Vitamin D3

Probably not. However, to see if the dose is ok, have a simple blood test for D3 and then you will know.

Paul

I was told to take 800mg D3 and 1000 mg calcium for osteopenia after my last bone scan.

randrball1,

When I was DX in 10-03-2012, my urologist told me to take 1000 each of D3 and calcium per day! I'm still taking them and numbers are normal.

Dave in Bartlett, TN

My doc told me about a year ago to take 5000 units of D3 daily. I had trouble tolerating that dosage, so bought some 1000 unit capsules and try to take two a day. Neither my Uro nor surgeon or RO took issue with the D3, and I can't say I can tell any difference whether I take it or not. I have always been osteopenic and I'm not sure if that's actually going to help anything.

I've been taking 5000 IU of D3 daily for 4 years now, RO thinks I should remain on it, I honestly forget why, but my blood work shows my levels in the mid range, probably need to look into that

randrball1 said...
Wondered if there are any adverse affects of taking 4000 units of D3 daily?

If you do a search at this forum, you will find numerous heated debates about the pros and cons of vitamin D supplementation, whether for general health or specifically for PC.

There are lots of studies showing low vitamin D levels being related to higher rates of PC, though mostly the more dangerous varieties of PC. And I started a poll here a while back, and indeed the overwhelming majority- of the small #s who actually knew their blood levels of vitamin D before starting supplementation- and also hopefuly well before the diagnosis and treatment for PC- had lower vitamin D levels. And once again it can be seen that the higher the risk level of the respondents, the lower the vit D blood levels. Other than confirming some of the real studies, this poll of course proves nothing. I still found the results interesting.

However, these correlations do not answer this question: is the low Vit D one of the causes of PC, or are the low levels the result of PC? To answer that we need numerous high quality, unbiased large randomized control trials, and they are glacially slow in coming. It's almost as though people don't want to know.

As far as dangers of supplementation, there is one study often quoted here which claims to show that only the middle laevels of Vit D were good, with both the lowest AND highest levels associated with higher PC risk. But when I read the details of this study, I found several major problems with it. First, none of the blood levels or amounts of supplementation were particularly high and looking at the actual numbers, it looked more to me as though it was the middle #s that had the highest risk, and as always things looked better for higher vit D when it came to the higher risk cases. But I of course am not a pro researcher, thus am not qualified to make such judgements. However, shortly after this study, another study came out claiming that indeed, the previous study suffered from a strong selection bias. How so? Many health conscious men in recent years have been supplementing with vit D because they hoped it would help with various health issues, including PC. A lot of these men would have had PC for years before they ever started taking vitamin D. So, if their blood levels were checked, or they were asked about how much they supplemented around the time of their diagnosis, then naturally these very men who had been supplementing and were being diagnosed with PC would would of course show higher levels of vit D. The follow up study corrected for any selection bias, and what do you know, the higher pC risk with higher levels of PC not only disappeared, but once again the higher the vitamin D levels, the lower the rate of high risk PC.

But until someone does an actual unbiased placebo controlled study, we will never have the solid proof we need, either way. And unbiased studies are not as common as you might think. (see my recent thread about "are some studies of supplements designed to fail", or something like that). I have taken 5000/day for several years now with no apparent harm, after 2000 only barely got me to 30, then 10,000 got me to 80 or so, a bit too much. My wife takes 2000 and had about 45 I think. If you decide to supplement, it would be ideal to have your blood tested first, and then after a few months of supplementation checked again. Good luck on your research!

Works Out said...
And in the northern half of the US and comparable places around the world there are about 6 months of the year when your body will not generate any/much D3 from sunshine.

As we see in this article short distance to the north pole can be compensated with food. Human have actually survived in Scandinavia for thousands of years without food supplements.

Worldwide vitamin D status

As visible in this Figure, serum 25(OH)D is higher in Northern Europe than in Southern Europe and higher in Western than in Eastern Europe. The higher levels in Northern Europe were also observed in some multicenter studies in which one laboratory facility was used. The high serum 25(OH)D levels in Norway and Sweden are probably due to a high intake of fatty fish and cod liver oil. The low serum 25(OH)D in Spain and Italy and Greece may be due to more skin pigmentation and sunshine avoiding behavior.

As we see in this study, convincing evidence is lacking that vitamin D has any effect:
Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials

Conclusions Despite a few hundred systematic reviews and meta-analyses, highly convincing evidence of a clear role of vitamin D does not exist for any outcome, but associations with a selection of outcomes are probable.

Is high dose vitamin D harmful?

The safety of loading doses of vitamin D should be demonstrated before these regimens become recommended as routine clinical practice. The current dilemma of defining vitamin D insufficiency and identifying safe and efficacious repletion regimens needs to be resolved.

Is it easy to get vitamin D from diet? Looks like there are plenty of good sources.
Foods that provide vitamin D include:
Fatty fish, like tuna, mackerel, and salmon
Foods fortified with vitamin D, like some dairy products, orange juice, soy milk, and cereals
Beef liver
Cheese
Egg yolks
To get vitamin D from food, fish is a good option. Six ounces of cooked salmon has more than 600 international units (IU).

Personally, I would not take dietary supplements unless I have a measured deficiency and my doctor tells me to supplement. She hasn't told me yet.

My D3 level is checked every three months or so. I take 15,000 units every day and with that level of supplementation I tend to stay slightly below the middle of the normal range. (The range is 30-100 ng/ml -- midpoint 65 -- and my latest D3 Hydroxy came back at 49.)

My suggestion would be that 1000 units is sensible for most people (maybe 2000 for big guys) and that you should monitor your D3 level with blood tests before you go much past 2000.

alephnull said...
I take 10,000 IUs daily, all it's done is helped my fatigue while on Lupron.

I read somewhere that they think too much is about 30,000 daily. But I don't think they really know. I read somewhere that just exposing yourself to sunshine at mid day for 15-30 minutes will give you better than 10,000 IUs. Makes me think to when I was a kid and went all day without a shirt playing outside. So, my guess is you can't OD from too much.

Yep! No telling how much vitamin D we generated from the sun as kids, outdoors all day and often shirtless and/or in shorts! Probably 10,000+ minimum!

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 10/9/2017 7:31:47 PM (GMT-6)

First of all, all recommendations, both RDA and max values are generalized. Your mileage WILL vary.

Having read up on the subject in Dec of 2015, I made the assumption that I was deficient. I should have gotten a base line, but because I live sufficiently north (anything north of LA gets little to no D during the winter months), older individuals make less than younger, and being overweight also depresses blood levels, I decided to start off taking 5K IU per day on January 1st. After 3 months I had a blood test and it was 31. Normal range is 30-100. At this point I increased to 10K IU per day. 6 months later my blood level was 58. A little less than the mid point of normal range. 18 months into this regimen I increased to 15K IU per day. I will be taking another blood test the first week of December to determine if I need to tapper back or not.

I know others that only needed to add a few thousand IU to get into the 50s. Everyone is different. That is why it is important to get regular blood tests and tailor the dosage to your own body.

The difference that I have noticed for my health is that the lesions on my scalp and left arm are now either completely gone of so small they are hard to find. My dermatologist prescribed an acid application to remove them but I wanted to try something less destructive first. Just as important, a chronic level of excessive dry skin I have lived with for decades is now gone. Also, overall, my skin just looks more healthy. What it's doing on the inside I don't know, but I do know that every cell in your body has a receptor for Vitamin D in it.

A friend of mine that started taking D a few months after I started reports that his psoriasis it at least 90% better and is no longer wearing long sleeve shirts.

My recommendations for those choosing to take this path, get blood tests along the way. It's the only way to know what's really going on.
(advertising link removed)

Anyone needing in depth knowledge on Vitamin D, just Google Dr. Michael Holick. Apparently his web site is considered an advertisement. Once there, you can view one of his lectures at UCSD.

Post Edited (GaryDouglas) : 10/25/2017 11:22:37 AM (GMT-6)

I take 10,000 IUs daily, no problems.
I'm fairly sure that they don't know when toxicity starts, some say about 30,000.

NKinney said...
Here's a good, related article appropriately titled "How Much Is a Megadose of Vitamin D?"

Jeffrey Blumberg, a vitamin expert at Tufts University and professor of nutrition in Tufts' School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston said...
A megadose of vitamin D is 6,000 IU for adults under age 70 and 8,000 IU for people older than 70.

... [Blumberg] does not recommend taking megadoses of vitamin D unless directed to do so by a physician.

The helpful article also has a section on the dangers of negadosing:

Megadose Dangers
Because vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, it is stored in your body rather than eliminated in the urine like vitamin C and other water-soluble vitamins. If you take too much vitamin D, it can build up in organs over time and cause health problems. Taking megadoses may increase the risk of falls and fractures, according to MayoClinic.com. Other adverse effects caused by megadoses of vitamin D include an increased risk of bladder infections, excessive calcium in the blood, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, kidney impairment and an increased risk of cancer.

How about all of you guys that are taking 5K to 15K daily?? Have you had, or do you know some one who has had, any noticeable or confirmed SEs?