vitaminpills_1

How much vitamin D is too much?

JOHNS HOPKINS (US) — Although vitamin D is essential to good health, researchers say too much may damage blood vessels.

Muhammad Amer of the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine says his findings show that increasing levels of vitamin D in the blood are linked with lower levels of a marker for cardiovascular inflammation: c-reactive protein, or CRP.

“Clearly vitamin D is important for your heart health, especially if you have low blood levels of vitamin D,” Amer says. “It reduces cardiovascular inflammation and atherosclerosis, and may reduce mortality, but it appears that at some point it can be too much of a good thing.”

Amer and colleague Rehan Qayyum examined data from more than 15,000 adult participants in the continuous National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationally representative sample, from 2001 and 2006.

They found healthier, lower levels of inflammation in people with normal or close to normal vitamin D levels. But beyond blood levels of 21 nanograms per milliliter of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D—considered the low end of the normal range for vitamin D—any additional increase in vitamin D was associated with an increase in CRP, a factor linked to stiffening of the blood vessels and an increased risk of cardiovascular problems.

“The inflammation that was curtailed by vitamin D does not appear to be curtailed at higher levels of vitamin D,” says Amer, whose report is published in the American Journal of Cardiology.

Vitamin D is often called the “sunshine vitamin” because its primary source is exposure to the sun. It is found in very few foods, though commercially sold milk is usually fortified with it. As people spend more and more time indoors and slather their bodies with sunscreen, concern is rising that many are vitamin D-deficient, Amer notes.

As a result, many doctors prescribe vitamin D supplements, and many consumers, after reading news stories about the vitamin’s benefits, dose themselves. Older women often take large doses to fight and prevent osteoporosis.

Amer says consumers should exercise caution before taking supplements and physicians should know the potential risks. Each 100 international unit of vitamin D ingested daily produces about a 1nanogram per milliliter increase in 25-Hydroxyvitamin D levels in the blood.

“People taking vitamin D supplements need to be sure the supplements are necessary,” Amer says. “Those pills could have unforeseen consequences to health even if they are not technically toxic.”

Amer and Qayyum, both assistant professors in the Division of General Internal Medicine at Johns Hopkins, say the mechanism that accounts for the loss of cardiovascular benefits at higher doses is not clear.

More news from Johns Hopkins: http://releases.jhu.edu

chat30 Comments

You are free to share this article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported license.

30 Comments

  1. Lorne Montaine

    I learned from an interview Dr. Mercola had with a ??? (can’t remember her name) 10,000 IUs per day is OK. I suspect Muhammad Amer has been financed by a drug company because he seems to say “too much” is bad. Oh, well. One step at a time. Yours truly, Lorne Montaine

  2. Mike

    So 500-1000 UI gel caps of D, the most common OTC version, are perfectly safe to take once a day. Even 2000 UI is acceptable (although, may not be needed – get your blood tested).

    Why can’t they just say that?!

  3. Spiralyne John

    The recommended intake of vitamin D for adults 19–70 years is 600 IU with the safe upper limit being much higher. Vitamin D is needed and supports good health but, as the old adeage goes: ‘too much of a good thing is bad’ is quite apt here.

  4. michele

    No mike, you can’t say 100UI is “safe” because vitamin D level in your blood depends by many factor: the color of your skin( the darker the lower level of D vitamin), where you live ( the sunny the higher your level), what you eat ( vitamin D is scarse but some food are rich). We can only say 100 UI is totally safe in most cases!

  5. Herb

    I have been taking 5000 IU per day for about one year and my blood level of Vit D has increased from way below 20 to about 40 … but based on this research I will reduce my daily intake.

  6. Peter

    If you can get hold of this paper have a look at it. I believe (although the paper is not the clearest I have seen) that the raw data does not show an effect, CRP still goes down as increased 25(OH)D (figure 1). Only when the model is tweaked to take into account up to 9 different factors is CRP seen to increase above 21ng/ml. The press release claims certainly where there is none.

  7. Count Iblis

    The fact that CRP already increases when calcidiol levels start to rise above 21 ng/ml, which is actually considered a deficient level by many experts, suggests that something else is going on here, like e.g. a link between CRP and Omega-3 fats. In the group of people with low calcidiol levels, we’re dealing woth people who don’t get the many thousands of IU’s per day you can get from the Sun, their levels are determined by the diet, in particular by how much fatty fish they eat. So, people with calcidiol levels near 20 ng/ml could have lower CRP levels due to the Omega-3 they get from the fish they consume. The people who have higher calcidiol levels get a lot of vitamin D from the Sun, and for them there is no observable link between fish consumption and calcidiol levels. So, in that group the CRP would be average. This then causes the statistics to show that CRP is going up from below average to avergage as the calcidiol level increases from 21 ng/ml to higher levels.

    Also note that at about 40 nmol/l an increase in intake of vitamin D will only raise your calcidiol level by half the amount as the same increase in intake at low calcidiol levels, and this will further masks the effect of vitamin D intake via the diet when calcidiol levels are high in the statistics.

  8. Auburn

    The Amer study showed only an “association”, not “causation”, between the CRP level and vitamin D level. It did not study heart disease. A study done at the Imperial College London and published (2009) in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that high levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) in the blood probably don’t cause hardening of the arteries or heart disease. Please distinguish between fact and opinion. Never rely on a media writer’s report of a study. Obtain a copy of the actual study and evaluate its credibility and the bias of the study itself. There are billions of dollars at stake in the elimination of vitamin D deficiency. After reviewing vitamin D research for the past nine years this study will not cause me to modify my daily winter dose of 6,000 IU per day. I have a 25(OH)D test every six months and this is the dose I need to keep my range of 45-50 mg/mL.

  9. rick

    Remember also that many people who struggle with chronic and currently untreatable illnesses look to alternative strategies, just in case. And for a low toxicity substance like vitamin D, I certainly think that makes sense.

    But my point is that the highest vit D serum levels in the population are, on average, probably in people who are trying to use high dose vitamin D to deal with their (pre-existing) chronic illness (and therefore high CRP). So the illness (might be) causing a behavior (vit D ingestion) rather than vit D ingestion causing illness. Or reverse causality, as the epi people say.

    Of course, I don’t know that. But I have read some of the vit D toxicity literature and the levels one can get without serious toxicity seem to be quite high. There’s a case study of an *infant* who accidentally (?) got about 50,000 units *daily* for 6 months. The baby got neurologic symptoms (lethargy, irritability) which went away over a few months after the vit D hypertherapy was discontinued. No problems with any other body system, liver included, as I recall.

  10. Terri

    My 17yr old daughter had a vitamin D blood level of only 19. The Doctor said that the lowest normal level was 60. He recommended 2000 UI per day. Now I’m wondering if it’s safe for her. My other two kids had a 26 and 32 level. He said for them to take 1000UI 3 times a week. I don’t know what level is safe now.

  11. Auburn

    Terri, fear not. The benefits of an optimal level of 25(OH)D far outweigh the likelihood of any negative effect from any CRP, a questionable possibility, caused by a healthy level of vitamin D. Many of the foods you feed your children every day pose a far greater risk for causing cardiovascular disease. CPR is the body’s response to inflammation in the body.

    I would question that your doctor said “60 was the normal level”. You likely misunderstood or heard incorrectly. If you live in a northern climate the doctor’s recommended dose for the other two children would be regarded as too low by most practicioners knowledgeable about vitamin D.

  12. CRAIG

    He is adding to the prevailing confusion about vitamin D.

    First, he uses nanograms/milliliter, tho most reports use nanomoles/liter. To convert, you multiply his numbers by 2.496, so he is saying that levels above 21 X 2.496= 52 lead to higher C-Reactive Protein, the inflammation marker. All he had to do was show the 52 number parenthetically to avoid THAT confusion:

    ” . . . But beyond blood levels of 21 nanograms per milliliter (52 nmol/L.) of 25-Hydroxyvitamin D—considered the low end of the normal range for vitamin D—any additional increase in vitamin D was associated with an increase in CRP, . . . .”

    Second, he too is confused, because it is 21 nmol/L that has been considered as “the lower end of the normal range” for many years, not 21 ng/ml. That is a horrendous screwup, no?.

    Third thing is that he knows, or certainly should know, that he is stating a practical contradiction to other research that has been previously reported, which said for example that levels above 57 nmol/L are needed to prevent breast cancer, and preferably upwards of 70-80. So, to me, it is irresponsible to report one’s own later “finding” without taking responsibility for that contradiction and helping us to reconcile it. But that is not uncommon in researchers, is it.

  13. Brant Cebulla

    Please see the Vitamin D Council’s take on this study:
    http://blog.vitamindcouncil.org/2012/01/11/response-to-crp-and-vitamin-d-association-finding/

    We have spoken to a few researchers and most point to the same observation Peter makes in this comment section and contend that the researchers wrongly adjusted for too many variables, including obesity.

  14. Carla Cole

    Because of moderate to severe osteoarthritis I’ve taken from 600 to 2000 iu daily for years. This past June, because of a bunionectomy requiring cutting bone in three places I upped to 5000 iu daily. After 4-5 months of this, I became less and less energetic, lost appetite, became easily nauseous, had memory problems, and finally wanted to sleep all the time. I discovered my parathyroids had been disturbed by too much D and have been (and are) dumping too much calcium into my blood (and TSH).

    Other than ceasing and desisting with supplementation for a while, does anyone have any advice on hastening my recovery? carla.cole@comcast.net (67 year old f, with Hep C)

  15. greg Ragle

    Mike and John’s comments are by far the most sensible – not only briefer, but more clear than than the whole article, with all its pharmaceutical-protective, M.D.-protective gobbly-goop to protect their wishy-washy millionaire industry which couldn’t care less whether patients live or die. All conventional doctors want to do is protect themselves and their family value$. That’s why they “give up” their sins to “God” – a wonderfully mankind-created device that absolves them of anything… and the big bucks just keep rolling in.

  16. Johnny

    Honestly all the comments about the research being used to protect the pharmaceutical companies is very farfetched and a tad bit rediculous.

    1) The article doesn’t say anything about vitamin d being “bad”. It says that there is an increase in danger when levels go beyond 21ng/ml.

    2) Vitamin D IS NOT a nutrient it is a steroid hormone! Therefore talks about taking it through supplements can be very dangerous. What if I came up to you and suggested increase cortisol/testosterone/estrogen/growth hormone? You would probably raise your eyebrows at me! Well this is what people are doing! Just like other hormones levels need to be balanced in the body. Take testosterone, it is essential for various functions in men but too much and we all know what happens!

    3) It trully baffles me how people with very low vitamin D levels are living a normal and healthy life. Take the muslim women who hardly get any sunshine for instance due to covering up their skins. Moreover people living in Sun hotspots e.g. Hawaii, florida, India seem to have below average levels of vitamin D despite getting adequate sunshine. Even breast milk which is the perfect nutrient in babies contains very low levels of vitamin D and seldom increases despite supplementation by mothers, if vitamin D is so important why would this be the case? It seems that achieving the recommended levels is only possible through supplementation?!

    4) When looking at Vitamin D you have to look at the ratio of the 25-OH with the 1,25-OH. Normal tests only look at the former. This is important because in some instances vitamin D “deficiency” is the result of a disease process e.g. Primary hyperparathyroidism, Sarcoidosis, Lyme disease, Certain forms of CFS, many infectious diseases. See Marshall Protocol for more details. In these types of conditions there is an increased risk of organ calcification or trying to keep the levels low to switch on the innate immune response. The body to reduce the level of 25-OH to protect itself!

    5) The body requires large amounts of nutrients to process vitamin D, primarily magnesium. Majority of people are already magnesium deficient (see VitaminD council under co-factors). Taking large doses of vitamin D can deplete magnesium, vitamin K, boron, Vitamin A etc. In fact all these nutrients are necessary for proper bone function and Vitamin D alone is not sufficient for proper bone health/supporting the function of vitamin D. A one size fits all is not possible which is why vitamin D is overhyped.

    6) The skin can synthesis very large amounts of vitamin D from the Sun 10-20,000iu in a short space of time for light skinned people. BUT this is tightly controlled and the body will simply not make it once it achieves the level it desires e.g. the average level of vitamin D in primary hyperparathyroidism is below 14.6ng/ml in the majority patients (Parathyroid.com). Therefore the best way to get vitamin D is from the Sun as nature intended.

    I am not saying Vitamin D is bad, just that like everything else: Moderation is the Key. Sometimes things are more complicated than just seeing it from a narrow point of “a deficiency”!

  17. Count Iblis

    Johnny, people who live in the tropics tend to get less sunshine, because they stay indoors in AC rooms and offices to escape the tropical heat. In Europe, it is more usual for office workers to get outside with their laptops in the Spring and Summer to enjoy sunny weather while working.

    If you measure the calcidiol levels of people who live a traditional lifestyle, you find a different result:

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8478473

    “Populations with traditional lifestyles having lifelong, year-round exposure to tropical sunlight might provide us with information on optimal vitamin D status from an evolutionary perspective. We measured the sum of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 and D3 (25(OH)D) concentrations of thirty-five pastoral Maasai (34 (sd 10) years, 43 % male) and twenty-five Hadzabe hunter–gatherers (35 (sd 12) years, 84 % male) living in Tanzania. They have skin type VI, have a moderate degree of clothing, spend the major part of the day outdoors, but avoid direct exposure to sunlight when possible. Their 25(OH)D concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography–MS/MS. The mean serum 25(OH)D concentrations of Maasai and Hadzabe were 119 (range 58–167) and 109 (range 71–171) nmol/l, respectively. These concentrations were not related to age, sex or BMI.”

    Despite a much better health care system, the American has a fitness level that is much worse than that of the average Hadzabe person. It could be that vitamin D plays a role here, as also suggested here:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19346976

    One should perhaps put more weight on measuring fitness as an indicator of health instead of only looking at concentrations of certain compounds in the blood that can be correlated with serious conditions. The latter approach would work well if we had a complete theory about the human body. Lacking that we tend to decare the average Western person healthy, while we don’t really know if that’s the case.

    If we were to declare someone fit if the person’s power to weight ratio is higher than 4 Watt/kg, then most Hadzabe persons would be declared fit while most Western people would be declared unfit, even those who work out on a regular basis (few people who weigh 80 kg would be able to manage 320 Watts for half an hour on a home trainer).

    After I started to take 5000 IU/day and later 10.000 IU/day, I have greatly improved my fitness. I lost some weight despite eating a lot more. My power to weight ratio is now close to 5 Watt/kg. I’m not sure exactly wat it is. When I exercise, I do 260 Watts for 35 minutes, but then I’m not even close to maximum exerertion. I weigh 58 kg, my resting heart rate has dropped to 37 bpm and I eat about 3800 Kcal per day.

  18. Johnny

    Hey, thanks for the comment. My main issue is not with Vitamin D but with the fact that people are being told to supplement with Vitamin D just because their levels appear “low”.

    I work as a Pharmacist and just recently found out at work that there is new research coming out that says that supplementing can be highly dangerous (and there are many studies coming out which are now showing paradoxical results e.g. in fact that high Vitamin D levels since the liver has no way shutting off the production of the formation of the 25-OH cholecalciferol. Whereas when we get Vitamin D from sunshine the body has natural mechanisms for turning off the production of Vitamin D from the sun from the pre-cursers in the skin.

    The main point is that the standardised test only measures the 25-OH cholecalciferol whereas we need to take into account the 1,25-(OH)2 cholcalciferol (the activated hormone) and look at their ratios. The evidence shows that Vitamin D “deficiency” may actually be the result of a disease process rather than an actual deficiency. In many individuals the latter number is very high whereas the former is very low (and hence we coin the term deficiency). So in this instance the body is actually trying to minimise the level of the 25-OH metabolite by continously “activating it”. This includes individuals with with Sarcoidosis, Lymes etc. (these diseases are already difficult to diagnose anyway).

    Note: the actual benefit comes from the 1,25(OH)2 molecule but in individuals with high levels of the hormone this can cause problems such as tissue calcification and other secondary effects (fatigue/muscular pain, CNS problems, increased risk of kidney stones, disruption of the innate immune response). The current view is that the reason why the 1,25(OH)2 molecule is high in these individuals is because some pathogens have hijacked and disrupted Vitamin D regulation so that they can evade the bodies immune response. The actual truth is that at the moment we just don’t know until further research is available.

    I believe that a lot of emphasises is being paid to the 25-OH cholecalciferol lab test value, when in fact that is just the storage form of the hormone and not the actual activated hormone. In a healthy individual the 1,25(OH)2 molecule is kept within narrow limits (otherwise we would be in a lot of trouble) and therefore there shouldn’t really be a big difference in someone’s health with a level of for e.g. 30nmol/l or 40nmol/l. All this really means is that the second person can last “longer” without needing extra Vitamin D from the sun. This may also explain why Vitamin D deficiency is usually assymptomatic unless numbers reach really low levels (usually below 10-15nmol/l).

    Also we know that the body is able synthesise large amounts of Vitamin D (as compared to the current RDA) when in the sun for a relatively short period of time. For example I read somewhere that just being in the sun for for a 2-3 hours for couple of days can make up for around 46 days without sunshine. Therefore I (and this is my opinion) really doubt that it would be possible to be deficient if you spend lots of time in the sun.

    Anecdotal evidence: I spent at least 5 months the previous summer being in the sun approximately 6-7 hours almost everyday in Italy, Slovenia and Croatia sunbathing quite a bit (average temp 25-35 degrees celsius) my level at the end of it came back to 25nmol/l which is “deficient”. I know tons of friends and family who live in hot areas and spend lots of time outdoors and their levels are also “deficient”. And to make matters worse I have one friend who was given 50,000 IU vitamin D once every week and became very ill from taking it (had to quit job) and previously had no symptoms with hanging out in the sun. I have read tons of Vitamin D horror stories in fact you don’t have to look far just read the post above by Carla Cole to know what I mean.

    Your theory with people in hotter climates spending time indoor is plausable but difficult to test scientifically on a large scale (the Masaai study is a good start but a larger sample size and other demographic groups need to be looked at to find more evidence e.g. white people may need less Vitamin D than darker skinned people etc). Although it is true for a lot of people it doesn’t trully explain the “widespread” pandemic we are being led to believe.

    The Masaai people attained those high levels the natural way: sunshine so that is fine. I am also happy you feel better taking Vitamin D. There just isn’t enough research to show that we know everything about Vitamin D more studies are needed. Just because newer research is now challanging the the traditional “more Vitamin D is better” approach people think it is being funded by Pharmaceutical Companies which makes me little angry for people with a narrow and limited mindset. I mean its common sense that moderation in everything is key! So instead of trying to play God we should instead try to get it from sunlight which is regulated by the body.

  19. marcie

    I have been taking 50,000 i.u. of vitamin D once a week since 2006, my vitamin D level finally got up to 40. Now I have been on 100,000 i.u. a week, I split it up 50,000 i.u. twice a week, now my vitamin D level is up to 78. I have had no problems. Beware of who funds some of these studies, if it is drug companies-take it with a grain of salt.

  20. Johnny

    That’s good to hear.

    I hope you understand what I am implying: Vitamin D from sun > supplement due to autoregulation.

    Also look at the type of vitamin D you are taking, because if it is D2 then it is pretty useless since body mainly contains D3 and you will find getting it higher a big problem.

    I know various people with vitamin d which are so low that they don’t even show up on the assay and are pretty healthy.

    In this context I doubt drug companies have anything to gain, since the effects of vitamin d are so widespread there will never be a single drug that is able to achieve all of its effects, hence no point in trying to downplay vitamin d. I would understand it better if an article was related to cholesterol or something similar since drug companies do have to gain from this since they already have statins, fibreates, bile acid sequesterants etc.

    I will leave my message with common sense knowledge: everything in moderation is good and too much of anything is toxic even water.

  21. Raymond Reason

    John Hopkins is run by a tribe of bankers. They want you sick and insured. So if John Hopkins says high doses of vitamin D is bad, there must be some great health benefits here. I’ll certainly be looking into it.

  22. Wendy

    My question is for Johnny, as I feel his comments make a lot of sense…have you ever heard about “feed trough syndrome”? A phytochemist told me that taking Vit D supplements were dangerous because your body would quit producing Vitamin D on its own. Johnny, does that seem right to what you have heard? Thanks.

  23. Andrew

    I have been taking 20,000 IU of vitamin D3, with 200 mcg of Vitamin K2 everyday since August 2012. I workout at least once a day (around an hour), sometimes sneaking in for a second workout as well. I eat a pretty healthy diet of fresh fruits and vegetables with lots of meats and the occasional cheese (good gut bacteria). I am 25, weigh a lean and solid 205, about six feet tall, and feel extremely strong in the gym everyday, even when I get in a double day, a day before. The weight that I can move around sometimes causes people to stare since people who normally do the kind of weight I am doing are like 6’5, 300 pound linemen. I get a kick out of it, especially because I am usually trying to look as dorky as possible to represent my Creative Writing BA.

    I know I should put a rest day in my rotation, and sometimes I over do it in the gym, but my body has come to a point that it loves working out. I understand that vitamin d3 is a hormone, but I have not had any side effects in the negative. I have not had a blood test though, so I will be curious what the results will be. But I have read the pregnancy articles that have women taking 100,000 IU for their whole pregnancy and have been totally fine. Costco now sells the 5000 IU pills at their stores. I feel like when Costco starts to carry something, it has entered into a state of national want, and Costco is there to provide at a discount. If amounts over 500, 1000, or even 2,000 are dangerous, I think I will need some more links, to studies, not InterWebz articles, to check that out.

  24. Janice

    My arthritis dr tested my blood & said my vitamin d is very low. She has given me a prescription for vitamin d2 for 50,000 unit capsules to be taken 1 a week for 5 weeks. Then another blood test to be done 6 weeks after last vitamin taken. Is this excessive?

  25. Wendy

    Janice, my phytochemist friend confirmed this: Vitamin D produced in a lab does not produce the same isomers as natural source Vitamin D, such as from sunshine and cod liver oil. The lab produces some good isomers, some bad. Isomers are are compounds with the same molecular formula but different structural formulas. Your body will only make use of the correctly shaped, natural isomers. No neeed for testing – a sign of deficiency is depression and just start on the cod liver oil. She said get 10 minutes a day of sunshine on as much of your skin as you can expose. On days that you cannot get that, take ONE drop of cod liver oil, about four times a day. If your body receives too much Vitamin D from dietary supplementation, your liver gets “lazy” and will work on other molecules instead. She told me it is stupid for our milk to have added Vitamin D in it. If something has been added to our food by “regulation”, you can suspect it is not for the good of your health, if you’ve been keeping up on current events.

  26. M.S. PATIENT CANADIAN

    I AM A NATURAL HEALTH CONSULTANT FOR 14 YEARS NOW IN CANADA. I HAVE M.S. I HAVE BEEN TAKIN APPROX 25,000 TO 40,000 UNIT OF GEL CAPSULE D 3 FOR 7 YEARS. I HAVE REFUSE ALL DRUG TREATMENTS. FROM THE SO WESTERN MEDICINE.

    AN MY BLOOD WORK SHOW NORMAL VIT D3 LEVEL. VIT D3 IN GEL IS WATER SOUBLE.

    VIT D IN PILLS FORM IS TOXIC

  27. Alex

    Vit D3 supplementation really has saved my life. Well, it has made it livable again. Used to suffer from CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndomr, i.e. I was exhausted and felt like with a flue 90% of the time) and Vit D3 and probotics got rid of most symptoms. Furthermore since sustituting (between 5.000-10.000IU pd), my mood and immunity is much better too. Enabled me to give up smoking and get of anti-depressants.
    I feel that a stable emotiononal body, being able to enjoy life etc is more important to me, than worrying about some CRP level. My life and health were hell before discovering D3, and they are good now. And I did go to the sunbed once a week during my CFS years, cycled to work and spent sunny lunch-times outside.
    Perhaps some of us need more sun/ VitD3 than others to be happy/ healthy?
    Also what I do not get? – if I lived in a sunnier country and spent most days outside – I’d make 10.000-20.000IU a day naturally – and unless I got skin cancer, that would not kill me or give me toxic D3 effects. (And considering human evolution, our bodies evolved with an outdoor lifestyle, not the indoor one, we only lived for a few hundered years, if that!?). So why I should be paranoid if I supplement 10.000IU in winter or on a day I know I won’t get outside etc – I do not know????

  28. Sam Baur

    I have been taking 15K – 20K IU Vit D3, Magnesium, Vit K2, Vit A, Boron, and Zinc every day for the past 2 years. I take other vitamins as well, But those described are my “Vit D regimen”. I am 55 Years old and in the best shape of my life. I have my blood levels checked every 6 months and I average 95 on the test which may seem a bit high, but my Dr. is not worried and has brought me into a study. In the study I have found that my current level is in the top 5% of reported test results nationwide. All of my organ (liver, thyroid, etc.) functions show normal.

    Those of you that read about a study and don’t read the facts of the actual study, can surely form no real fact based opinion. Why would anyone say they were changing what they were taking regarding Vitamin D from the “story” which presented very few facts? It reads more like an opinion. Find a real expert and ask real questions.

  29. P Cunningham

    To Sam Bauer could you please share how much I of magnesium Vit k 2 you are taking? Thanks.

  30. Reagan

    This article will help the internet people for creating new blog or even
    a blog from start to end.

We respect your privacy.