HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - Vitamin D3- by Larry Norton

Debbie L. · 01-12-2009, 04:14 PM

Hi all who've chimed in so far. Lots of questions and I'm pretty sure they're still working on the answers.

This is the time of year when Vitamin D levels are lowest. Ideally, we get it from sun exposure. But with the sun near its lowest point for us in the northern hemisphere, it apparently does not rise high enough to be of much good even we sunbathed naked at noon (brrr!).

I have been reading much of the recent research into Vitamin D and the many diseases/conditions that have an association with low levels. But for most of what's been observed so far, they don't even know if it's low levels contributing to the condition or the condition contributing to the low levels. Let alone the best way to handle the low levels. There's a long way to go before we'll have answers, alas.

Still, supplementation seems fairly innocuous. Might help, probably can't hurt. They used to say that it was easy to OD because D is fat soluble and thus not automatically excreted when there's an excess, as, for example, happens with Vitamin C. But apparently it's nearly impossible to take enough to OD, and that previous information was a theory presented as a fact (hmm, why am I not surprised?).

I have re-read the relevant chapter about cholesterol, vitamin D, folic acid, skin color r/t melanin, and sunlight - in "Survival of the Sickest" which I highly recommend as a book full of interesting ideas. The frozen frogs alone are mind-boggling. And then there's the semi-aquatic apes. Really, give it a try, you'll be fascinated.

I have a couple of links to more Vitamin D information/questions. One is about Quest lab's errors in reporting the test, and about unreliable assays in general. Another has cautions about supplementation. Right now, it's very PC to be promoting Vitamin D as a magic bullet. There are far more promoters than cautioners. Still, I'm somewhat skeptical that's it's as good as the hoopla would have us believe. One, I tend to distrust "magic bullet" kinds of solutions - it's always more complex than just one thing. And two, it just seems intuitively wrong that we should have to artificially add something to our body in such a large quantity. Our bodies are finely tuned machines (ideally). When we muck about with the tuning by adding large quantities of anything - that can have farther reaching effects than we may initially understand.

I never used to be such a skeptic. But still, I have now increased my daily D from 2000 IUs to 4000 IUs. I don't really want to get it retested though.

Debbie Laxague, going to look for those links:
Quest labs: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...08labtest.html

or tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/76o23u

Marshall's discussion of possible harms of supplementation (I do not know the reliability of this person - does anyone else? It's posted on a website called "Science Daily"):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0125223302.htm

or tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/3935y6

01-12-2009, 04:14 PM	#7
Debbie L. Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 463	really complex issue Hi all who've chimed in so far. Lots of questions and I'm pretty sure they're still working on the answers. This is the time of year when Vitamin D levels are lowest. Ideally, we get it from sun exposure. But with the sun near its lowest point for us in the northern hemisphere, it apparently does not rise high enough to be of much good even we sunbathed naked at noon (brrr!). I have been reading much of the recent research into Vitamin D and the many diseases/conditions that have an association with low levels. But for most of what's been observed so far, they don't even know if it's low levels contributing to the condition or the condition contributing to the low levels. Let alone the best way to handle the low levels. There's a long way to go before we'll have answers, alas. Still, supplementation seems fairly innocuous. Might help, probably can't hurt. They used to say that it was easy to OD because D is fat soluble and thus not automatically excreted when there's an excess, as, for example, happens with Vitamin C. But apparently it's nearly impossible to take enough to OD, and that previous information was a theory presented as a fact (hmm, why am I not surprised?). I have re-read the relevant chapter about cholesterol, vitamin D, folic acid, skin color r/t melanin, and sunlight - in "Survival of the Sickest" which I highly recommend as a book full of interesting ideas. The frozen frogs alone are mind-boggling. And then there's the semi-aquatic apes. Really, give it a try, you'll be fascinated. I have a couple of links to more Vitamin D information/questions. One is about Quest lab's errors in reporting the test, and about unreliable assays in general. Another has cautions about supplementation. Right now, it's very PC to be promoting Vitamin D as a magic bullet. There are far more promoters than cautioners. Still, I'm somewhat skeptical that's it's as good as the hoopla would have us believe. One, I tend to distrust "magic bullet" kinds of solutions - it's always more complex than just one thing. And two, it just seems intuitively wrong that we should have to artificially add something to our body in such a large quantity. Our bodies are finely tuned machines (ideally). When we muck about with the tuning by adding large quantities of anything - that can have farther reaching effects than we may initially understand. I never used to be such a skeptic. But still, I have now increased my daily D from 2000 IUs to 4000 IUs. I don't really want to get it retested though. Debbie Laxague, going to look for those links: Quest labs: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...08labtest.html or tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/76o23u Marshall's discussion of possible harms of supplementation (I do not know the reliability of this person - does anyone else? It's posted on a website called "Science Daily"): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0125223302.htm or tinyurl: http://tinyurl.com/3935y6