping the over-intake).
Question to HN: To what extent do we understand vitamin D's activity in our body?
A lot of the focus seems to be on the bone, muscle, teeth, etc. components, but I also hear often about headlines like in the OP or its significance in improving mood. I would like to know if there's potential that we know little about its complete set of effects.
I’ve personally been taking 7500 IU daily for many years now. Anecdotally (yes, I know, N=1) I have noticed I get sick less. I just did the math and apparently I’m taking the same dose as the participants in this article. I firmly believe the RDA is wrong, and the “high dose” of this article is closer to what the RDA should be.
I can’t find the article which caused me to originally start my 7500 IU regiment but there are many similar papers out now, such as:
>Soccer players that supplemented with 6,000 IU of vitamin D significantly improved their blood vitamin D levels, increased their free and total testosterone, and performed better on the 5 m sprint test compared to the placebo group.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7284423/
The hypothesis was: is it beneficial to supplement vitamin D to reach the maximum levels achieved through sun exposure year-round?
Conclusion: these types of studies did not exist at the time, but the risks of doing such studies would be minimal, and such studies would be able to test for the effects of higher dose supplementation that were lacking at the time. Potential benefits include increased muscular strength and bone strength.
> I’ve personally been taking 7500 IU daily for many years now.
And here I am debating whether increasing to 4000 was pushing my luck. I am also reporting less illnesses - or actually - no instances of being bedridden, which is an improvement over the previous flu seasons.
It depends on your sun exposure and kidney health. In the elderly with a compromised kidney, 4000 can push them over a sane limit. For most people though with minimal sun exposure, 4000-5000 is pretty good, and certainly will make them less sick. For optimal effect, stack with calcium and magnesium as citrate or better.
The linked study uses a daily dose of 6,000IU, and references two studies (13,26) which also tout the benefit of supplementing Vitamin D at a 3,000IU dose and a 3,332IU dose, both daily.
The two studies which are referenced (27,28) that do not find any significant benefits followed a different dosing strategy: 20,000IU and 60,000IU, weekly.
It seems like daily, large doses is the best method for supplementing vitamin D. I've seen it suggested to pair vitamin D supplementation with calcium and magnesium [1].
I've tried taking vitamin D bc heard it was so great.
After taking 1000 ui a day for a week or two, I will start to experience mood issues like increased anger and anxiety which will go away after a couple days of stopping.
I have heard of others with this complaint as well, but I do not know why. ChatGPT suggests something about magnesium and calcium levels, but it's certainly not a commonly talked about side effect.
Anyone have an answer? I assume I'm deficient but I'm not sure its worth the benefits.
( I'm not saying Vit D is bad, I'm just curious if others have had difficulties with it )
I took 5000 IU of vitamin D for one month and I just happen to have a blood test that was coming up. My calcium levels were elevated. I was told to take this dose by my doctor, because my vitamin D levels, not deficient she felt they were very low.
During this time, my mood also worsened.
Some of us may be more sensitive to calcium transport when taking vitamin D than others, and this is clearly due to genetics. Interestingly enough, there is something in fish which controls this, I can’t think of it off the top of my head right now, but I will look it up and post it later.
So now I only get my vitamin D from natural occurring vitamin D in seafood, and the sun.
I've experienced something similar and I believe D3 is not to blame.
I took 5k iu oil softgels and got a unique and indescribable BAD feeling. It crept up very gradually over the course of a month and a half and I had a hard time realizing what was happening. It took me over a month to recover after I stopped.
Another time I've taken 2k iu dry D3 and had zero side-effects.
A couple of years after that D3 mishap, I tried some omega-3 and after a two weeks I realized that that unique bad feeling was making a comeback.
Again, another time I tried a different brand of omega-3 I had no side-effects.
I have a bunch of food sensitivities. So I believe that was a reaction to some contaminants in the oil.
Could you please share your physical activity level around the time of supplementation?
One of the most interesting studies I found in my research of vitamin D was a study in an elder care center where the patients were given massive doses of vitamin D.
The result of the massive doses were that patience had less hip fractures, but more falls compared to the control.
Now take this next part with a grain of salt because it’s me extrapolating from this result, but due to the known effects of vitamin D on muscle strength and also on bone density, I imagine that these patients were more active, but because vitamin D doesn’t give you coordination as well as strength they were falling more, their bones were more dense so they had less fractures per fall.
The point I’m trying to make and the reason I am curious about your own activity level, is that perhaps that there is a sensation or feeling of your muscles being more primed for action which can be agitating. Perhaps regular activity can link one’s sense of proprioception with increased muscular ability.
Apologies in advance if this is too personal of a pry.
When does a professional come into play? You assumed you're deficient, you asked chatgpt, and now you're asking for anecdotes from HN. Go get some blood work done and talk to a professional who actually knows about these things.
I don't think there's an easy answer as we all have differently tuned bodies with different known/unknown beningn/malevolent conditions. It's probably good to do some short term experimenting, try eating more magnesium and calcium rich foods and see how you feel. If you really want to be objective, get your blood contents measured. (Although blood levels don't show everything, like calcium stores in the bones.)
tl;dr - some Vit D supplements are based on lanolin. if you're sensitive to it, you may switch to a supplement that doesn't use lanolin. also one response talks about taking a multi-Vitamin B supplement for anger issues with Vit.D
1000 ui per day? Thats a small dose, I am myself taking 800 per day but when I skip I just compound it for next dose since D works this way and accumulates, not like vitamin C. I had bad case of deficiency recently (when finally some blood work was done) and initial treatment to jumpstart was IIRC 100k ui.
Maybe you have some sort of sensitivity to medium in which its dissolved?
Not sure why you're being downvoted, so I created an account specifically to respond.
I've had the same issue. Even when I take low doses of 400iu, vitamin D causes extreme anxiety and mood issues that only go away a couple of days after I stop taking it. I've had to completely cut it out and can't take supplements that contain it. I've also taken various brands so I would assume the additives would be different but who knows. If you search this symptom online, you'll find a lot of people with the same reaction but never any explanation.
Definitely interested to see if anyone has had this same issue and was able to fix it.
Anyway, just a word of caution to anyone reading. Because even 400iu makes me feel very uncomfortable. I don't want to know what would happen at 4,000iu.
I think at this point, they should just go straight to liquid with an eyedropper, no gelatin capsule or anything in order to try and rule out as much as possible.
The problem with an exposed liquid is that will definitely lose its potency a lot quicker. A softgel keeps the active ingredient somewhat protected from oxidation. It also depends on the level of antioxidant present in the liquid. This matters in the tail end of the bottle.
Up to 5000 IU per day is unlikely to result in a concerningly high level of D3 or calcium in someone with minimal sun exposure. Also, caffeine drains nutrients like calcium away. Those with compromised kidneys will have to be more careful.
I got a prescription for vitamin D deficiency and started researching about it. On the way, I found the Coimbra Protocol[1], which evolves around giving high doses of vitamin D (40000-200000 IU) to multiple sclerosis patients.
Same here, and with good results, but a note of warning, according to my doctor 10,000 - 20,000 are considered in the protocol a normal daily supplement for adults with vitamin D issues. Dosages above that require medical supervision (in the form of regular blood and urine analysis). Also at those high doses there are potential negative side effects that must be mitigated (osteoporosis being among them). So please don't just YOLO massive doses of vitamin D.
I take 5000 daily as a maintenance dose. Bloodwork has been basically perfect since I started doing that. If you are deficient doctors often prescribe a massive daily dose like 20000-30000 to get back to normal then drop down to a maintenance dose.
The nice thing with vitamin D is that you can actually check its level in bloodwork. The normal range is often considered to be between 50-125 ng/mL with below 30 considered deficient and above 120 or so considered too much.
I highly recommend people stay on top of this particular vitamin. In addition to evidence that a deficiency significantly affects your immune system functionality, it’s also uncomfortable. My spouse has been deficient in the past and experienced hand cramps, back spasms, muscle aches etc.
It’s fat soluble so it takes a few weeks to get it back to normal after supplementation
Vitamin D deficiency has also been linked to cancer, specifically colorectal IIRC. Also people who had D deficiency were more likely to have problems with COVID.
Adding on this point, in my research I found blood serum testing to be wildly imprecise.
The conclusion of my study was that we should do more studies where we take regular blood level samples and adjust dosage to achieve a certain average level (near the upper level of the range).
5000IU D3 (D2 is about 1/3-1/2 as effective at raising blood serum levels) is a good starting point.
Muscle cramps/spasms are a lot more than just vitamin D.. electrolytes are important.. If they have been deficient in vitamin D, chances are they are also deficient in electrolytes as well.
"The recommended daily intake of vitamin D has a long history, originally set at 400 IU/day in the early-to-mid 20th century, including the 1970s, primarily to prevent rickets in children and bone disease in adults. In 2010, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) updated the recommendation to 600 IU/day for most adults and 800 IU/day for those over 70. However, a major statistical error in the IOM’s analysis was later uncovered by researchers, who showed that the calculation underestimated the amount needed to achieve sufficient blood levels of vitamin D in 97.5% of the population. Their corrected analysis suggested a required intake closer to 7,000 IU/day, an order of magnitude higher. Despite this, most official health organizations have not revised the RDA, and the 600–800 IU/day guideline remains standard." [chatgpt summary]
https://www.grassrootshealth.net/blog/iom-miscalculated-rda-...