This video may ruffle some feathers, but data >>>>> feelings 📜Roadmap - how to look young & feel strong: drstanfield.com/pages/roadmap 💊MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): drstanfield.com/products/microvitamin
How much vitamin D can the body produce in one hour outside(depending on latitude and other factors)? Between 10,000 and 25,000 IU? So, what difference does taking 600 or 3,000 IU as a supplement make? Zero?
How could you talk about vitamin d supplements without talking about the role of vitamin K2 to keep calcium out of the arteries and deposit it in the bones? There are numerous doctors in clinics who have found profound results with their patients by putting them on vitamin K2 with nattokinase to clear out excess calcium in the arteries. Many people are going to take higher doses of vitamin d because they notice health benefits. It is malpractice to talk about vitamin d supplements without talking about the importance of vitamin K2 being paired with them. The risk of low vitamin d seems to be greater than the risk of higher vitamin d when it's paired with proper amounts of vitamin k2. Spend more time in the peer reviewed journals please and talking to clinicians who are ahead of the research curve by what they're seeing in their clinics.
@yamafanboy Good points. I watch this channel, and I watch Berg. I like both. I think Berg is a good source of alternative ideas, and I think this channel is great for staying on top of the latest outcomes. Brad is the better "scientist," but he's also a bit too conventional. Too much trust in too many who don't deserve that trust.
@yamafanboy I found Dr. Berg making comments and conclusions that did not make any medical sense. For example, he was discussing cholesterol intake and bringing and referring to studies that were discussing serum cholesterol. He intermingled the values as if they were exchangeable. These are two different things and not equal. That is when I first suspect something wrong. After I found out he is not an MD, but a Chiropractor. I also found a couple of other credible doctors posting rebuttals to some of the videos Dr. Berg was publishing. - I suspect that Dr. Berg has folks writing scripts for him and that he doesn't or is unable to fully critique those scripts. As long as it sounds 98% credible, it goes out. But that is the danger. He is a marketer, not a visionary.
@@IllinoisCitizen I have seen many rebuttals of Dr. Bergs videos by other credible doctors. I first became aware of his lack of credibility when in a video he kept mixing cholesterol intake values with serum cholesterols called out is various studies he was referencing. These are two different measurement and not comparable. That is a level 101 Doctor stuff understanding that he should not have missed. I found out later he is a Chiropractor and not an MD. In my opinion, Dr. Berg is merely the face of a marketing enterprise.
Before two years I used to work at a beach bar during summer because of this I was under the sun for many hours. In October I tested my blood and the results were very good except for my Vitamin D level, which was 12 nmol/L very very low. My doctor recommended supplementation of 2000 iu per day. Two months later I did a blood test and my level was 13, then he told me to take 5000 iu. After 2 months I got tested again my level was 17 my doctor said ok continue like this. Five months later I did again the test, and my level was 16. Then I said to myself, f this I will take 40000 iu for four months and see how will go. When I did the test again after four months my levels were 65. Plus after that, my asthma decreased a lot.
Glad you fixed your levels, but could you please tell while working in the beach bar, how much time were you directly receiving sunlight? Did you use suncream or have your neck and shoulders covered?
@@andanssas I don't like sunscreen also after one month there got super tan. The sunlight during the work saw my head and arms but usually after work I went for a swimming wearing only swimsuit.
I just checked my vitamin d levels and I am deficient while taking 5000iu. I have dark skin and I now work from home. The recommendation is not for everyone.
I have malabsorption from leaky gut and have lost even more weight without trying - the specialist I talked to said all my symptoms point to anemia. Out of 10 VitD deficiency symptoms in a video, I had 7 of them. I get some sun in FL & I know I need to get tested. I just started boosting mine to 24,000iu a day & I'm thinking I need to go higher but I'm actually feeling better right now after more isolated supplements: iodine, iron, ferritin, D3/K2mk7, copper, zinc & selenium (being careful with these since too much is just as bad). It's helping though.
@@cinystarr4657 You have a special case that makes mega dosing reasonable and necessary. You need to work on the issue of having a leaky gut as it likely has other detrimental effects. Good luck.
One quibble with what the good doctor said, many influencers such as Rhonda Patrick, that recommends higher levels of vitamin d, don't in fact sell vitamin d. so there is no financial gain to recommending higher doses. They may simply be in error, haven't integrated new research or read the data, differently. Also, if we were going to discredit educators and influencers primarily based on a financial motive, we would need to question the integrity of Dr. Brad who does sell a product vs Rhonda Patrick who does not. Of course I fully trust Dr. Brad's motives, I just want to make sure we don't use financial motives a simplistic heuristic for either affirming or criticizing the source of information.
That's true in a very technical sense, but in real life it's the wild west out there and money is getting the big voice in the supplement industry. Regarding Rhonda, notice that her recommendations are based on observational studies, which she must not be aware have failed to convert the same benefits in direct, real, double blind trials, even though there have been several good ones. Since she doesn't even address this flaw, her recommendations should be dismissed as invalid.
I agree, my doctor makes money but he's a great doctor. I think there are some influencers who are really just flogging anything thats trendy but many are really trying to do good. One thing about influencers is that they are more dynamic than regular medecine and may be able to get new guidelines to people more rapidly. Generally we should look more widely and not take one influencers word as gospel.
We are all different. I found out the necessary dose according to the rapid retreat of respiratory infections. Initially 150000IU cleared the infection within two days and lasted a month until the next infection. After 14 years of use, 25000IU per week is enough for me for respiratory infections including CoVi. That's the dose a healthy individual would receive in a few hours at the beach, which unfortunately doesn't work for me.
I live in the caribbean and I have been taking vitamin D3 10.000IU every day, and I haven't gotten sick in about 2 and a half years and I'm 60 years old.
I have been taking 10k ius per day for over a year now along with k2 and magnesium. I do not go out in sunlight. I get d3 tested every 2 months, I prefer to maintain a range of 70-100 ng/dl . I spoke to a doctor who deals with cardiovascular issues, who treated lakhs of people for over an decade, he mentioned that d3 helped clearing calcium plaques from the arteries and there is no need to worry about calcification at all, as calcification is observed beyond 300ng/dl, which I realistically can never hit at the dosage I am on. Despite the conservative approach from endocrine society, I would still prefer to continue my dosage as there is no downside. And, in future the same scientists might say that they found that there are benefits. So, objectively looking at it, as there is no downside to maintain a higher range, I don’t find any fault with taking more dosage , as it could potentially have an upside which we might not be aware of at the moment.
Yes, definitely a possible downside. I know multiple people who were having symptoms of Vit D toxicity at those levels, and who improved greatly immediately upon reducing them. So there is obviously an intermediate level where a very mild toxicity is having negative effects but it is too mild to diagnose easily. 10K IU could very easily be that level, even if it showed positive effects at the beginning.
@@Ontonaut Mayo clinic says Vit D toxicity can start around 4K IU/day, including Nausea and vomiting Poor appetite and weight loss Constipation Weakness Confusion and disorientation Heart rhythm problems Kidney stones and kidney damage
I’ve been taking 10,000 IU vitamin D3 for over 20 years without issue. I do take vitamin K complex, zink, copper, boron, magnesium, iodine, and Fulvic Acid for the trace minerals. 👍
Regarding safety, a 2019 study shows adults with 22% uncovered skin produce 1000 IU of Vitamin D per 10-15 minutes of direct sun exposure. It seems odd the human body would produce such amounts if 5000 IU per day was dangerous, especially in individuals who stay out of the sun and apply UV blockers daily.
@@dude861 I have wondered about that possibility. But have not seen such data. Body can also down regulate Vitamin D receptors. Lot of mechanisms to ameliorate activity are possible.
I'm 66 and just had mine tested for the first time ever, and have been taking 5000 for at least the last 15 years. My number came in exactly 65 and the range used at the clinic was 30--100 so I am right in the middle. I work indoors so don't get much sunshine, wiil continue to take 5000 as I almost never get sick. Never got covid either and I am unvaxxed, and staying that way!
@@AbbyMacy67 I'd also suggest taking the vitamind D together with Vitamin K2 (it is pretty common to find them in one supplement these days) if you are not doing that already.
Just because we don't have conclusive proof of benefit, doesn't mean there's not evidence of benefit. And, medical policy is very much concerned about saving every penny. I don't need to worry about that. I can spend a little bit for tests and supplements with questionable benefit as long as it's unquestionably safe. I think up to 50ng/ml is unquestionably safe, and might have benefits, so that's what I target. The penny pinchers can disregard my opinions.
@tf-lv4zu The Vitamin D Council recommends 40-100 ng/ml. The Vitamin D Society recommends 40-100 ng/ml. The Endocrine Society used to recommend 30-100 ng/ml, except that we just learned they don't recommend any testing to save money.
As a 30 year old male, I’ve been supplementing 2000UI D3 daily with my biggest meal for 6 years. Despite the guidelines I decided to get my levels tested and to my surprise I was severely deficient. It took me 3000UI D3 daily to reach clinically normal levels of Vitamin D. I think individuals’ absorption ability and supplement form (pill vs liquid) plays a role here. I get that routine testing is not recommended but if I didn’t get tested, I was going to stay severely deficient despite my daily supplementation.
10.000iu with MK2/MK7 is awesome! - just take a blood test to figure out your blood levels and adjust accordingly. 10.000iu puts me near the top of the health range, not above it. If you are above the range after a blood test, adjust accordingly until you're in range for YOUR body! It's not that hard people.
@cooluser23. Testing will tell you your serum level. But there wasn't any testing of serum levels in the studies, so there is no way to determine an optimal level to aim for. The study only showed the amount of supplementation that seems to lead to better outcomes for most people.
I think the study cited here showed there was no reduction in cardiovascular events or cancer rates when supplementing above 800 IU. It did not examine effects on other endpoints, so it is inconclusive regarding other health concerns. More studies are required before doc can say there are "no benefits" to >800 IU doses.
The Israeli study regarding vitamin D levels and severity of covid infection plays a big role in my decision to supplement. Also, so does the logic of how much vitamin D we produce when we spend a long time in the sun. Meaning, I think we can tolerate very high levels. Also, my 87 year old Mom contracted the virus in 2023. She was a walking case of comorbities, but survived, and has no lasting effects. I truly believe that the regimen I had her on, which included vitamin D3, was of immense help.
1. The 600-800 IU was based on mathematical fallacies in a research study. 2. It has been proven to be way to low to keep you or raise you to optimal levels of nmol. 3. Simply measure your blood and make sure you are near the optimal levels. 60-70 nmol.
As a human guinea pig. It makes sense to test your vitamin d levels. I have occasionally tested. It has been my experience that it takes a lot more than you think to actually get your levels to recommended health level of 30. Testing is very valuable.
Testing yourself means managing your own health, and most people prefer to outsource their heath management to the 'wellness' system. We really need to take responsibility for our own health, because it's clear that big pharma runs the show and the profit motive should make it clear what they're about. If everyone is healthy, they go out of business.
Taking 10,000 IU of D3 a day for a year and my blood test in the US was only 36 when it is recommended that 50 is considered ideal. I am 69 yo. I also have a problem with low blood iron due to not absorbing some things from diet. So a test is really needed since you never really know how much you absorb from diet unless you get tested.
I think that’s the misconception of people… 50 isn’t ideal, 50 is the minimum level of vitamin D that you should get in your blood tests… optimum is around 75 to 80
If you have a normal conversion ability for vitamin D and you get no sun, you need at least 2000 IU per day to maintain healthy levels. If you have trouble converting vitamin D into the active form, which many of us do, due to our current environment, then you'll need at least 5000 IU per day to maintain healthy levels. Having said that, if you have no trouble converting into the active form, and you get 30 minutes a day of sun exposure, then you only need the amount Dr. Brad stated to maintain healthy levels. You'll need more if you have trouble converting it from the sun. Your blood levels should be between 50-80ng/ml.
The trouble with that is it's not understanding what "healthy levels" means. Those studies which showed those healthy levels were showing that people with SUNLIGHT DERIVED vit D had health. That is merely a correlation, not evidence of causation. Turns out that the sunlight itself is a major cause of good health, and vit D always comes along for the ride, fooling us into thinking it was the cause. So when they test people who's vit D was SUPPLEMENT-DERIVED in actual clinical trials, many of the health benefits go away.
@@don_kandon6006 Interesting data. You'd never reach the 50ng point if you were on 800 IU. Its not like it builds up in your system, you'd level out after 10 or 20 days at some lower value, maybe 20 or whatever.
Great to hear that your health is in a better place. MS is a condition of active research concerning Vitamin D supplementation, however so far "studies have not consistently shown that vitamin D supplementation tempers the signs and symptoms of active MS or reduces rates of relapse." ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/ Just be mindful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For example: - After I sneezed, then suddenly my laptop exploded. - Therefore, my sneezing caused my laptop to explode. Might be the same thing here with the dose of Vitamin D you are taking and your MS symptoms
I took 10000IU during a year and took a D vitamin test. My lever was 73ng/ml. Now I take 50000IU. I also need a lot of magnesium. If I do not take it I get headache. So I also take 300mg magnesium malat 3-4 times day. The body use up alot of magnesium with high D3. I also take K2 5mg mk4 and 200ug mk7. K2 lover calcium by puting it in the bones. I feel great and my pain in the elbows and my 20 year old foot damage is now healed by vitamin D. I have more energy and the skin does not feel dry. My health test looks great. But the doctors say I must cut of my D3. But why? I feel great. I do not recommend this to anyone. I just say that with the right co vitamins, it looks safe to me.
The science doesn’t seem settled as to whether vitamin k actually prevents calcification from vitamin d. At least according to Dr. Brad. He mentions it in his last vitamin k video I think.
@Nelis1324 There is no study with +20000 people that have proven it. Yes. But there are a lot of small studies that prove it and metaanalys of smaller studies that also show that K2 lover calcium and increase bone mass. I just know that my large D3 intake should increase calcium, but that thats not the case. After 2 years on D3 50000IU I feel confident that K2 and magnesium at least for me is handling these problems.
@Nelis1324 I have not been sick in years. My wife lover her D3 from 50000IU to 2000IU and she got sick during last winter multiple times. Now she take 20000IU and since then she has not been sick.
Natural form of : Vit D : Cod liver oil 460 iu/5ml K2 : Natto (fermented soybean) 150mcg/1tablespoon So.... Chose wisely and wholy or synthetically and im isolation from other natural nutrients that work synthetically
Recommending x IU per day is a fools quest. Vitamin d levels are hugely dependent on individual sun exposure, duration and intensity, skin type, as well as on body volume (think dilation of vitamin d). There may be more factors that influence how much vitamin d gets produced as well. We should talk about what serum levels are healthy, routine test our vit d levels, and change dosage on that primarily. And, if sun exposure levels or intensity change, recheck to adjust vitamin d levels. The truth is that in the future, N=1 medicine is the way to go, meaning highly individualized medical care, instead of what we did for too long now: Get an average value, and assume that everyone is average so it'll be fine...
Doesn't every country recommend vit d supplementation? In Poland they tell me to take it all year long, unless I spend majority of the day outside in spring and summer. I think the whole conflict is a out the dose, since some groups claim the norms are superficially lowered. I don't agree, because the studies show differently, but there's no discussion with such emotional responses 🤔
I just read that 1 tablespoon of Natto contains 150 mG of Vitamin k2 MK-7. When I visited Japan, I could go to 7-Eleven and buy a 4 inch roll of Natto Sushi or Onogiri for 99 Yen. Not only was I receiving a bioavailable form of it I was also receiving other healthy items such as Iodine from the seaweed. Id rather take that than a cement-like tablet. I had heard that their government subsidizes the cost of this healthy food, so I felt blessed to take it daily every morning before work, accessible from a 24/7 store for 5 months. They love their slimy foods, which I also explored while there.
My mom in the nursing home tested positive for Covid multiple times and was quarantined (she wasn’t vaccinated.) Thankfully, I had gotten her a vitamin D shot the month before. She never showed any symptoms at all, and no one could figure out why.
Hi doc, my nephrologist told me he only give his patient vitamin D if they are low and only brings them up to 50 in the blood test. I was 103 and was told to stop taking supplements, as he felt I get enough from diet and sunlight exposure. I dropped to 38. My point is get blood work done regularly. I'm taking 2,000 IU's a day until my next test.
Glad to hear that your health is in a better place. Just be mindful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For example: - After I sneezed, then suddenly my laptop exploded. - Therefore, my sneezing caused my laptop to explode. Might be the same thing here with the dose of Vitamin D you are taking and your asthma symptoms
@@DrBradStanfield After four years I am quite certain of the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. I might add that I have very sensitive skin and very easily sunburnt. So I avoid the sun whenever possible. Nonetheless Vit D supplementation has improved my respiratory health beyond any doubt in my mind. Four years is long enough to eliminate any kind of placebo effect.
@@DrBradStanfield... possibly but if you're going down that rabbit hole, then we can question your Appeal to Authority Bias when contrasting a quack to the Endocrine Society's position on vitamin D? Rather we keep a respectful, open mind with regard to the personal experience of individuals, as being a possible exception to a rule that governs the majority. Instead of dismissing it bc it doesn't fit with what we already know to be true for most.
@@laurieparis2203 Very ironic to speak of logic fallacies when getting plain facts wrong. Dr. Brad DID keep a respectful open mind here. He DID NOT dismiss it. SMH His contrast of quack to Endocrine Society was logically valid because he was showing the full range of recommendation extremes. It was a correct & logical summation of the total recommendation RANGE. He can't control the quality of those extremes, he is just reporting what they are, and this was a helpful point to understand context for the overall discussion.
I don't belive Berg or the Endocrine Society. Berg is too high and I and many of my colleagues believe the Endocrine Society is too low. Measure your Vitamin D. I aim for for 40 to 60. Supplementation without measurement is foolish as the required dose varies a great deal among patients.
It makes no sense not to measure vitamin D levels. Besides your own health, it make sense to gather a large database of vitamin D levels vs health in the public to better determine the ideal range of vitamin D blood levels. No blindfolds, please!
How much is dangerous. I live in Honolulu, and hit the sun between 1:30 to 3:30 every day + I'm eating supplement also with 500% plus... am I in danger to take too much?
Berg is chiropractor who should not be giving this type of medical advice. He's the biggest of the UA-cam quacks and anything he says should be dismissed as nonsense.
I do 5000 D3, 200 K2, and lots of magnesium per day. It seems to be a balance between the low-dose folks and the high-dose folks (like > 10,000). I'm about 15 pounds away from my ideal weight, and once I get there I'll get a full blood workup to see where I"m at and include D and such just to double-check everything!
Thanks. Very good analysis as usual. My only reservation about the recommendation for vitamin D supplementation is that studies are often done with people in different latitude and the effect of the Sun varies a lot. In Québec where I live there is about a two month period during which you can walk around with skin exposed to the Sun and that is the month of July and a couple of weeks before and after. Outside that period, skin exposure to the sun will be minimal. I think recommendation about vitamin D should take latitude into consideration. Except in July, I take 1400ui. In July I take only the 400ui in my multivitamin. Also, I wonder if skin color might not also be a factor and I wonder if there was any study made taking this into account.
There’s a video on YT with Dr.Boz talking about this. She had difficulty increasing her elderly father's D3 levels. She increased dosages and exposure outlandishly to no avail. Finally she resorted to an aesthetic procedure to get amazing results.
Aren't the vitamin D levels known of some traditional peoples who spend their days outdoors? Wouldn't that be a good indication of how much we should have?
@@andrewtaylor9799 Yeah 46 ng/ml is the average which equals 115 nmol/l. Depending on your skin color and sun exposure, you might need 0 to 5,000 IU to achieve.
I was supplementing 1000-2000 IU a day... vid d through years, so I was thinking I might be overdosing my self... I made test and I was insufficient at 27 😂... Than I started 10.000 UI for couple of months to reach 48... not half the range... Now I take now and then 10.000... So beside the "evidences" something and someone is right
maybe some people are better at absorbing the supplemental vit D than other so for people who have strong absorption, 2000IU would actually get them to the proper level but someone with weaker absorption following the same dosage might just not get enough from that dosage. idk, might be an explanation. also yeah dont forget K2!
Vit D absorbs better when taken with fat and converts better when you eat sulphur rich vegetables. Theoretically you can use less vitamin d by lowering inflammation. These practices should have other positive health effects too, which is better than taking a very high dose of vitamin d.
This general population dosage recommendation is not addressing those that have rigorous training schedules (indoors), inflammatory/autoimmune or malignant diseases, or high stress environments. How does dosage, blood levels of Vit D and cofactors correlate to outcomes. Fauci who did not speak openly on the major networks but mentioned in a one on one with J Garner, Vit D daily for boosting immune function/ resistance to COViD. Please consider a deeper dive to address if possible.
@@DrBradStanfield www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532266/ 50% of the world is believed to have < 30 ng/ml, 35% < 21 ng/ml. 50% of infants in the US are considered to be DEFICIENT by the above < 21 ng/ml standard.
@@DrBradStanfield Thank you for the above reference - it cites its reasoning for determining Tolerable Upper Limits (and none are higher than 1000 IU's. "The FNB established ULs for vitamin D in 2010 (Table 4) [1]. While acknowledging that signs and symptoms of toxicity are unlikely at daily intakes below 250 mcg (10,000 IU), the FNB noted that even vitamin D intakes lower than the ULs might have adverse health effects over time. The FNB recommended avoiding serum 25(OH)D levels above approximately 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL), and it found that even lower serum levels (approximately 75-120 nmol/L [30-48 ng/mL]) are associated with increases in rates of all-cause mortality, risk of cancer at some sites (e.g., pancreas), risk of cardiovascular events, and number of falls and fractures among older adults." It gives rather particular, less than mega - analysis standard reasoning for establishing an upper limit under 10K IU. But don't you think that most people should get tested? Since the FTB and we all know that we can't know the ng/ml level for anybody based on the supplement and what we believe is their sun exposure.
So... what do I do if I'm not in a risk group but my vitamin D blood test numbers were showing an insufficiency (26 ng/ml) and stopped showing it after years of supplementing with 5000 UI(55 ng/ml now)? Are those previous insufficiency/normal ranges no longer relevant? And if I switch to the new supplementing recommendation of around 1000 UI for a year and have a blood test (that I wouldn't need to take, let's say it's a hypothetical I guess) show me those same 20-30ng/ml numbers again, it would mean that I can't know for sure but I am most likely not deficient, because we don't actually know what are the normal ranges even for people in the risk group? I doubt they give vitamin D in mental asylums so I'm probably gonna stick to my usual intake because this stuff is so confusing it's gonna induce psychosis in me lol. I'm basically winging it until we get actual numbers
I was getting weird calcium deposits on my tendons which I think were from supplementation. I think oral vitamin D is nowhere near as good as exposure to natural sunlight (in moderation, usually in the morning).
Excellent discussion! As a physician, I am interested in your thoughts on the use of niacin, niacinamide, NAD, and NR. These are widely promoted in the anti-aging arena but have not been subjected to unbiased studies regarding efficacy and safety. In February 2024, an article in Nature Medicine (authored by a cardiologist from the Cleveland clinic) showed a strong correlation between high levels of niacin metabolites (2PY and 4PY) and cardiovascular disease. I have written to two different "reputable" sources of NAD, etc., and have received response. No doubt, there are thousands of people using these supplements. What might be your take on this issue?
Some studies show that people with digestive issues don't budge their vit d levels even with high doses of 50,000 iu. overweight people have less vit d available and dark skinned people. Older people have low levels and those with chronic diseases. Studies have aimed at a 30ng/ml level. My copd/tinea/mouth health went away when i got to over 50ng/ml. I use sublingual vit d at 10,000/day just to maintain my levels.
Three stage plan depending on your level of health/disease. 1, RDA's use these if you want to toy with being deficient. Use blood tests to determine if you're good. 2, therapeutic levels. Take a look at these levels and apply if they are suitable for your elevated need caused by your type/level of disease activity. 3, tolerable upper level. The range at which you should stop. You do you.
Chiropractic saved my life. Regular GP's receive very little nutritional education. Their approach is via one dimensional big profit pharmaceutical concerns.
In my grandma's 10 years of bloodwork, doctors included a vitamin d test among the cdc, lipids, etc. We are in southern California, where you can get vitamin d from the sun year round so the test is probably not super necessary. That said, 1 year she went in and had bloodwork done and the only thing that was low was vitamin d (down from 46 to a 19). She had been suffering from a mild dry cough and chills for some months. I think this change helped doctors to realize further testing was needed. She has since been diagnosed with a cousin to TB and been put on a 2 year long regimen of antibiotics multiple times a day. The lung nodules have not quite gone away. Could doctors have figured this all out without being tipped off by the change in vitamin d test? Maybe, but I don't know if alarm bells would've been ringing without a change in the CBC.
Hunter-gatherers living around the African equator have average vitamin D blood levels of 46 ng/ml. This provides some guidance on blood levels to aim for. They get this from exposure to sunshine, not supplements.
As always thank you for your research. No torches & pitchforks from me. I always value data and insight. I especially appreciate your mention towards the end about K2 and (especially) magnesium. These are going to play major factors on absorption and utilization. (Body fat levels play a part as well. Obese patients sometimes struggle w/ adequate vitamin D.) I would like to offer a couple of thoughts that might be worth deeper consideration: First, perhaps one of the things that we should look into regarding vitamin D intake is based on our own unique genetic heritage and ancestry. (Our biological ancestor's exposure to sunlight (length & intensity based on geographic location) and their food sources (fish vs caribou vs seals etc.) may prove themselves to be important factors in our own requirements.) Secondly, there is a case to be made that supplemental vitamin d3 should mimic natural exposure to sunlight. (It's not sunny everyday...neither are we always in the sun on sunny days.) Perhaps a form of vitamin D cycling...no dose to low dose to slightly higher dose then stepping it back down.) This would fit more of the natural rhythm of life. We might find that our need my coincide with natural hormone cycles as well. I would love to see research in this area. Once again, thank you for your work! And belated congrats on the Rapamycin study funding! Take care.
There are several problems with that analysis and it's not about reason vs. emotion. What studies don't capture is that people respond vastly different to vitamin D supplementation and there is no dose that fits all. Yes we don't know the exact optimal vitamin D level, so what? Yes, correlation is not causation, but given how cheap vitamin D is, I'd rather be on the safe side. Mortality is not everything by far, but there studies clearly show improvements up to 30 ng/dl, with possible further benefits up to 40 or even slight further benefits up to 60 ng/dl. Thus I'd aim for at least 30, but better 40 ng/dl to be on the safe side with no risk of going to high either (if that means taking < 10,000 IU a day together with vitamin K2, I'm also being on the safe side dose-wise). 600-800 I.E. are not even enough to get me above 30 ng/dl. Thus we should either test or take a more generous amount of vitamin D that will guarantee a level of at least 30 and no more than 50 ng/dl for every person, which is apparently impossible to find, because some people need very high doses to even get above 25 ng/dl, while others are already above that without supplementation.
Another factor here is the levels of absorption, which differs enormously between individuals based on gut health. Cod liver oil has Vitamin D which is more bio available than pharmaceutical extracts of Vitamin D. Direct sunlight might be the best solution.
Because of low vitamin D blood levels my endocrinologist prescribed 50,000 units a day for 10 days and 2000 units a day after that. Still only raised my levels to 38. ( I do wear sun block all the time because I live in the South.)
Here's the query I have with this argument, if this is right, why does the body generate so much Vitamin D when skin is exposed for a prolonged period to the Sun ?
One thing about vitamin D I find annoying is the supplements don't come co factored with Magnesium, so it can't really be metabolised, and the form of vitamin D in supplements is terrible.
My test results came in today. After taking 5000 IU daily for 3 years and 2000 IU for 2 years before that, I'm just within range 43 ng/mL, up from a low of 13 ng/mL. Let me add, my doctor first started me on 800 IU daily for about 2 years. I have darker skin and get minimal sun exposure. Considering the length of time it took me to get to this level, my points are: 1) it is not that easy to overdose, esp if you regularly monitor your levels through testing and 2) the 600 IU recommendation is not for all. After 8 years, I'm not even near to what was formally considered optimal at 70 to 80 ng/mL
Recommendations. Up to the individual to follow them. A large number of physician responses to the publication appears to disagree vehemently with the recommendations. Most physicians are quite deficient in nutritional knowledge plus it does not bring any revenue to them.
I rode out Covid in May 2020 3 days bad body ache with bad headache in between. No respiratory at all. I got 11/2 hour full sun 11 AM-noon both sides all 3 days. Felt better while getting it and after. Back to normal on 4th day.
I started taking a high dose vitamin D and ended up with a throat infection. This has happened a few times and always when I start a high dose vit d regimen. I was always suspicious about Dr Berg
I like to listen to the top 1% of people advising on health, with both the best results from people and the clearest understanding of what is going on. I like Eric Berg and Ken Berry on this. For the studies, the potential problem is they may not be in the top 3%, or even top 25%, and so they may make multiple or serious errors.
I’m a big D3 proponent. But, no need to bring out my pitchfork. The bottom line, what we are all shooting for, is optimal health. I make my decisions based on the totality of the following. Mainstream/conventional medicine, dissenting voices in the medical community, my own logic, and my own personal experiences. Yes, I can get things wrong. However, as experience shows, so can mainstream voices. Believe me, nothing would please me more than to be able to completely and totally trust mainstream medicine, and our health agencies. It would be so much easier just to follow them. But, as the past few years have shown, that is a dangerous approach.
When this study is defining "otherwise healthy people", what does that mean? Are they measuring body composition, bone density, insulin response, VO2 max, blood pressure, inflammation, oxidative stress, etc? I doubt it. Seeing as we have many silent killers in our bodies that are entirely symptom free, we don't really know if we're healthy or not without biomarker testing.
It’s so confusing. My doctor tested my D and it was a 7, and he went into a panic and put me on prescription 50,000 IU every other day for several weeks. Then when I went to see him a year later he didn’t want to check my D level because he said “we see it differently now.” I supplement with 2,000 IU daily now but yeah, doc wasn’t even approving of that. I have lupus so I take vitamin D bc I get such little sun.
The U.S. fortified grain-based foods with vitamins and minerals to prevent a number of childhood diseases. For people who have a slightly lower carb diet, they probably need a multivitamin. If only there was a product that had a reasonable amount of vitamins and minerals… The U.S. also put fluoride into the water supply for strong and healthy teeth. This also makes some people unhappy. The next push is probably to introduce statins into food. Not sure how that happens. Not there yet myself. Edit: the U.S. fortified grains and dairy.
Wait, wait wait... Ok I left my pitchfork in the other car, but there seems to be a fallacy here. The study you cite was for cancer and CVD. You cannot extrapolate these results to say there are no other benefits for healthy people. Because, obviously, there are many other health problems aside from these two diseases. Making pronouncements based on limited data is an occupational hazard I guess. Probably better to say, I don't know. I think history has shown pretty conclusively that docs get it wrong pretty often. Like extended bedrest for heart attacks, low fat high carb diets. Trans fats. Need I go on? I just feel like there is nuance here that is overlooked. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but rather that conclusive information on this topic is not currently available and, yes, more research is needed. But I love your channel. Keep up the good work.
I took vitamin D consistently a while back. I forget if it was 3000UI or 5000UI but I ended up with vitamin D toxicity. Too much. I'm a redhead and I've read that redheads produce more vitamin D for lower sun exposure. I'm now cautious on the vitamin.
We are all different. I found out the necessary dose according to the rapid retreat of respiratory infections. Initially 150000IU cleared the infection within two days and lasted a month until the next infection. After 14 years of use, 25000IU per week is enough for me for respiratory infections including CoVi. That's the dose a healthy individual would receive in a few hours at the beach, which unfortunately doesn't work for me.
I've (70-) been taking 2500 IU vitamin D and K2 daily for the past 6 months. Before that about 1000 IU. Suddenly, I've developed cramps in my hand/fingers. I also take Mg (small amounts) daily. Is there any information on the relationship between these two which could help me to explain these symptoms? Thank you.
If the medical establishment tested vitamin D in every patient , they could treat it appropriately . We are just throwing darts in the dark at the problem . Some people may be fine with 1000 or 2000 and others may need 20 k or more . Further , the biggest issue is the stupidity of dosing in international units . International units vary by nutrient and give zero context . 10k ius of vitamin d is 250 mcg . If you dosed in real measurements people would be less hesitant to take real therapeutic doses .
I work a lot and don't see the sun at all most days during the winter. Back in 2009 I started taking 4000IU daily with K2. I sure notice that I get sick a lot less than I used to and my colds are less severe.
Dr Been’s video on d3 showed that overweight people need way more . For me, 5000iu per day for 6 wks rx by endocrinologist did nothing . I stayed around blood level 17. So I doubled it. Eventually I was around 70 blood level.
Hello. Thank you! I really trust your advice and the education you offer from credible medical studies. I like that you share the products and practices you use, those you discontinue and those you are waiting for more information. Can you provide an alternative recommendation for those of us who can not use retinol/retinoids/trentinoin? I have a whole body allergic reaction to these products but know they work. It’s very frustrating. P.S. I’ve tried lots of different retinol/retinoids/trentinoin products and slow ramp up applications….
Have you tried differin/adapalene, it's the gentlest retinoid available. I also had rashes and allergy like reaction when I started retinoids, it was just that the concentration was too high, I pushed through and the symptoms cleared out. I am using 0.1% tretinoin and tazarotene now, no issues. You can use hydrocortisone or betamethasone to manage the symptoms till your skin adapts to it. Good luck! It's also weird that a vitamin A derivatives would cause reactions, since your body does require some of it to function. The human body is a mystery yet.
So we can set a standard for how much you should take; which doesn't take into account any specific details of your body and your life style. But we cannot try the obvious tool of measuring blood levels in healthy and unhealthy people and determine optimum blood levels? It appears that he is happy to make us all take the same amount and if that doesn't work for me as an individual well.....I'm getting all the benefits I need. I wish he would decide whether he is enforcing a fixed standard for everyone or helping a specific person. Specifically I have gotten a tremendous benefit in taking enough Vitamin D to reach levels over 80 in my blood. And 20 years from now I expect to see Dr. Stanfield finally report that a proper trial backs up the choices I made today. I very much respect Dr. Stanfield and like his work; but in this instance he is answering the wrong question. Because the question he should be asking is what is the blood levels of people that live like our ancestors did (i.e. outside in the sun EVERY day)? It would only take sampling farm workers who work in the fields to answer that question. And I expect the result would be the Endocrine Society is completely wrong. He would also have a real, blood level based, standard for what is Normal or healthy Vitamin D levels. In other words, Evolution Works. Thanks!
68 yo. Last year I upped my dosage to 5000 to 10,000 IUs. Coincidently I started experiencing frozen shoulder, muscle weakness, Raynaud's, horse voice. Did a hair analysis and it shows high Calc and low Potassium.
You probably need magnesium and importantly, vitamin K (it takes the calcium and puts it in bones and teeth, prevents it accumulating in "smooth tissues" like muscles veins etc.
I’ve been experimenting with dose and blood tests for 3 years and my research tells me you are correct, on the money. For me, I get nasty side effects past 3000 iu, assuming very little sun exposure
I’ve been tested this year. Results 39 ng/ml. Using sunscreen spf 30 daily and avoiding the sun. But I live in Mediterranean, so plenty of sunny days. I supplement D3 with 1000 IU daily in drops with k2.
My doctor gave me 10.000IU to take once a week when I was diagnosed as deficient, after I took the dosage, I had insomnia and agitation, I just couldn't rest. After that I was recommended drops of 500IU and had to optimized until I reached just above 30ng/dl. Now I take 2500IU a day in liquid form and the levels have been mostly stable, but that's just my body, and I don't expose myself to the sun. I've noticed my memory being way sharper.
I can't believe people are saying that one dose fits all for vitamin D. Even for one person, there might be periods when you want to take high doses, and periods when you don't want any vitamin D in your diet. No one "should" do anything. Some people should take 20 000 units daily, and many others should take 0. Measure your levels and body fat and based on those two measurements, and whether you spend your time outside then consider your dose.
A 2010 Mayo Clinic study showed those with the highest vitamin K levels had a 45% less likelihood of getting Non-Hodgkin Lyphoma. That’s why I take 75 mg of K2-mk4 and 1,500 mcg of K2-mk7 daily along with 20,000 iu of D3 daily. My blood and blood cell calcium levels have remained perfect.
This video may ruffle some feathers, but data >>>>> feelings
📜Roadmap - how to look young & feel strong: drstanfield.com/pages/roadmap
💊MicroVitamin (multivitamin & mineral that I take): drstanfield.com/products/microvitamin
How much vitamin D can the body produce in one hour outside(depending on latitude and other factors)? Between 10,000 and 25,000 IU? So, what difference does taking 600 or 3,000 IU as a supplement make? Zero?
How could you talk about vitamin d supplements without talking about the role of vitamin K2 to keep calcium out of the arteries and deposit it in the bones? There are numerous doctors in clinics who have found profound results with their patients by putting them on vitamin K2 with nattokinase to clear out excess calcium in the arteries. Many people are going to take higher doses of vitamin d because they notice health benefits. It is malpractice to talk about vitamin d supplements without talking about the importance of vitamin K2 being paired with them. The risk of low vitamin d seems to be greater than the risk of higher vitamin d when it's paired with proper amounts of vitamin k2. Spend more time in the peer reviewed journals please and talking to clinicians who are ahead of the research curve by what they're seeing in their clinics.
@yamafanboy Good points.
I watch this channel, and I watch Berg. I like both. I think Berg is a good source of alternative ideas, and I think this channel is great for staying on top of the latest outcomes.
Brad is the better "scientist," but he's also a bit too conventional. Too much trust in too many who don't deserve that trust.
@yamafanboy I found Dr. Berg making comments and conclusions that did not make any medical sense. For example, he was discussing cholesterol intake and bringing and referring to studies that were discussing serum cholesterol. He intermingled the values as if they were exchangeable. These are two different things and not equal. That is when I first suspect something wrong. After I found out he is not an MD, but a Chiropractor. I also found a couple of other credible doctors posting rebuttals to some of the videos Dr. Berg was publishing. - I suspect that Dr. Berg has folks writing scripts for him and that he doesn't or is unable to fully critique those scripts. As long as it sounds 98% credible, it goes out. But that is the danger. He is a marketer, not a visionary.
@@IllinoisCitizen I have seen many rebuttals of Dr. Bergs videos by other credible doctors. I first became aware of his lack of credibility when in a video he kept mixing cholesterol intake values with serum cholesterols called out is various studies he was referencing. These are two different measurement and not comparable. That is a level 101 Doctor stuff understanding that he should not have missed. I found out later he is a Chiropractor and not an MD. In my opinion, Dr. Berg is merely the face of a marketing enterprise.
Before two years I used to work at a beach bar during summer because of this I was under the sun for many hours. In October I tested my blood and the results were very good except for my Vitamin D level, which was 12 nmol/L very very low. My doctor recommended supplementation of 2000 iu per day. Two months later I did a blood test and my level was 13, then he told me to take 5000 iu. After 2 months I got tested again my level was 17 my doctor said ok continue like this. Five months later I did again the test, and my level was 16. Then I said to myself, f this I will take 40000 iu for four months and see how will go. When I did the test again after four months my levels were 65.
Plus after that, my asthma decreased a lot.
Glad you fixed your levels, but could you please tell while working in the beach bar, how much time were you directly receiving sunlight? Did you use suncream or have your neck and shoulders covered?
Did you eat lots of liver or other food containing large amounts of Retinol during this period?
@@andanssas I don't like sunscreen also after one month there got super tan. The sunlight during the work saw my head and arms but usually after work I went for a swimming wearing only swimsuit.
Not all supplement brands are working as they should, either.
@@carinaekstrom1Are the Coconut based the best?
I just checked my vitamin d levels and I am deficient while taking 5000iu. I have dark skin and I now work from home. The recommendation is not for everyone.
I have malabsorption from leaky gut and have lost even more weight without trying - the specialist I talked to said all my symptoms point to anemia. Out of 10 VitD deficiency symptoms in a video, I had 7 of them. I get some sun in FL & I know I need to get tested. I just started boosting mine to 24,000iu a day & I'm thinking I need to go higher but I'm actually feeling better right now after more isolated supplements: iodine, iron, ferritin, D3/K2mk7, copper, zinc & selenium (being careful with these since too much is just as bad). It's helping though.
You may have something else going on that is causing the deficiency.
Omg!!! This man is so beautiful!! I want to put my face next to the arch of his foot!!!
@@DakotaFord592huh?
@@cinystarr4657 You have a special case that makes mega dosing reasonable and necessary. You need to work on the issue of having a leaky gut as it likely has other detrimental effects. Good luck.
One quibble with what the good doctor said, many influencers such as Rhonda Patrick, that recommends higher levels of vitamin d, don't in fact sell vitamin d. so there is no financial gain to recommending higher doses. They may simply be in error, haven't integrated new research or read the data, differently. Also, if we were going to discredit educators and influencers primarily based on a financial motive, we would need to question the integrity of Dr. Brad who does sell a product vs Rhonda Patrick who does not. Of course I fully trust Dr. Brad's motives, I just want to make sure we don't use financial motives a simplistic heuristic for either affirming or criticizing the source of information.
That's true in a very technical sense, but in real life it's the wild west out there and money is getting the big voice in the supplement industry.
Regarding Rhonda, notice that her recommendations are based on observational studies, which she must not be aware have failed to convert the same benefits in direct, real, double blind trials, even though there have been several good ones. Since she doesn't even address this flaw, her recommendations should be dismissed as invalid.
I agree, my doctor makes money but he's a great doctor. I think there are some influencers who are really just flogging anything thats trendy but many are really trying to do good. One thing about influencers is that they are more dynamic than regular medecine and may be able to get new guidelines to people more rapidly. Generally we should look more widely and not take one influencers word as gospel.
We are all different. I found out the necessary dose according to the rapid retreat of respiratory infections. Initially 150000IU cleared the infection within two days and lasted a month until the next infection. After 14 years of use, 25000IU per week is enough for me for respiratory infections including CoVi. That's the dose a healthy individual would receive in a few hours at the beach, which unfortunately doesn't work for me.
NOT PRIMARILY! you said "if we were going to discredit educators and influencers primarily based on a financial motive"
Mwah, Rhonda Patrick sells Rhonda Patrick.
I live in the caribbean and I have been taking vitamin D3 10.000IU every day, and I haven't gotten sick in about 2 and a half years and I'm 60 years old.
I have been taking 10k ius per day for over a year now along with k2 and magnesium. I do not go out in sunlight. I get d3 tested every 2 months, I prefer to maintain a range of 70-100 ng/dl . I spoke to a doctor who deals with cardiovascular issues, who treated lakhs of people for over an decade, he mentioned that d3 helped clearing calcium plaques from the arteries and there is no need to worry about calcification at all, as calcification is observed beyond 300ng/dl, which I realistically can never hit at the dosage I am on.
Despite the conservative approach from endocrine society, I would still prefer to continue my dosage as there is no downside. And, in future the same scientists might say that they found that there are benefits. So, objectively looking at it, as there is no downside to maintain a higher range, I don’t find any fault with taking more dosage , as it could potentially have an upside which we might not be aware of at the moment.
I was talking 10,000 ius a day and I reached a level of 338!!!!
Yes, definitely a possible downside. I know multiple people who were having symptoms of Vit D toxicity at those levels, and who improved greatly immediately upon reducing them. So there is obviously an intermediate level where a very mild toxicity is having negative effects but it is too mild to diagnose easily. 10K IU could very easily be that level, even if it showed positive effects at the beginning.
@@Ontonaut Mayo clinic says Vit D toxicity can start around 4K IU/day, including
Nausea and vomiting
Poor appetite and weight loss
Constipation
Weakness
Confusion and disorientation
Heart rhythm problems
Kidney stones and kidney damage
I’ve been taking 10,000 IU vitamin D3 for over 20 years without issue. I do take vitamin K complex, zink, copper, boron, magnesium, iodine, and Fulvic Acid for the trace minerals. 👍
@@ronalddesilva8730yep not 20yrs but over 5yrs at 10k a day with K2, boron, iodine and a handful of others. All good on my end.
Regarding safety, a 2019 study shows adults with 22% uncovered skin produce 1000 IU of Vitamin D per 10-15 minutes of direct sun exposure. It seems odd the human body would produce such amounts if 5000 IU per day was dangerous, especially in individuals who stay out of the sun and apply UV blockers daily.
I think the body downregulates Vitamin D production after 20 minutes or so. But yea, I highly doubt that 5000 IU would be dangerous.
@@dude861 I have wondered about that possibility. But have not seen such data. Body can also down regulate Vitamin D receptors. Lot of mechanisms to ameliorate activity are possible.
I'm 66 and just had mine tested for the first time ever, and have been taking 5000 for at least the last 15 years. My number came in exactly 65 and the range used at the clinic was 30--100 so I am right in the middle. I work indoors so don't get much sunshine, wiil continue to take 5000 as I almost never get sick. Never got covid either and I am unvaxxed, and staying that way!
@@AbbyMacy67 I'd also suggest taking the vitamind D together with Vitamin K2 (it is pretty common to find them in one supplement these days) if you are not doing that already.
Just because we don't have conclusive proof of benefit, doesn't mean there's not evidence of benefit. And, medical policy is very much concerned about saving every penny. I don't need to worry about that. I can spend a little bit for tests and supplements with questionable benefit as long as it's unquestionably safe. I think up to 50ng/ml is unquestionably safe, and might have benefits, so that's what I target. The penny pinchers can disregard my opinions.
@tf-lv4zu The Vitamin D Council recommends 40-100 ng/ml. The Vitamin D Society recommends 40-100 ng/ml. The Endocrine Society used to recommend 30-100 ng/ml, except that we just learned they don't recommend any testing to save money.
The Linus Pauling Institute also has a good Vitamin D page that covers a lot of the research.
As a 30 year old male, I’ve been supplementing 2000UI D3 daily with my biggest meal for 6 years. Despite the guidelines I decided to get my levels tested and to my surprise I was severely deficient.
It took me 3000UI D3 daily to reach clinically normal levels of Vitamin D.
I think individuals’ absorption ability and supplement form (pill vs liquid) plays a role here. I get that routine testing is not recommended but if I didn’t get tested, I was going to stay severely deficient despite my daily supplementation.
3000 is perfect for me to get up to 50
Omg!!! This man is so beautiful!! I want to put my face next to the arch of his foot!!!
Supplement with magnesium glycinate or a blend of magnesium glycinate with other magnesium version @ 250 mg daily. It helps with Vit D absorption.
Consume your vit D with fatty foods. Helps aid absorption as it's fat soluble.
@Jupiter_Crash
How do we know if the Magnesium Glycinate is the chelated form? It doesn't say anything on the bottle I just bought regarding this
10.000iu with MK2/MK7 is awesome! - just take a blood test to figure out your blood levels and adjust accordingly. 10.000iu puts me near the top of the health range, not above it.
If you are above the range after a blood test, adjust accordingly until you're in range for YOUR body!
It's not that hard people.
The simple question of: How can the endocrine society recommend ANY dose when they don’t know the correct serum level, was not answered!!
They recommend the dose because that dose was shown to provide benefit to a broad group of people regardless of their serum level
@@spiralinandspiralout No. That's not why.
Also just take a blood test and you know YOUR levels.
@@cooluser23yes that's why, watch the video
@cooluser23. Testing will tell you your serum level. But there wasn't any testing of serum levels in the studies, so there is no way to determine an optimal level to aim for. The study only showed the amount of supplementation that seems to lead to better outcomes for most people.
Adjusting dose to give certain concentration is best, but drug levels are rarely tested due to expense.
I think the study cited here showed there was no reduction in cardiovascular events or cancer rates when supplementing above 800 IU. It did not examine effects on other endpoints, so it is inconclusive regarding other health concerns. More studies are required before doc can say there are "no benefits" to >800 IU doses.
There are no known benefits would be more accurate. Benefits need to be proven not assumed.
The Israeli study regarding vitamin D levels and severity of covid infection plays a big role in my decision to supplement. Also, so does the logic of how much vitamin D we produce when we spend a long time in the sun. Meaning, I think we can tolerate very high levels. Also, my 87 year old Mom contracted the virus in 2023. She was a walking case of comorbities, but survived, and has no lasting effects. I truly believe that the regimen I had her on, which included vitamin D3, was of immense help.
1. The 600-800 IU was based on mathematical fallacies in a research study.
2. It has been proven to be way to low to keep you or raise you to optimal levels of nmol.
3. Simply measure your blood and make sure you are near the optimal levels. 60-70 nmol.
As a human guinea pig. It makes sense to test your vitamin d levels. I have occasionally tested. It has been my experience that it takes a lot more than you think to actually get your levels to recommended health level of 30. Testing is very valuable.
Isn't 30 low?
@@tubo1812 Very low. My doc (ex molecular biologist) recommends 80 to 100.
@@tubo1812No, sufficient levels are 20-50 ng/ml.
Omg!!! This man is so beautiful!! I want to put my face next to the arch of his foot!!!
Testing yourself means managing your own health, and most people prefer to outsource their heath management to the 'wellness' system. We really need to take responsibility for our own health, because it's clear that big pharma runs the show and the profit motive should make it clear what they're about. If everyone is healthy, they go out of business.
Thanks for sharing and educating all that information!!
Taking 10,000 IU of D3 a day for a year and my blood test in the US was only 36 when it is recommended that 50 is considered ideal. I am 69 yo. I also have a problem with low blood iron due to not absorbing some things from diet. So a test is really needed since you never really know how much you absorb from diet unless you get tested.
I think that’s the misconception of people… 50 isn’t ideal, 50 is the minimum level of vitamin D that you should get in your blood tests… optimum is around 75 to 80
Also your gut health for absorption.
If you have a normal conversion ability for vitamin D and you get no sun, you need at least 2000 IU per day to maintain healthy levels. If you have trouble converting vitamin D into the active form, which many of us do, due to our current environment, then you'll need at least 5000 IU per day to maintain healthy levels. Having said that, if you have no trouble converting into the active form, and you get 30 minutes a day of sun exposure, then you only need the amount Dr. Brad stated to maintain healthy levels. You'll need more if you have trouble converting it from the sun. Your blood levels should be between 50-80ng/ml.
The trouble with that is it's not understanding what "healthy levels" means. Those studies which showed those healthy levels were showing that people with SUNLIGHT DERIVED vit D had health. That is merely a correlation, not evidence of causation. Turns out that the sunlight itself is a major cause of good health, and vit D always comes along for the ride, fooling us into thinking it was the cause. So when they test people who's vit D was SUPPLEMENT-DERIVED in actual clinical trials, many of the health benefits go away.
@@don_kandon6006 Interesting data.
You'd never reach the 50ng point if you were on 800 IU. Its not like it builds up in your system, you'd level out after 10 or 20 days at some lower value, maybe 20 or whatever.
All I can say is that I have avoided MS relapses by taking 5,000 IUs of Vitamin D3 for the last 20+ years.
Great to hear that your health is in a better place. MS is a condition of active research concerning Vitamin D supplementation, however so far "studies have not consistently shown that vitamin D supplementation tempers the signs and symptoms of active MS or reduces rates of relapse."
ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/
Just be mindful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For example:
- After I sneezed, then suddenly my laptop exploded.
- Therefore, my sneezing caused my laptop to explode.
Might be the same thing here with the dose of Vitamin D you are taking and your MS symptoms
@@DrBradStanfield Nobody cares what you say Brad, you only focus on one side of the story.
We do care about what dr. Bad will say. We genuinely love and trust his insight. @@ikerborja1082
@@ikerborja1082of course we care, that's why we follow this channel
Lol, that’s why you are here. Because you don’t care what he says?
I took 10000IU during a year and took a D vitamin test. My lever was 73ng/ml.
Now I take 50000IU. I also need a lot of magnesium. If I do not take it I get headache. So I also take 300mg magnesium malat 3-4 times day. The body use up alot of magnesium with high D3. I also take K2 5mg mk4 and 200ug mk7. K2 lover calcium by puting it in the bones. I feel great and my pain in the elbows and my 20 year old foot damage is now healed by vitamin D. I have more energy and the skin does not feel dry. My health test looks great. But the doctors say I must cut of my D3. But why? I feel great. I do not recommend this to anyone. I just say that with the right co vitamins, it looks safe to me.
The science doesn’t seem settled as to whether vitamin k actually prevents calcification from vitamin d. At least according to Dr. Brad. He mentions it in his last vitamin k video I think.
@Nelis1324 There is no study with +20000 people that have proven it. Yes. But there are a lot of small studies that prove it and metaanalys of smaller studies that also show that K2 lover calcium and increase bone mass. I just know that my large D3 intake should increase calcium, but that thats not the case. After 2 years on D3 50000IU I feel confident that K2 and magnesium at least for me is handling these problems.
@Nelis1324 I have not been sick in years. My wife lover her D3 from 50000IU to 2000IU and she got sick during last winter multiple times. Now she take 20000IU and since then she has not been sick.
Don't listen to your Dr., you are not profitable when you are healthy. A level at 60 is absolutely perfect. Mine is at 75 atm. Just go not above 80...
Natural form of :
Vit D : Cod liver oil 460 iu/5ml
K2 : Natto (fermented soybean) 150mcg/1tablespoon
So.... Chose wisely and wholy or synthetically and im isolation from other natural nutrients that work synthetically
Are you not concerned about the other chemicals found in cod liver oil such as mercury and PCB'S as some?
Recommending x IU per day is a fools quest. Vitamin d levels are hugely dependent on individual sun exposure, duration and intensity, skin type, as well as on body volume (think dilation of vitamin d). There may be more factors that influence how much vitamin d gets produced as well. We should talk about what serum levels are healthy, routine test our vit d levels, and change dosage on that primarily. And, if sun exposure levels or intensity change, recheck to adjust vitamin d levels.
The truth is that in the future, N=1 medicine is the way to go, meaning highly individualized medical care, instead of what we did for too long now: Get an average value, and assume that everyone is average so it'll be fine...
NHS in the UK officially recommends Vitamin D supplementation for autumn and winter months.
That British weather 😲
Doesn't every country recommend vit d supplementation? In Poland they tell me to take it all year long, unless I spend majority of the day outside in spring and summer. I think the whole conflict is a out the dose, since some groups claim the norms are superficially lowered. I don't agree, because the studies show differently, but there's no discussion with such emotional responses 🤔
I just read that 1 tablespoon of Natto contains 150 mG of Vitamin k2 MK-7.
When I visited Japan, I could go to 7-Eleven and buy a 4 inch roll of Natto Sushi or Onogiri for 99 Yen.
Not only was I receiving a bioavailable form of it I was also receiving other healthy items such as Iodine from the seaweed.
Id rather take that than a cement-like tablet.
I had heard that their government subsidizes the cost of this healthy food, so I felt blessed to take it daily every morning before work, accessible from a 24/7 store for 5 months.
They love their slimy foods, which I also explored while there.
My mom in the nursing home tested positive for Covid multiple times and was quarantined (she wasn’t vaccinated.) Thankfully, I had gotten her a vitamin D shot the month before.
She never showed any symptoms at all, and no one could figure out why.
The take home message is to get it measured regularly, and adjust the variables accordingly.
Hi doc, my nephrologist told me he only give his patient vitamin D if they are low and only brings them up to 50 in the blood test. I was 103 and was told to stop taking supplements, as he felt I get enough from diet and sunlight exposure. I dropped to 38. My point is get blood work done regularly. I'm taking 2,000 IU's a day until my next test.
I take 5000 to 10000 units and have had little or no asthma and reduced respiratory problems since I started about three years ago.
Glad to hear that your health is in a better place. Just be mindful of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. For example:
- After I sneezed, then suddenly my laptop exploded.
- Therefore, my sneezing caused my laptop to explode.
Might be the same thing here with the dose of Vitamin D you are taking and your asthma symptoms
@@DrBradStanfield After four years I am quite certain of the efficacy of Vitamin D supplementation. I might add that I have very sensitive skin and very easily sunburnt. So I avoid the sun whenever possible. Nonetheless Vit D supplementation has improved my respiratory health beyond any doubt in my mind. Four years is long enough to eliminate any kind of placebo effect.
@@DrBradStanfield... possibly but if you're going down that rabbit hole, then we can question your Appeal to Authority Bias when contrasting a quack to the Endocrine Society's position on vitamin D?
Rather we keep a respectful, open mind with regard to the personal experience of individuals, as being a possible exception to a rule that governs the majority. Instead of dismissing it bc it doesn't fit with what we already know to be true for most.
@@DrBradStanfield I always hold a sneeze in when I'm on the laptop
@@laurieparis2203 Very ironic to speak of logic fallacies when getting plain facts wrong. Dr. Brad DID keep a respectful open mind here. He DID NOT dismiss it. SMH
His contrast of quack to Endocrine Society was logically valid because he was showing the full range of recommendation extremes. It was a correct & logical summation of the total recommendation RANGE. He can't control the quality of those extremes, he is just reporting what they are, and this was a helpful point to understand context for the overall discussion.
I don't belive Berg or the Endocrine Society. Berg is too high and I and many of my colleagues believe the Endocrine Society is too low. Measure your Vitamin D. I aim for for 40 to 60. Supplementation without measurement is foolish as the required dose varies a great deal among patients.
It makes no sense not to measure vitamin D levels. Besides your own health, it make sense to gather a large database of vitamin D levels vs health in the public to better determine the ideal range of vitamin D blood levels.
No blindfolds, please!
How much is dangerous. I live in Honolulu, and hit the sun between 1:30 to 3:30 every day + I'm eating supplement also with 500% plus... am I in danger to take too much?
@@johnstewart4350 how many IU's Vit D? I
@@jerrycoutant8648 5,000 IU + 2-hour Hawaiian sunshine per day (the sleeves you see me in the profile pic)....
Berg is chiropractor who should not be giving this type of medical advice. He's the biggest of the UA-cam quacks and anything he says should be dismissed as nonsense.
Thank you for being honest, it means in the world to me.
Liking the subtle heel turn Dr!
Thank you for everything you do Doctor
I do 5000 D3, 200 K2, and lots of magnesium per day. It seems to be a balance between the low-dose folks and the high-dose folks (like > 10,000). I'm about 15 pounds away from my ideal weight, and once I get there I'll get a full blood workup to see where I"m at and include D and such just to double-check everything!
Thanks for this information
Thanks. Very good analysis as usual. My only reservation about the recommendation for vitamin D supplementation is that studies are often done with people in different latitude and the effect of the Sun varies a lot. In Québec where I live there is about a two month period during which you can walk around with skin exposed to the Sun and that is the month of July and a couple of weeks before and after. Outside that period, skin exposure to the sun will be minimal. I think recommendation about vitamin D should take latitude into consideration.
Except in July, I take 1400ui. In July I take only the 400ui in my multivitamin.
Also, I wonder if skin color might not also be a factor and I wonder if there was any study made taking this into account.
Good job keep going, impartiality is vital
What we need is a protocol to accurately measure and determine how much vitamin D each different person needs.
There’s a video on YT with Dr.Boz talking about this. She had difficulty increasing her elderly father's D3 levels. She increased dosages and exposure outlandishly to no avail. Finally she resorted to an aesthetic procedure to get amazing results.
Thanks, I didn't realize I was taking too little.
Aren't the vitamin D levels known of some traditional peoples who spend their days outdoors? Wouldn't that be a good indication of how much we should have?
You guys laugh and joke about this , but it's true.. I now have one of the oldest cats in my city
Yes, they have 90 to 140 ng/ ml in their blood ( the masai in africa)
@@janbroekema It's 46 ng/ml. The 90 - 140 figure is probably the European units.
@@andrewtaylor9799 Yeah 46 ng/ml is the average which equals 115 nmol/l.
Depending on your skin color and sun exposure, you might need 0 to 5,000 IU to achieve.
"The best process is no process".......golden......good work.....thanks
I was supplementing 1000-2000 IU a day... vid d through years, so I was thinking I might be overdosing my self... I made test and I was insufficient at 27 😂...
Than I started 10.000 UI for couple of months to reach 48... not half the range... Now I take now and then 10.000...
So beside the "evidences" something and someone is right
don't forget to take K2 from time to time.
maybe some people are better at absorbing the supplemental vit D than other so for people who have strong absorption, 2000IU would actually get them to the proper level but someone with weaker absorption following the same dosage might just not get enough from that dosage. idk, might be an explanation. also yeah dont forget K2!
Vit D absorbs better when taken with fat and converts better when you eat sulphur rich vegetables. Theoretically you can use less vitamin d by lowering inflammation. These practices should have other positive health effects too, which is better than taking a very high dose of vitamin d.
@peanutnutter1
Thanks for the info. So eating the Vit.D supplement with fatty foods and also consuming onions would be a great combination? 👍
@@grilsegrils9330 that's exactly right and exercising and getting some infra-red exposure can lower inflammation.
Good job! Thank you!
This general population dosage recommendation is not addressing those that have rigorous training schedules (indoors), inflammatory/autoimmune or malignant diseases, or high stress environments. How does dosage, blood levels of Vit D and cofactors correlate to outcomes. Fauci who did not speak openly on the major networks but mentioned in a one on one with J Garner, Vit D daily for boosting immune function/ resistance to COViD. Please consider a deeper dive to address if possible.
"FNB based the vitamin D RDAs on the assumption that people receive minimal sun exposure"
ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/#h3
I wouldn't trust anything Dr. Fauci says
@@DrBradStanfield www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532266/ 50% of the world is believed to have < 30 ng/ml, 35% < 21 ng/ml.
50% of infants in the US are considered to be DEFICIENT by the above < 21 ng/ml standard.
@@DrBradStanfield Thank you for the above reference - it cites its reasoning for determining Tolerable Upper Limits (and none are higher than 1000 IU's. "The FNB established ULs for vitamin D in 2010 (Table 4) [1]. While acknowledging that signs and symptoms of toxicity are unlikely at daily intakes below 250 mcg (10,000 IU), the FNB noted that even vitamin D intakes lower than the ULs might have adverse health effects over time. The FNB recommended avoiding serum 25(OH)D levels above approximately 125-150 nmol/L (50-60 ng/mL), and it found that even lower serum levels (approximately 75-120 nmol/L [30-48 ng/mL]) are associated with increases in rates of all-cause mortality, risk of cancer at some sites (e.g., pancreas), risk of cardiovascular events, and number of falls and fractures among older adults." It gives rather particular, less than mega - analysis standard reasoning for establishing an upper limit under 10K IU.
But don't you think that most people should get tested? Since the FTB and we all know that we can't know the ng/ml level for anybody based on the supplement and what we believe is their sun exposure.
So... what do I do if I'm not in a risk group but my vitamin D blood test numbers were showing an insufficiency (26 ng/ml) and stopped showing it after years of supplementing with 5000 UI(55 ng/ml now)? Are those previous insufficiency/normal ranges no longer relevant? And if I switch to the new supplementing recommendation of around 1000 UI for a year and have a blood test (that I wouldn't need to take, let's say it's a hypothetical I guess) show me those same 20-30ng/ml numbers again, it would mean that I can't know for sure but I am most likely not deficient, because we don't actually know what are the normal ranges even for people in the risk group?
I doubt they give vitamin D in mental asylums so I'm probably gonna stick to my usual intake because this stuff is so confusing it's gonna induce psychosis in me lol. I'm basically winging it until we get actual numbers
I was getting weird calcium deposits on my tendons which I think were from supplementation. I think oral vitamin D is nowhere near as good as exposure to natural sunlight (in moderation, usually in the morning).
Excellent discussion! As a physician, I am interested in your thoughts on the use of niacin, niacinamide, NAD, and NR. These are widely promoted in the anti-aging arena but have not been subjected to unbiased studies regarding efficacy and safety. In February 2024, an article in Nature Medicine (authored by a cardiologist from the Cleveland clinic) showed a strong correlation between high levels of niacin metabolites (2PY and 4PY) and cardiovascular disease. I have written to two different "reputable" sources of NAD, etc., and have received response. No doubt, there are thousands of people using these supplements. What might be your take on this issue?
Some studies show that people with digestive issues don't budge their vit d levels even with high doses of 50,000 iu. overweight people have less vit d available and dark skinned people. Older people have low levels and those with chronic diseases. Studies have aimed at a 30ng/ml level. My copd/tinea/mouth health went away when i got to over 50ng/ml. I use sublingual vit d at 10,000/day just to maintain my levels.
Three stage plan depending on your level of health/disease.
1, RDA's use these if you want to toy with being deficient. Use blood tests to determine if you're good.
2, therapeutic levels. Take a look at these levels and apply if they are suitable for your elevated need caused by your type/level of disease activity.
3, tolerable upper level. The range at which you should stop.
You do you.
Chiropractic saved my life. Regular GP's receive very little nutritional education. Their approach is via one dimensional big profit pharmaceutical concerns.
In my grandma's 10 years of bloodwork, doctors included a vitamin d test among the cdc, lipids, etc. We are in southern California, where you can get vitamin d from the sun year round so the test is probably not super necessary. That said, 1 year she went in and had bloodwork done and the only thing that was low was vitamin d (down from 46 to a 19). She had been suffering from a mild dry cough and chills for some months. I think this change helped doctors to realize further testing was needed. She has since been diagnosed with a cousin to TB and been put on a 2 year long regimen of antibiotics multiple times a day. The lung nodules have not quite gone away. Could doctors have figured this all out without being tipped off by the change in vitamin d test? Maybe, but I don't know if alarm bells would've been ringing without a change in the CBC.
Hunter-gatherers living around the African equator have average vitamin D blood levels of 46 ng/ml. This provides some guidance on blood levels to aim for. They get this from exposure to sunshine, not supplements.
As always thank you for your research. No torches & pitchforks from me. I always value data and insight. I especially appreciate your mention towards the end about K2 and (especially) magnesium. These are going to play major factors on absorption and utilization. (Body fat levels play a part as well. Obese patients sometimes struggle w/ adequate vitamin D.)
I would like to offer a couple of thoughts that might be worth deeper consideration:
First, perhaps one of the things that we should look into regarding vitamin D intake is based on our own unique genetic heritage and ancestry. (Our biological ancestor's exposure to sunlight (length & intensity based on geographic location) and their food sources (fish vs caribou vs seals etc.) may prove themselves to be important factors in our own requirements.)
Secondly, there is a case to be made that supplemental vitamin d3 should mimic natural exposure to sunlight. (It's not sunny everyday...neither are we always in the sun on sunny days.) Perhaps a form of vitamin D cycling...no dose to low dose to slightly higher dose then stepping it back down.) This would fit more of the natural rhythm of life. We might find that our need my coincide with natural hormone cycles as well. I would love to see research in this area.
Once again, thank you for your work! And belated congrats on the Rapamycin study funding! Take care.
There are several problems with that analysis and it's not about reason vs. emotion. What studies don't capture is that people respond vastly different to vitamin D supplementation and there is no dose that fits all. Yes we don't know the exact optimal vitamin D level, so what? Yes, correlation is not causation, but given how cheap vitamin D is, I'd rather be on the safe side. Mortality is not everything by far, but there studies clearly show improvements up to 30 ng/dl, with possible further benefits up to 40 or even slight further benefits up to 60 ng/dl. Thus I'd aim for at least 30, but better 40 ng/dl to be on the safe side with no risk of going to high either (if that means taking < 10,000 IU a day together with vitamin K2, I'm also being on the safe side dose-wise). 600-800 I.E. are not even enough to get me above 30 ng/dl. Thus we should either test or take a more generous amount of vitamin D that will guarantee a level of at least 30 and no more than 50 ng/dl for every person, which is apparently impossible to find, because some people need very high doses to even get above 25 ng/dl, while others are already above that without supplementation.
Really appreciate these videos
Keep up the good work.
Another factor here is the levels of absorption, which differs enormously between individuals based on gut health. Cod liver oil has Vitamin D which is more bio available than pharmaceutical extracts of Vitamin D. Direct sunlight might be the best solution.
Because of low vitamin D blood levels my endocrinologist prescribed 50,000 units a day for 10 days and 2000 units a day after that. Still only raised my levels to 38. ( I do wear sun block all the time because I live in the South.)
Here's the query I have with this argument, if this is right, why does the body generate so much Vitamin D when skin is exposed for a prolonged period to the Sun ?
One thing about vitamin D I find annoying is the supplements don't come co factored with Magnesium, so it can't really be metabolised, and the form of vitamin D in supplements is terrible.
Vitamin d supplementation reduces thyroid antibodies
You speak the truth dude
My test results came in today. After taking 5000 IU daily for 3 years and 2000 IU for 2 years before that, I'm just within range 43 ng/mL, up from a low of 13 ng/mL. Let me add, my doctor first started me on 800 IU daily for about 2 years. I have darker skin and get minimal sun exposure. Considering the length of time it took me to get to this level, my points are:
1) it is not that easy to overdose, esp if you regularly monitor your levels through testing and
2) the 600 IU recommendation is not for all.
After 8 years, I'm not even near to what was formally considered optimal at 70 to 80 ng/mL
Recommendations. Up to the individual to follow them. A large number of physician responses to the publication appears to disagree vehemently with the recommendations. Most physicians are quite deficient in nutritional knowledge plus it does not bring any revenue to them.
I rode out Covid in May 2020 3 days bad body ache with bad headache in between. No respiratory at all. I got 11/2 hour full sun 11 AM-noon both sides all 3 days. Felt better while getting it and after. Back to normal on 4th day.
I started taking a high dose vitamin D and ended up with a throat infection. This has happened a few times and always when I start a high dose vit d regimen. I was always suspicious about Dr Berg
I like to listen to the top 1% of people advising on health, with both the best results from people and the clearest understanding of what is going on. I like Eric Berg and Ken Berry on this.
For the studies, the potential problem is they may not be in the top 3%, or even top 25%, and so they may make multiple or serious errors.
Great explanation doc tks
I’m a big D3 proponent. But, no need to bring out my pitchfork. The bottom line, what we are all shooting for, is optimal health. I make my decisions based on the totality of the following. Mainstream/conventional medicine, dissenting voices in the medical community, my own logic, and my own personal experiences. Yes, I can get things wrong. However, as experience shows, so can mainstream voices. Believe me, nothing would please me more than to be able to completely and totally trust mainstream medicine, and our health agencies. It would be so much easier just to follow them. But, as the past few years have shown, that is a dangerous approach.
True
Been taking 10k IU’s for years. Zero issues definitely feel it helped me navigate through flu and Covid season.
I work outside and if I don't take 10,000 iu, then I get sick 100% of the time.
I like how this video laid it out. Facts, that's all I want.
You do not have to take a ton of Vitamin D as long as you take 2,000 to 4,000 units with fat such as Omega 3 Acid. Vitamin D is fat soluble.
When this study is defining "otherwise healthy people", what does that mean?
Are they measuring body composition, bone density, insulin response, VO2 max, blood pressure, inflammation, oxidative stress, etc? I doubt it.
Seeing as we have many silent killers in our bodies that are entirely symptom free, we don't really know if we're healthy or not without biomarker testing.
It’s so confusing. My doctor tested my D and it was a 7, and he went into a panic and put me on prescription 50,000 IU every other day for several weeks. Then when I went to see him a year later he didn’t want to check my D level because he said “we see it differently now.” I supplement with 2,000 IU daily now but yeah, doc wasn’t even approving of that. I have lupus so I take vitamin D bc I get such little sun.
The U.S. fortified grain-based foods with vitamins and minerals to prevent a number of childhood diseases. For people who have a slightly lower carb diet, they probably need a multivitamin. If only there was a product that had a reasonable amount of vitamins and minerals…
The U.S. also put fluoride into the water supply for strong and healthy teeth. This also makes some people unhappy.
The next push is probably to introduce statins into food. Not sure how that happens. Not there yet myself.
Edit: the U.S. fortified grains and dairy.
excellent discussion
Wait, wait wait... Ok I left my pitchfork in the other car, but there seems to be a fallacy here. The study you cite was for cancer and CVD. You cannot extrapolate these results to say there are no other benefits for healthy people. Because, obviously, there are many other health problems aside from these two diseases. Making pronouncements based on limited data is an occupational hazard I guess. Probably better to say, I don't know. I think history has shown pretty conclusively that docs get it wrong pretty often. Like extended bedrest for heart attacks, low fat high carb diets. Trans fats. Need I go on? I just feel like there is nuance here that is overlooked. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but rather that conclusive information on this topic is not currently available and, yes, more research is needed. But I love your channel. Keep up the good work.
I took vitamin D consistently a while back. I forget if it was 3000UI or 5000UI but I ended up with vitamin D toxicity. Too much. I'm a redhead and I've read that redheads produce more vitamin D for lower sun exposure. I'm now cautious on the vitamin.
Health influencer beef is weird, but I’m here for it 🍿🍿
We are all different. I found out the necessary dose according to the rapid retreat of respiratory infections. Initially 150000IU cleared the infection within two days and lasted a month until the next infection. After 14 years of use, 25000IU per week is enough for me for respiratory infections including CoVi. That's the dose a healthy individual would receive in a few hours at the beach, which unfortunately doesn't work for me.
I've (70-) been taking 2500 IU vitamin D and K2 daily for the past 6 months. Before that about 1000 IU. Suddenly, I've developed cramps in my hand/fingers. I also take Mg (small amounts) daily. Is there any information on the relationship between these two which could help me to explain these symptoms? Thank you.
Correlation v Causation: Are people healthier from exercise, or do they exercise because they're healthy?
If the medical establishment tested vitamin D in every patient , they could treat it appropriately . We are just throwing darts in the dark at the problem . Some people may be fine with 1000 or 2000 and others may need 20 k or more .
Further , the biggest issue is the stupidity of dosing in international units . International units vary by nutrient and give zero context . 10k ius of vitamin d is 250 mcg . If you dosed in real measurements people would be less hesitant to take real therapeutic doses .
I work a lot and don't see the sun at all most days during the winter. Back in 2009 I started taking 4000IU daily with K2. I sure notice that I get sick a lot less than I used to and my colds are less severe.
Dr Been’s video on d3 showed that overweight people need way more . For me, 5000iu per day for 6 wks rx by endocrinologist did nothing . I stayed around blood level 17. So I doubled it. Eventually I was around 70 blood level.
Vitamin D Interpretative Range (nmol/L )- Deficient
Hello. Thank you! I really trust your advice and the education you offer from credible medical studies. I like that you share the products and practices you use, those you discontinue and those you are waiting for more information.
Can you provide an alternative recommendation for those of us who can not use retinol/retinoids/trentinoin? I have a whole body allergic reaction to these products but know they work. It’s very frustrating.
P.S. I’ve tried lots of different retinol/retinoids/trentinoin products and slow ramp up applications….
Have you tried differin/adapalene, it's the gentlest retinoid available. I also had rashes and allergy like reaction when I started retinoids, it was just that the concentration was too high, I pushed through and the symptoms cleared out. I am using 0.1% tretinoin and tazarotene now, no issues. You can use hydrocortisone or betamethasone to manage the symptoms till your skin adapts to it. Good luck!
It's also weird that a vitamin A derivatives would cause reactions, since your body does require some of it to function. The human body is a mystery yet.
So we can set a standard for how much you should take; which doesn't take into account any specific details of your body and your life style. But we cannot try the obvious tool of measuring blood levels in healthy and unhealthy people and determine optimum blood levels? It appears that he is happy to make us all take the same amount and if that doesn't work for me as an individual well.....I'm getting all the benefits I need. I wish he would decide whether he is enforcing a fixed standard for everyone or helping a specific person. Specifically I have gotten a tremendous benefit in taking enough Vitamin D to reach levels over 80 in my blood. And 20 years from now I expect to see Dr. Stanfield finally report that a proper trial backs up the choices I made today. I very much respect Dr. Stanfield and like his work; but in this instance he is answering the wrong question. Because the question he should be asking is what is the blood levels of people that live like our ancestors did (i.e. outside in the sun EVERY day)? It would only take sampling farm workers who work in the fields to answer that question. And I expect the result would be the Endocrine Society is completely wrong. He would also have a real, blood level based, standard for what is Normal or healthy Vitamin D levels. In other words, Evolution Works. Thanks!
68 yo. Last year I upped my dosage to 5000 to 10,000 IUs. Coincidently I started experiencing frozen shoulder, muscle weakness, Raynaud's, horse voice. Did a hair analysis and it shows high Calc and low Potassium.
You probably need magnesium and importantly, vitamin K (it takes the calcium and puts it in bones and teeth, prevents it accumulating in "smooth tissues" like muscles veins etc.
Hair analysis 🤣
No pitchforks from me.
I’ve been experimenting with dose and blood tests for 3 years and my research tells me you are correct, on the money. For me, I get nasty side effects past 3000 iu, assuming very little sun exposure
Great work again.
One of the few UA-camrs in health manners I learn something every time I watch a new video.
I’ve been tested this year. Results 39 ng/ml. Using sunscreen spf 30 daily and avoiding the sun. But I live in Mediterranean, so plenty of sunny days. I supplement D3 with 1000 IU daily in drops with k2.
How much vitamin d is produced naturally by exposure to the sun? I heard it's way more than 10k IU for relatively short exposure time.
My vitamin d levels are high, and I take at least 10-20k UI a day, and I feel great...
My doctor gave me 10.000IU to take once a week when I was diagnosed as deficient, after I took the dosage, I had insomnia and agitation, I just couldn't rest. After that I was recommended drops of 500IU and had to optimized until I reached just above 30ng/dl. Now I take 2500IU a day in liquid form and the levels have been mostly stable, but that's just my body, and I don't expose myself to the sun. I've noticed my memory being way sharper.
Dr Brad, legend!
I can't believe people are saying that one dose fits all for vitamin D. Even for one person, there might be periods when you want to take high doses, and periods when you don't want any vitamin D in your diet. No one "should" do anything. Some people should take 20 000 units daily, and many others should take 0. Measure your levels and body fat and based on those two measurements, and whether you spend your time outside then consider your dose.
A 2010 Mayo Clinic study showed those with the highest vitamin K levels had a 45% less likelihood of getting Non-Hodgkin Lyphoma. That’s why I take 75 mg of K2-mk4 and 1,500 mcg of K2-mk7 daily along with 20,000 iu of D3 daily. My blood and blood cell calcium levels have remained perfect.
Thank you!