Page 1 of 1

Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:31 pm
by polly
I live in El Paso, Texas which is a pretty sunny place. My last Vitamin D test showed level of 63 with normal listed as (30-100). I do supplement, but only about 1,500 per day. Should I go up to 5,000 per day? I did have a vitamin D deficiency about 9 years ago, which is when my symptoms first appeared, but have supplemented since that time. I have a pool and try to swim most days, although it isn't always in the sunniest time of day since I work.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:38 pm
by nryan
Your level is too low. You need to be closer to 100 if you want neuro-protective benefits. I thin k this is especially important as your first relapse may have been triggered by low vitamin D. If I were you I would take 60 000 IU as a mega dose right away and increase to 5 000 per day and test again in three months.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:00 am
by Blueberry
nryan wrote: Your level is too low. You need to be closer to 100 if you want neuro-protective benefits. I thin k this is especially important as your first relapse may have been triggered by low vitamin D. If I were you I would take 60 000 IU as a mega dose right away and increase to 5 000 per day and test again in three months.


Agree but may pay for other to give their advice too
non m.s people are fine 50-150 but we need to be 150-250.
You are way too low.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:49 am
by korimako
Polly, what vitamin D scale are your results? For Texas, I would guess ng/mL - so 63ng/mL = 157.5nmol/L which is OK but not great. Minimum of 200nmol/L is optimum for people with MS (80ng/mL).

From the Vitamin D FAQs:
[Please clarify the conversion factor between the American measurement ng/mL and the measurement we use, nmol/L.?

Vitamin D levels in the body can be easily measured with a simple blood test. Until fairly recently, a level of less than 25nmol/L was considered to represent moderate to severe deficiency and a level of 25-50nmol/L mild deficiency. Many laboratories have now changed their recommended normal levels to 75-250nmol/L reflecting recent research indicating a higher upper level of normal is quite safe.

So, currently <75nmol/L is considered insufficient, and <50nmol/L deficient. In the US, the measure is ng/mL, with 100nmol/L equivalent to 40ng/mL. So if your reading in the US is ng/mL, multiply by 2.5 to get the nmol/L we discuss on this site. For example:
For a reading of 50ng/mL in the US, multiply by 2.5 and the reading for elsewhere in the world will be 125nmol/L.
For a reading of 125nmol/L elsewhere in the world, divide by 2.5 and the US reading will be 50ng/mL.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 1:24 pm
by nryan
Blueberry wrote:
nryan wrote: Your level is too low. You need to be closer to 100 if you want neuro-protective benefits. I thin k this is especially important as your first relapse may have been triggered by low vitamin D. If I were you I would take 60 000 IU as a mega dose right away and increase to 5 000 per day and test again in three months.


Agree but may pay for other to give their advice too
non m.s people are fine 50-150 but we need to be 150-250.
You are way too low.


Yes - but she is in Texas - it is ng/mol we are talking here - she should be around 80 - 90.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 2:10 pm
by polly
Thanks for all the advice. Since I'm in the US, my equivalent level to yours is 157.5. I'm really not deficient, but I agree I could raise it some. Do you all take calcium supplements too? I'm concerned about producing too much calcium with a very high D level, but I'm 54 and going through Menopause so calcium is also important to protect against osteoporosis.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:33 pm
by Kashu
I would still do a 150,000 megadose to bring your level up wuicker and then continue on 5,000 per day. Test again in a couple of months and make adjustment to daily dose if needed.

Calcium is not an issue if your diet is good so no one needs calcium supplements unless you have a condition that needs it.

Re: Confused about Vitamin D supplements

PostPosted: Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:51 am
by korimako
I don't think you need a megadose Polly, as you are swimming outside regularly and getting natural vitamin D from the sun (but don't use sunscreen). I know George Jelinek gets his vitamin D this way even on cloudier days, by swimming. I think you should increase your supplements though, to 5000IU/day over winter to get up to 200nmol/L or 80ng/mL, then get tested again in the spring. You may find that lots of swimming outside is enough to maintain this better level as the vitamin D scale is not linear ie it takes a lot to raise your level, but less to maintain it for most people.

There is an explanation here about exposure to sunlight - you make 10,000 -15,000IU a day from sun exposure, even through water.
http://www.overcomingmultiplesclerosis. ... Vitamin-D/

I agree that calcium is not an issue, this is from the Diet FAQs:
Where do I get calcium from if I exclude dairy from my diet? Will I get osteoporosis?
There is abundant calcium in this diet. The real problem with calcium in western societies is lack of sunlight. Sunlight results in vitamin D being produced in the body, and vitamin D's main job is to absorb calcium from the diet. A whole calcium supplementation industry has grown in western countries as a result of sun avoidance. Foods such as dairy are heavily promoted as being healthy because they contain calcium, ignoring the real health problems they may cause. With adequate vitamin D, from sun or supplements, there is no problem with inadequate calcium. Osteoporosis is unlikely too for people who get enough vitamin D.