• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

2,000 IU of Vitamin D per day can cause "irreversible damage to kidneys and heart"

vitamin d dangerous

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#1 ironfistx

  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:26 AM


Source:
http://www.dummies.c...-megadoses.html

Did they used to think that? I read in another book that was published like 10 years or so ago that (paraphrased) going over the RDA of Vitamin D can be fatal.

My doctor put me on prescription 50,000 IU of D2 2x a week last year.

I take 2,000 - 10,000 IU of D3 a week depending on how often I remember to take the pills.

Vitamin D - 2,000 IU a day can cause irreversible damage to kidneys and heart. Smaller doses may cause muscle weakness, headache, nausea, vomiting, high blood pressure, retarded physical growth, and mental retardation in children, and fetal abnormalities.


Posted Image

#2 renfr

  • Guest
  • 1,059 posts
  • 72
  • Location:France

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:31 AM

This website is bullshit, there's not even a reference to the medical source saying that.
Besides for your information, the current TUL is 2500UI. Also experts all agree that the daily dose should be upped to 2000UI and the TUL to 10000UI.
It might cause damage in people who already have kidney and liver damage but hey that would be the same for all other nutrients.
Been 2 months I've been taking 2500UI a day and I'm still alive and fine.

Edited by renfr, 23 January 2013 - 06:33 AM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 nupi

  • Guest
  • 1,532 posts
  • 108
  • Location:Switzerland

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:41 AM

I've been taking >2000IU for years now. All fine.

#4 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:43 AM

Where did this info about vitamin D being toxic above 2,000IU come from?

#5 Matt79

  • Guest
  • 171 posts
  • 75
  • Location:Bay Area, CA
  • NO

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:33 AM

Source:
http://www.dummies.c...-megadoses.html

Did they used to think that? I read in another book that was published like 10 years or so ago that (paraphrased) going over the RDA of Vitamin D can be fatal.


Dummies books summarize topics for the masses and there is little quality control with regards to the information they provide. Take for example this Dummy guide on Probiotics, which basically amounts to an infomercial for Probulin.

Oh and guess what? Yes indeed, the author just happens to sell and market the Probulin probiotic brand.

http://www.amazon.co...=cm_rdp_product

Bottom line, I would not get my nutrition advice from a Dummies book, nor recommend their books for anything requiring authoritative material.

As for the Vit D claim, it's almost certainly bogus or recycled hearsay.

Edited by Matt79, 23 January 2013 - 10:34 AM.


#6 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2013 - 12:53 PM

Also experts all agree that the daily dose should be upped to 2000UI


No they don't. The vitamin D evangelists might think so, but not all the experts. Vitamin D should be supplemented based on your 25-OH-D3 level. Levels should be between 30 and 50 ng/ml, depending on specific health risks.
  • like x 4

#7 renfr

  • Guest
  • 1,059 posts
  • 72
  • Location:France

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:19 PM

Also experts all agree that the daily dose should be upped to 2000UI


No they don't. The vitamin D evangelists might think so, but not all the experts. Vitamin D should be supplemented based on your 25-OH-D3 level. Levels should be between 30 and 50 ng/ml, depending on specific health risks.

Hum not at all, I have to disagree with you. This is especially true for northern hemisphere countries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17209171
2000IU has no scientifical basis and it's an outdated limit.
It's not alternative medicine bias but rather based on real research.
I do agree that if you already have high vitamin D levels you don't need more of it but most of people are in fact vitamin D deficient. (70%) And they should check their levels.

Edited by renfr, 23 January 2013 - 01:22 PM.

  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#8 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:23 PM

My vitamin D levels were 18.3 when I was put on 50,000 IU of D2. That was like a year ago but I haven't had them checked since. I should.

#9 Kevnzworld

  • Guest
  • 885 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:06 PM

I live in SoCal, and spend about half my time in the desert area. ( La Quinta ). I walk for 45 minutes at least four days a week. I was taking 2500 iu of D daily. I never thought I needed to get my levels tested. When I did I found that my levels were deficient .
I've subsequently upped my dosage to 5000 iu. My levels are now 46 ng

#10 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:29 PM

Also experts all agree that the daily dose should be upped to 2000UI


No they don't. The vitamin D evangelists might think so, but not all the experts. Vitamin D should be supplemented based on your 25-OH-D3 level. Levels should be between 30 and 50 ng/ml, depending on specific health risks.

Hum not at all, I have to disagree with you. This is especially true for northern hemisphere countries.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17209171
2000IU has no scientifical basis and it's an outdated limit.
It's not alternative medicine bias but rather based on real research.
I do agree that if you already have high vitamin D levels you don't need more of it but most of people are in fact vitamin D deficient. (70%) And they should check their levels.


What are you disagreeing with? I didn't say 2000 iu was a reasonable upper limit. It's not. I would say that 2000 iu is not the right daily dose for everyone. Some need less, some need more.

My vitamin D levels were 18.3 when I was put on 50,000 IU of D2. That was like a year ago but I haven't had them checked since. I should.


That was 50,000 IU every two weeks? (or month?) Certainly not every day, I hope. You ought to get checked again.

I live in SoCal, and spend about half my time in the desert area. ( La Quinta ). I walk for 45 minutes at least four days a week. I was taking 2500 iu of D daily. I never thought I needed to get my levels tested. When I did I found that my levels were deficient .
I've subsequently upped my dosage to 5000 iu. My levels are now 46 ng


This is an example of why everyone should get their levels checked. I was on 2000/d, and my level was 57 ng/ml. And I wear sunscreen every day and don't sunbathe. One possible confounding factor is the various formulations on the market. Some dry formulations can be very poorly absorbed unless they are taken with a lot of fat. Oi-based (softgel) formulations are absorbed much better. Aside from that, there's just a lot of individual variation.

#11 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:51 PM

That was 50,000 IU every two weeks? (or month?) Certainly not every day, I hope. You ought to get checked again.


Twice a week.

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:32 PM

That was 50,000 IU every two weeks? (or month?) Certainly not every day, I hope. You ought to get checked again.


Twice a week.


Yikes. That's a little under 15,000 units a day. (the half life of vitamin D3 is so long that it doesn't matter whether you take it daily or weekly; what matters is the amount. This is probably a dry formulation, and if so, that will help you. You should REALLY get tested. Here are some refs regarding the danger of too much D.

#13 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 23 January 2013 - 10:58 PM

It was 50,000 IU of D2 twice a week.

#14 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 23 January 2013 - 11:01 PM

Anyone know how you get tested in the UK?
  • like x 4
  • dislike x 1

#15 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:29 AM

Anyone know how you get tested in the UK?


John, I accidentally clicked the thumbs down button on your post- sorry about that. The brain damaged forum software will not allow me to vote you back up! Would someone please up-vote that post for me? Thanks.

To answer your question, your doctor should be able to order the test. It's pretty standard in my neck of the woods, though only a few years ago it would have been considered obscure and mostly un-needed. If the doctor won't do it for some reason, there are commercial operations that do various kinds of blood tests. Probably best to google for things in your area. Failing all that, I'd probably take about 1000 IU of an oil-based formulation and hope for the best.

#16 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:33 AM

Upvoted!

What does up and down voting do on this forum, anyway? I've never seen that on a forum.

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 January 2013 - 12:45 AM

Upvoted!

What does up and down voting do on this forum, anyway? I've never seen that on a forum.


Thanks, iron. Up and down votes give you "Thank You Points", as they're called here. They show up under your post count. If you accumulate enough points, you can actually exchange them for things of value, like a membership here (!) or other stuff. Each point is worth about two thirds of a cent, so it's not exactly a get rich quick scheme. Mostly it's a way to let people know that you liked their post, or didn't like it, as the case may be.

This is like the third or fourth time I've accidentally downvoted someone.
  • like x 1

#18 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:02 AM

Does downvoting take away money?

Is that what is next to the T with the slashes thru it under the postcount?
  • like x 1

#19 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:43 AM

Does downvoting take away money?

Is that what is next to the T with the slashes thru it under the postcount?


Well, it's not like they come and try to collect from you if you have a negative count, but a negative vote removes "virtual money" from your account. I guess I've mostly seen up/down voting schemes in comment streams like on YouTube and a lot of news sites. Another way it can be useful (sort of) is that you can set a preference somewhere to avoid seeing posts that fall below a specified point threshold. Unfortunately, we just don't have enough people voting to make that work very well. Usually, if a post gets a lot of negative votes, I want to see it just to marvel at how comically horrible it is. Sometimes perfectly good posts will get a -1, or perfectly bad posts will get a +1, but if a post gets +/-3 or more, it's either worth a look, or it's like the train wreck that you can't help but look at.

That T with the slashes is supposed to look like a currency symbol, sort of like a Euro symbol. Here, have 0.6 cents! click!
  • like x 1

#20 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:12 AM

Cool, thanks for the explanation!

#21 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 219
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:48 AM

ironfistx, curios why your doctor specified D2. As opposed to D3. Here's some info in D2: link..

Howard

#22 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 24 January 2013 - 05:58 AM

No idea. From searching around online, though, it seems most people get prescribed D2.

#23 hav

  • Guest
  • 1,089 posts
  • 219
  • Location:Cape Cod, MA
  • NO

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:17 AM

No idea. From searching around online, though, it seems most people get prescribed D2.


fwiw, most folks I know of, including myself, supplement with D3 in an oil solution (softgel). Here's a study comparing stats on the two forms:

Long-term vitamin D3 supplementation is more effective than vitamin D2

Public health recommendations do not distinguish between vitamin D2 and vitamin D3, yet disagreement exists on whether these two forms should be considered equivalent. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a daily physiological dose of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 on 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) status over the winter months in healthy adults living in Dunedin, New Zealand (latitude 46°S). Participants aged 18-50 years were randomly assigned to 25 μg (1000 IU) vitamin D3 (n 32), 25 μg (1000 IU) vitamin D2 (n 31) or placebo (n 32) daily for 25 weeks beginning at the end of summer. A per-protocol approach, which included ≥ 90 % supplement compliance, was used for all analyses. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 (25(OH)D3), 25-hydroxyvitamin D2 (25(OH)D2) and parathyroid hormone (PTH) were measured at baseline and at 4, 8, 13 and 25 weeks. Geometric mean total serum 25(OH)D concentrations (sum of 25(OH)D2 and 25(OH)D3) at baseline was 80 nmol/l. After 25 weeks, participants randomised to D2 and placebo had a significant reduction in serum 25(OH)D3 concentrations over the winter months compared with vitamin D3-supplemented participants (both P < 0·001). Supplementation with vitamin D2 increased serum 25(OH)D2 but produced a 9 (95 % CI 1, 17) nmol/l greater decline in the 25(OH)D3 metabolite compared with placebo (P < 0·036). Overall, total serum 25(OH)D concentrations were 21 (95 % CI 14, 30) nmol/l lower in participants receiving vitamin D2 compared with those receiving D3 (P < 0·001), among whom total serum 25(OH)D concentrations remained unchanged. No intervention-related changes in PTH were observed. Daily supplementation of vitamin D3 was more effective than D2; however, the functional consequence of the differing metabolic response warrants further investigation.


Howard
  • like x 1

#24 ironfistx

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,192 posts
  • 67
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 24 January 2013 - 06:40 AM

Yeah, at the store I see a bunch of brands of D3, and like one brand of D2. I think I read somewhere that D3 is more bioavailable or better utilized or something like that.

Is there a reason at all to supplement with D2, or a mix of both?

#25 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 24 January 2013 - 10:43 AM

I found this webpage pretty interesting
http://www.cholester.../Vitamin-D.html


Dr. Cannel searched the literature for case reports of toxicity from pharmacological doses of vitamin D3. Although he found cases of vitamin D2 toxicity, he found only one, single case of vitamin D3 toxicity: one man took vitamin D supplements for two years that were mislabeled, containing up to 430 times the amount of vitamin D as was listed on the label. He took between 156,000 IU and 2,604,000 IU per day for those two years, and "recovered uneventfully after the proper diagnosis, treatment with steroids and sunscreen."


My wife was having recurrent miscarriages so I had her blood checked for everything. The first thing I had checked was probably the reason they failed. Her Vitamin D level was at 47, which is too low especially for a pregnant woman. I saw many instances on the net about people having early stage miscarraiges and low vitamin D levels. I told her to take about 10,000IU per day for a while to boost the level. She was worried because she read about 'vitamin D toxicity'. To convince her it was a load of crap, I took anywhere from 10,000IU to 30,000IU every day for nearly a month until we got her level checked again. I never got a 'before' test but was most likely higher than hers to begin with because I was doing a lot of gardening and am fair skinned where she is asian and staying mostly at home right now. I had my level checked with her so after nearly a month of that supplementation my report says '25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Level: 193nmol/L. They mark 'toxicity as a level over 250.I've dropped back to 5000IU a day and I do not feel ill. I'll be dropping further to 1000IU soon as my level is fine and given it's half life, it'll be fine for a long time :)

Her level at the moment is 85 and as she fell pregnant straight away again, she at 8 weeks and everything looks very healthy and very strong. She will continue to take between 5000IU and 10000IU until the 12 week mark where I will recommend her to take 1000-2000IU with continued checking on her vitamin D levels.

How much IU does the body 'use' per day? I read somewhere it was around 4000IU but not sure of its accuracy. If thats true, taking anything less and avoiding sun will see the levels drop.

I found the link between vitamin D and cholesterol to be interesting. When her level was 47, her total cholesterol was 8.9 mmol/L (347.1 mg/dL) She has a family history of high cholesterol (and was told a lot of Asia does). Asians love white looking skin so they also avoid the sun so not to tan which is why you see them use umbrellas on a hot sunny day.

Her level less than a month later with a little bit of sun exposure and 'massive' vitamin D supplementation was 6.9 mmol/L (269.1 mg/dL). Done same time of day after fasting for the same period of time.

I'm a firm believer in Vitramin D3 supplementation. It's easy to skew a result to suit an argument though. Want Vitamin D to look bad? Use Mega high D2 and for prolonged periods. Want to tarnish antioxidants? Give someone massive amounts of the toxic synthetic version of Vitamin E (and only 1 of its 8 forms to throw the rest off balance) in stage 4 cancer. Patient still dies so I guess antioxidants are rubbish. Notice all testing on coconut oil is never done with the extra virgin cold pressed style? They use the RBD rubbish.

Vitamin D3 is very safe and healthy IMO :) I believe also vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2 work well together which is what she takes also. (90mcg per day)

Edited by shifter, 24 January 2013 - 10:45 AM.


#26 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 24 January 2013 - 04:40 PM

fwiw, most folks I know of, including myself, supplement with D3 in an oil solution (softgel). Here's a study comparing stats on the two forms:


Thanks for that abstract, Howard. It looks like D2 is beyond useless.

Is there a reason at all to supplement with D2, or a mix of both?


Not that I can see. I missed that you were given D2; I assumed it was D3, foolishly thinking that doctors kept up on medical science or something crazy like that. It would be interesting to get a 25-OH-D3 level, to see if this treatment did any good at all, or if it did harm. Then I'd get on something like 1-2K iu of D3 in a softgel formulation for a few months, and test again. I wouldn't recommend going over 50ng/ml, personally, unless you have certain kinds of cancer. (Going over 30 may increase your odds of prostate cancer)

I'm a firm believer in Vitramin D3 supplementation. It's easy to skew a result to suit an argument though. Want Vitamin D to look bad? Use Mega high D2 and for prolonged periods. Want to tarnish antioxidants? Give someone massive amounts of the toxic synthetic version of Vitamin E (and only 1 of its 8 forms to throw the rest off balance) in stage 4 cancer. Patient still dies so I guess antioxidants are rubbish. Notice all testing on coconut oil is never done with the extra virgin cold pressed style? They use the RBD rubbish.

Vitamin D3 is very safe and healthy IMO :) I believe also vitamin D3 and Vitamin K2 work well together which is what she takes also. (90mcg per day)


I guess you like it, yeah. The studies that don't look so hot for vitamin D are mostly epidemiological, looking at blood levels and disease risk. I don't think there's any conspiracy here. D3 is safe and healthy as long as your levels are ok. I'm glad that your wife is taking K2. That will probably ameliorate most of the harm of excessive D levels.

#27 LoopLooper

  • Guest
  • 9 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 27 January 2013 - 06:09 PM

I take 5,000 D2 daily and it's been very helpful for mood and energy for me.

#28 Kevnzworld

  • Guest
  • 885 posts
  • 306
  • Location:Los Angeles

Posted 28 January 2013 - 06:42 PM

vitamin d2 and d3 are toxic vitamins d, even more toxic if you take calcium.
there's a reason why they sell you d2 but not d5 (which is the safest)


Can you please cite supporting evidence, studies etc for this claim?
I have never seen any evidence for that, and it's way outside of current scientific thought,

#29 goldsilver

  • Guest
  • 39 posts
  • -26
  • Location:europe

Posted 28 January 2013 - 07:25 PM

vitamin d2 and d3 are toxic vitamins d, even more toxic if you take calcium.
there's a reason why they sell you d2 but not d5 (which is the safest)


Can you please cite supporting evidence, studies etc for this claim?
I have never seen any evidence for that, and it's way outside of current scientific thought,

which scientific thought? independent scientific thought or government sponsored science?
vitamin d2 is unstable, d3 is a bit less toxic but still toxic, d5 is the least toxic
  • dislike x 3

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#30 Iporuru

  • Guest
  • 217 posts
  • 222
  • Location:Europe

Posted 28 January 2013 - 08:26 PM

vitamin d2 and d3 are toxic vitamins d, even more toxic if you take calcium.
there's a reason why they sell you d2 but not d5 (which is the safest)


Can you please cite supporting evidence, studies etc for this claim?
I have never seen any evidence for that, and it's way outside of current scientific thought,

which scientific thought? independent scientific thought or government sponsored science?
vitamin d2 is unstable, d3 is a bit less toxic but still toxic, d5 is the least toxic


Strong claims require strong evidence. Can you just provide it instead of repeating your claims?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: vitamin d, dangerous

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users