Vit D supplements

[JeffN]

Can you recommend a brand name. So many choices. I don't know which companies are good. I also heard that most ingredients comes from China? Is that true? Thanks

Unfortunately, I can't.

However, I always recommend looking for products that have either of the following two endorsements.

The first, is the Consumer Lab seal of approval, which means they have been tested by a independent lab and passed the testing

http://www.consumerlab.com/images/template_cl_logo.jpg

The second is the USP-Verified seal, which means is has met the quality criteria of the USP

http://www.usp.org/images/dsvp_mark.gif

And here is a list of supplements that passed the USP testing

http://www.usp.org/USPVerified/dietaryS ... ments.html


In Health
Jeff

[karin_kiwi]

I'm not sure if you can answer this. I live in New Zealand - you know, where there's a big hole in the ozone layer and the melanoma rate is one of the highest in the world. In winter I will go outside without sunblock on. But for 4-5 months of the year I just cannot go outside between 11am-4pm (10am-5pm in the hottest couple of months) without sunblock. I will literally burn in less than 5 minutes without protection (official burn time is around 7 minutes). I'm not talking a faint pink blush, but skin that is red, hot to touch even 6-10 hours later, a little painful and tight. I can burn in the NZ sun through a t-shirt, even dry. Even with 45 factor sunblock on, I can burn in an hour if I'm out in full sun.

I worry enormously about skin cancer, especially because my genetic heritage is from England and Austria/Germany - not exactly the most tropical of countries. So I stick strictly to the shade and inside for the majority of the day in late spring-early autumn. But supposedly there's a Vit D deficiency problem here, too.

Does the sunblock completely negate the potential Vit D benefits of the sun? Is it better to spend the 5 minutes getting sun on bare skin even if it means a burn? Will the sun in the early morning (e.g. 9am) or late afternoon (after 5pm) be effective? I would like to know your opinion on the relative risk of Vit D deficiency and sunburn/UV exposure.

[serenity]

I'm not sure if you can answer this. I live in New Zealand - you know, where there's a big hole in the ozone layer and the melanoma rate is one of the highest in the world. In winter I will go outside without sunblock on. But for 4-5 months of the year I just cannot go outside between 11am-4pm (10am-5pm in the hottest couple of months) without sunblock. I will literally burn in less than 5 minutes without protection (official burn time is around 7 minutes). I'm not talking a faint pink blush, but skin that is red, hot to touch even 6-10 hours later, a little painful and tight. I can burn in the NZ sun through a t-shirt, even dry. Even with 45 factor sunblock on, I can burn in an hour if I'm out in full sun.

I worry enormously about skin cancer, especially because my genetic heritage is from England and Austria/Germany - not exactly the most tropical of countries. So I stick strictly to the shade and inside for the majority of the day in late spring-early autumn. But supposedly there's a Vit D deficiency problem here, too.

Does the sunblock completely negate the potential Vit D benefits of the sun? Is it better to spend the 5 minutes getting sun on bare skin even if it means a burn? Will the sun in the early morning (e.g. 9am) or late afternoon (after 5pm) be effective? I would like to know your opinion on the relative risk of Vit D deficiency and sunburn/UV exposure.

I am fair skinned with English/German ancestery and burned terribly. I noticed a couple of years ago that I did not burn even though I had spent an hour on a south facing patio in August in the valley of So Calif. (BTW - I wasn't sunbathing, just lost track of time while potting plants.) I wondered if my markedly increased fruit and veg intake had anything to do with it as I had also noticed some change to my coloring.

I found this study that seems to support that dietary carotenes are protective against UV. It doesn't directly answer your question and, obviously, isn't the whole answer, but I thought you might find it interesting.

Quote: "From these observations, we conclude that carotenoids from a normal, unsupplemented diet accumulate in the skin and confer a measurable photoprotective benefit (at least in lightly pigmented Caucasian skin), that is directly linked to their concentration in the tissue."

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/132/3/399

[karin_kiwi]

I don't think I'm deficient currently. I don't have teeth sensitivity problems and I don't think my gums have receded any more since my teens (used to get comments from dentist about it then, but not now). My teeth are actually pretty decent.

It takes about 45+ minutes for me to burn on bare skin in the Pacific NW, where I grew up, or North Carolina, where I lived for a while after being in NZ for 10 years. Wearing sunblock I don't think I ever burn in those places (though admittedly I've never been a sun bunny so don't know if I've ever really been out all day). The sun here just feels different - in NC it was terribly horribly hot and muggy, but the sun just felt like simple heat. In NZ, even while it's cooler than NC, it prickles or something on the skin. Very hard to explain, but it's more than just a hot feeling. I've seen burns here that are a deep purple-red after a couple of hours (not on me or my kids, thank god) and last for 7-10 days before the colour fades much and the person can tolerate being touched.

Maybe when I do another blood test I'll ask for various vit levels, too...

[JeffN]

I would like to know your opinion on the relative risk of Vit D deficiency and sunburn/UV exposure.

Most recommendations in regard to "proper" exposure is to avoid "burning."

If you are very concerned you can get a simple Vit D test, which would let you know your serum level.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

More on the body fat/Vit D connection I raised earlier in this thread...


Association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and body composition in postmenopausal women: the Postmenopausal Health Study.
Moschonis G, Tanagra S, Koutsikas K, Nikolaidou A, Androutsos O, Manios Y.

Menopause. 2009 Mar 6. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 19276997

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:: The present study examined the association between body composition measurements, using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry and anthropometry, with serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels in nonosteoporotic, postmenopausal women.

METHODS:: Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, intact parathyroid hormone, insulin-like growth factor I levels, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements of fat and fat-free mass, anthropometric and handgrip strength measurements, dietary intake estimations, ultraviolet B radiation exposure, and physical activity levels were collected from 112 nonosteoporotic, postmenopausal women (age, 60.3 +/- 5.0,; body mass index, 29.5 +/- 4.8 kg/m).

RESULTS:: At a bivariate level, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels were inversely associated with regional and total body fat mass (P < 0.05), whereas positive associations were observed with regional and total body fat-free mass (P < 0.05). After controlling for age, serum intact parathyroid hormone, insulin-like growth factor I levels, ultraviolet B radiation exposure, and physical activity levels, most of the associations observed at a bivariate level between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and body composition indices (as obtained by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) remained significant. No significant associations were observed between anthropometric indices of body mass and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

CONCLUSIONS:: An independent inverse association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry measurements of total body and regional fat mass was observed in nonosteoporotic, overweight, postmenopausal women. Further clinical trials are required to come to safe conclusions on whether it is the fat mass that affects serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels or vice versa and whether there is a need to also take into account body composition when providing recommendations for vitamin D intake in postmenopausal women.

[Adrienne]

This study seems to be in accordance with what Dr McD said in his sept. 2007 newsletter:

Quote:

The epidemic of obesity in people of all skin tones has added to the problem. Because vitamin D is fat soluble, excess body fat will pull vitamin D out of circulation thus contributing to deficiency.

[dlhanson]

In my Wisconsin Alumni Association magazine that came this week:

Dr. Frank Greer, Professor of Pediatrics, was quoted as writing, "from November to March in most parts of North America, you could stay out all day with no clothes on and not make any vitamin D."

Even in NW South Carolina, we find it too cold to get sun on even our arms and legs during those months.

[JeffN]

Greetings,

I appreciate the information however, as explained in this thread...

1) it is not accurate nor is there supporting evidence for the statement though many are making the same comment. I have posted published studies to the contrary.

2) it disregards the fact that even if it was true, the human body stores vitamin D very effectively and so a year round supply is not necessary for everyone.

3) If you look at humans, we have developed many different skin tones & yes, some are clearly more efficient than others & allowing for the absorbtion of Vit D.

There are those who will have difficulty absorbing adequate Vit D from the sun for many different reasons (& sun exposure & absorption rate are 2 of them) but a sweeping statement like that is just not correct.

In Health,
Jeff

[Jaggu]

I had my 25 Hydro vitamin D levels checked, it came out very low at 7. My PCP prescribed 50,000 units of Vit D supplement per week for 8 weeks and then retest it again.

Question : Is it better to take say 6000 units perday rather than 50,000 units once a week?

Also he suggested that I take 1500 mg of Calcium, not sure why? I didn't have my calcium levels checked. Unless Calcium is needed to absorb Vitamin D.

Can someone shed some light if you have the information.

[JeffN]

I had my 25 Hydro vitamin D levels checked, it came out very low at 7. My PCP prescribed 50,000 units of Vit D supplement per week for 8 weeks and then retest it again.

Question : Is it better to take say 6000 units perday rather than 50,000 units once a week?

Either way is fine and is fairly standard protocol.

I know of no reason why the Calcium is recommended and recommend you ask the MD who recommended it.

In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

We just got mushrooms that have vitamin D in them. I wonder if this is added or how they are grown?

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=7917

In Health
Jeff