60 replies to this topic

[against_all_odds]

I don't remember how this idea that dry d3 isn't as effective as wet d3 started but i've been using 2500IU (Nature's Plus, Source of Life, Garden, Vitamin D3) daily and i'm right around 50 ng/mL every time.

[niner]

I don't remember how this idea that dry d3 isn't as effective as wet d3 started but i've been using 2500IU (Nature's Plus, Source of Life, Garden, Vitamin D3) daily and i'm right around 50 ng/mL every time.

The idea comes from clinical observation and makes sense considering the physical chemistry involved. The D3 ultimately has to dissolve in order to be bioavailable, and that process is a lot easier if the crystals are already dissolved. I presume the Nature's plus formulation is dry. Do you know if it's either micronized or compounded with a "dry" lipid? That would skew the results, as would the amount of fat in your diet and your body size and composition.

[against_all_odds]

I don't remember how this idea that dry d3 isn't as effective as wet d3 started but i've been using 2500IU (Nature's Plus, Source of Life, Garden, Vitamin D3) daily and i'm right around 50 ng/mL every time.

The idea comes from clinical observation and makes sense considering the physical chemistry involved. The D3 ultimately has to dissolve in order to be bioavailable, and that process is a lot easier if the crystals are already dissolved. I presume the Nature's plus formulation is dry. Do you know if it's either micronized or compounded with a "dry" lipid? That would skew the results, as would the amount of fat in your diet and your body size and composition.

Source of Life Garden Vitamin D3 Caps with Organic Gold Standard Nutrients is the first supplement to provide [] 100% plant-source cholecalciferol, from an exciting variety of organic, healthful mushrooms. Feel the remarkable benefits of obtaining essential nutrients from all-natural, organic whole foods!

Well, the formulation is out of the ordinary and there's virtually no information available on it. At first i thought it would be unreliable specially since it has a number of other ingrediants in it. I have no idea what to think.

[hamishm00]

Any source at all? If not, your statement isn't worth a lot to anyone other than you.

[hav]

Here's the label. I see it contains "Mineral Fatty Acid Esters (Ca, Mg) from Safflower" which I assume is in dry form. It takes two 00-sized capsules to deliver 5,000 IU of D3. In comparison, the D3 I use supplies the same amount in a single tiny round gel-cap around 3/8 of an inch in diameter which contains mostly oil. Lots of good mushrooms and other stuff in there but if all you're after is the D3, you might get similar levels from a lower dosed oil gel-cap.

Howard

Edited by hav, 29 January 2013 - 04:44 AM.

[ironfistx]

Holy cow that's a whole lot of other ingredients.

Mine says:

Safflower oil, gelatin, glycerin, purified water.

[dear mrclock]

fuck vitamin d. fucking overated bullshit.

[against_all_odds]

Here's the label. I see it contains "Mineral Fatty Acid Esters (Ca, Mg) from Safflower" which I assume is in dry form. It takes two 00-sized capsules to deliver 5,000 IU of D3. In comparison, the D3 I use supplies the same amount in a single tiny round gel-cap around 3/8 of an inch in diameter which contains mostly oil. Lots of good mushrooms and other stuff in there but if all you're after is the D3, you might get similar levels from a lower dosed oil gel-cap.

Howard

I think you're missing the point. This is the first ever plant-based D3 extracted from mushrooms, which is why i pay the premium.

All the other various ingrediants in there is mostly a gimmick but it's nice to have, doesn't get in the way and has me at 50ng/mL.

None the less, let me not get in the way of the 'd3 is toxic' argument going on here.

[nupi]

yeah totally agree not only this is overrrated but toxic

facts about vitamin d :
- they only sell you the most toxic forms
- they will always (doctors) prescribe you the most toxic form (D2) unless you ask for D3
- vitamin D weaken immune system long term
- vitamin d cause cancer long term

nobody needs this much vitamin d, if you want some vitamin d, eat natural foods and get some sun

think people just think why would government promote this if it was really good for us?

Go troll somewhere else, will you.

[goldsilver]

yeah totally agree not only this is overrrated but toxic

facts about vitamin d :
- they only sell you the most toxic forms
- they will always (doctors) prescribe you the most toxic form (D2) unless you ask for D3
- vitamin D weaken immune system long term
- vitamin d cause cancer long term

nobody needs this much vitamin d, if you want some vitamin d, eat natural foods and get some sun

think people just think why would government promote this if it was really good for us?

Go troll somewhere else, will you.

The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see and you are one of those.
- http://ajcn.nutritio...t/84/4/694.full
vitamin D2 is toxic and is unstable

Despite an emerging body of evidence suggesting several plausible explanations for the greater bioefficacy of vitamin D₃, the form of vitamin D used in major preparations of prescriptions in North America is vitamin D₂.

- http://blogs.wsj.com...to-your-health/
read this, I guess many people take around these levels here

http://www.medicalne...ases/181386.php

Vitamin D cause cancer

stop with your dogmatic extremist views
the human body doesn't need so much vitamin D, this forum is about longevity not overdosing

[nupi]

I doubt many people around here are using D2 rather than D3 but maybe that's just me. I truthfully do not really give a damn what prescriptions doctors write. As for it causing cancer, most data points to it being protective of cancer. Personally, I take 2500IU per day and I am at 45ish ng/ml, which to our current knowledge is somewhere in the likely optimal range (some argue it's a little higher, some argue it's a little lower), and nothing like overdosing.

the human body doesn't need so much vitamin D, this forum is about longevity not overdosing

Which is why people in higher latitudes have lighter skin to compensate for the lower sun exposure and hence D3 production they get, exactly.

[nupi]

for studies, these are probably government sponsored, what is good according to them is almost probably NOT good for you at all

You may want to consider seeing a professional about your paranoia.

colloidal silver are considered dangerous or innefective when in fact they do work.

Colloidal silver works just fine to turn your skin into a neat silver-blueish hue, indeed. As for Cipro, while not an optimal drug, when used as one of the last resort medications the cost benefit ratio is pretty good (some risk of nasty side effects vs near certain death, I know which one I'll take) - it just should not be considered a first line antibiotic.

Edited by nupi, 30 January 2013 - 12:22 PM.

[hav]

Here's the label. I see it contains "Mineral Fatty Acid Esters (Ca, Mg) from Safflower" which I assume is in dry form. It takes two 00-sized capsules to deliver 5,000 IU of D3. In comparison, the D3 I use supplies the same amount in a single tiny round gel-cap around 3/8 of an inch in diameter which contains mostly oil. Lots of good mushrooms and other stuff in there but if all you're after is the D3, you might get similar levels from a lower dosed oil gel-cap.

Howard

I think you're missing the point. This is the first ever plant-based D3 extracted from mushrooms, which is why i pay the premium.

Actually, I take a Reishi extract myself for its cognitive health benefits as well as a few other mushroom extracts not in there. But I avoid some of the other mushrooms that are in there which have stimulant effects because I have high blood pressure. Whenever possible, I like to research each ingredient and pick and choose the effect I think might benefit me. I also like to take water soluble supplements, which covers most of the ingredients in mushrooms, separately from oil soluble ones like D3. That way I can take an oil soluble vitamin or mineral together with or dissolved in oil without worrying that the oils will delay or block the absorption of water soluble ingredients. Just my own quirky little practice.

Howard

[ironfistx]

I have pasty skin and live in Chicago which is relatively northern and my vitamin D levels were low.

I've also had around 6 atypical moles cut off so I'm hesitant to spend much time out in the sun.

[against_all_odds]

Here's the label. I see it contains "Mineral Fatty Acid Esters (Ca, Mg) from Safflower" which I assume is in dry form. It takes two 00-sized capsules to deliver 5,000 IU of D3. In comparison, the D3 I use supplies the same amount in a single tiny round gel-cap around 3/8 of an inch in diameter which contains mostly oil. Lots of good mushrooms and other stuff in there but if all you're after is the D3, you might get similar levels from a lower dosed oil gel-cap.

Howard

I think you're missing the point. This is the first ever plant-based D3 extracted from mushrooms, which is why i pay the premium.

Actually, I take a Reishi extract myself for its cognitive health benefits as well as a few other mushroom extracts not in there. But I avoid some of the other mushrooms that are in there which have stimulant effects because I have high blood pressure. Whenever possible, I like to research each ingredient and pick and choose the effect I think might benefit me. I also like to take water soluble supplements, which covers most of the ingredients in mushrooms, separately from oil soluble ones like D3. That way I can take an oil soluble vitamin or mineral together with or dissolved in oil without worrying that the oils will delay or block the absorption of water soluble ingredients. Just my own quirky little practice.

Howard

I do the same. I take the d3 with fat containing food because the mushrooms in there aren't even extracts so i don't expect much on that front. The mushrooms that i use seperately i take on an empty stomach.

[renfr]

I have been taking 2500IU D3 a day for 4 months and I just made some blood work, it comes out with only 16ng/mL which is according to the test an extreme deficiency.
I just took 200000IU D3 and then I will up my daily dose to 5000IU.

Edited by renfr, 30 January 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[shifter]

My wife miscarried twice most likely due to a lack of vitamin D. Supplemented and the third one is super strong.

Considering the cost a vitamin D is really only a few dollars a year, I dont think its bullshit for people prone to being deficient through skin tone or lifestyle they cant avoid

oh well....

obvious troll is obvious

fuck vitamin d. fucking overated bullshit.

[renfr]

My wife miscarried twice most likely due to a lack of vitamin D. Supplemented and the third one is super strong.

Considering the cost a vitamin D is really only a few dollars a year, I dont think its bullshit for people prone to being deficient through skin tone or lifestyle they cant avoid

oh well....

obvious troll is obvious

fuck vitamin d. fucking overated bullshit.

Not a troll, just an idiot. Check out his rhodiola thread, funnyyyyyyyy...

[Divien]

The worst blind is the one who doesn't want to see and you are one of those.
- http://ajcn.nutritio...t/84/4/694.full
vitamin D2 is toxic and is unstable

Despite an emerging body of evidence suggesting several plausible explanations for the greater bioefficacy of vitamin D₃, the form of vitamin D used in major preparations of prescriptions in North America is vitamin D₂.

- http://blogs.wsj.com...to-your-health/
read this, I guess many people take around these levels here

http://www.medicalne...ases/181386.php

Vitamin D cause cancer

stop with your dogmatic extremist views
the human body doesn't need so much vitamin D, this forum is about longevity not overdosing

It's already known to most people on this forum that vitamin D2 is not as efficient as D3. And that the Tolerable Upper Intake is 10000 IU. Overall those articles don't really share your viewpoint and you're just going overboard making wild assumptions. If you were really concerned about vitamin D3 you would look up a lot more studies than those 3 that don't even back your claims.

"This finding may help us in future research to determine whether vitamin D plays a causative or reactive role in the development and progression of skin cancer,"

From the last article you provided - causative OR reactive. They don't even know and you do? AFAIC the levels could've risen to fight against cancerous tissue. Requires further research.

Don't go around making wild claims, read the articles in full.


Also to anyone interested and doesn't know about Examine. You can contribute yourself.
http://examine.com/s...ents/Vitamin D/

[renfr]

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/21329969/
Vitamin D can prevent allergies, there's a sharp rise in allergies in the recent decades, could this be linked to vitamin D?

[renfr]

After 200 000IU then upping my dose to 10 000IU a day, I felt an intense dopamine high.
I didn't know where this came from and I found out that vitamin D enhances tyrosine hydroxylase and can increase L Dopa.
However vitamin D has been found to be protective against parkinson's which may let us think that there is also a protective mechanism of vitamin D on substantia nigra neurons.
Could this also be why vitamin D is considered to be an anti depressive pro hormone?
I will however lower my dose a little bit as it seems to deplete serotonin a bit too much.

Also I have read another study showing that low vitamin D causes aminoaciduria which implies that normal vitamin D increase amino acid uptake, no wonder why vitamin D seems to be the favorite supplement on this forum, it seems to be really essential.

Edited by renfr, 04 February 2013 - 01:04 AM.

[Wolf]

I was at 24.2 mg/mL with only 500 IU of vitamin D from multivitamin. I was surprised it was even that high considering I don't get much sun. I figured I must be good at using vitamin D, but I did three months of 2500 IU and my blood test came back at 30.6 ng/mL. I was going to shoot for around 40 ng/mL to be between the two most suggested blood levels (31 ng/mL and 50 ng/mL). I guess I need to try 6500 IU and see where I'm at in a few months with another blood test.

Perhaps I should talk to my parents to see what type of cancers run in my family. I don't remember anyone having prostate cancer so I'd think I'd be fine with slightly higher vitamin D levels.

[nightlight]

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

Probably from the same folks who recommended 400IU min. daily dose, aka the sickness industry ("health" industry) and their bureaucratic muscle men (FDA, CDC,...). Since healthy public is bad for their business, taking their health advice is like taking advice of a car salesman about cars he sells -- while there may be few useful tidbits in there, you still got to take it with a bucket of salt. I have been taking 2000IU of D3 (combo with K2) for years and haven't seen doctors since 1991. I flip most of their health advice upside down before applying to myself e.g. low fat -> high fat, low salt -> salt to taste, few eggs, well cooked -> drink 2-3 raw organic eggs per day, high fiber -> low fiber, no smoking -> lots of smoking (that's my panacea), no coffee -> half a gallon of french roast a day, no chocolate -> lots of dark chocolate (they have flipped on this one, though) , annual checkups -> no checkups ever, margarine -> butter (they have switched on this one, too), antibiotics -> garlic/onions/honey..., anti-anxiety/stress relief meds -> tobacco smoke, flu vaccine -> tobacco smoke,...

[ironfistx]

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

Probably from the same folks who recommended 400IU min. daily dose, aka the sickness industry ("health" industry) and their bureaucratic muscle men (FDA, CDC,...). Since healthy public is bad for their business, taking their health advice is like taking advice of a car salesman about cars he sells -- while there may be few useful tidbits in there, you still got to take it with a bucket of salt. I have been taking 2000IU of D3 (combo with K2) for years and haven't seen doctors since 1991. I flip most of their health advice upside down before applying to myself e.g. low fat -> high fat, low salt -> salt to taste, few eggs, well cooked -> drink 2-3 raw organic eggs per day, high fiber -> low fiber, no smoking -> lots of smoking (that's my panacea), no coffee -> half a gallon of french roast a day, no chocolate -> lots of dark chocolate (they have flipped on this one, though) , annual checkups -> no checkups ever, margarine -> butter (they have switched on this one, too), antibiotics -> garlic/onions/honey..., anti-anxiety/stress relief meds -> tobacco smoke, flu vaccine -> tobacco smoke,...

Lots of smoking?

[nightlight]

Lots of smoking?

Not the supermarket junk cigarettes, but real additive free tobacco in home made cigarettes i.e. the stuff my grandfathers, their fathers... smoked for the last eight thousand years. The pre-made junk cigarettes most people buy, like junk food, may well be bad for you, especially in recent years when the fire retardants were mandated for cigarette paper (so called "fire safe cigarettes", FSC). Smoking is quite a different experience than generally depicted when you understand it as the best single health & longevity supplement you can have at any price, when every puff is experienced the same way most people experience eating a fresh blueberry or raspberry.

You think big pharma would be spending billions on buying antismoking laws & bureaucrats, creating "grass roots" antismoking groups, funding antismoking junk science, if it didn't compete with its products. Despite their antismoking junk science meant to scare the public away from tobacco, the best pro-smoking hard science (such as animal experiments, lab analysis) is done by none other but the same pharmaceutical industry, seeking to replicate via patentable substances some of the beneficial effects of this ancient medicinal plant without equal (e.g. see Targacept, which exclusively specializes in this type of research). You are welcome to check a thread in this forum "Smoking is good for you" (TOC here) for references and debate (no real contest, since antismoking side couldn't produce any hard science to back up their position). There is more info in some earlier threads here and here. Some longevity and health conscious folks here and elsewhere, who never smoked before, started smoking as result of these "debates".

[ironfistx]

Are you serious? One of the arguments in that thread was "Korean men smoke, and Koreans look younger than Europeans or Americans."

Koreans look younger because they're Asian, and Asians are notorious for aging well.

It has nothing to do with smoking. lol.

Edited by ironfistx, 05 February 2013 - 07:43 PM.

[nightlight]

Are you serious? One of the arguments in that thread was "Korean men smoke, and Koreans look younger than Europeans or Americans."

Koreans look younger because they're Asian, and Asians are notorious for aging well.

It has nothing to do with smoking. lol.

When you attribute a text in quotation marks to someone, you need to copy it exactly, not make up something that seems more helpful to your argument (since it won't be).

In any case, that post was about whether smoking ages you faster. The comment on Japan and Korea was an obvious counterexample given in the intro paragraph of the response, invalidating the flat out declaration that it does (according to NY Daily News article by Gina Salamone). A single counterexample suffices to invalidate an absolute declaration. The actual argument that follows the illustrative intro, countering the less absolute variants of the same hate myth from the antismoking neo-nazis ('smokers are ugly, too, so it's OK to hate them'), was a somewhat more detailed and less simplistic than your pseudo-quote indicates, containing 8 elements with relevant references to results of hard science about effects of tobacco smoke. The counterarguments had nothing better to rely on but the usual antismoking junk science (statistical observations/surveys on non-randomized samples).

[ironfistx]

I was summarizing:

In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men).

My summary was accurate.

Asian men smoking has nothing to do with Asian men looking younger than Europeans or Americans.

[nightlight]

I was summarizing:

In Japan and Korea, 60-70 percent of men smoke, yet they tend to look more youthful than Europeans or Americans with less than half of those smoking rates (Japanese men also have three times lower lung cancer rates and live longer than American men).

My summary was accurate.

Asian men smoking has nothing to do with Asian men looking younger than Europeans or Americans.

You were pretending to quote a statement by using quotation marks around a made up sentence.

As to whether Asian skin is more resilient than European or African skin to the conjectured skin damage from ~100-150 mg of tobacco matter absorbed (via the ~70 m^2 of lung surface) from a pack of cigarettes, you're welcome to provide some hard science data on the subject, as I did in support of my position in that post.

[dear mrclock]

My wife miscarried twice most likely due to a lack of vitamin D. Supplemented and the third one is super strong.

Considering the cost a vitamin D is really only a few dollars a year, I dont think its bullshit for people prone to being deficient through skin tone or lifestyle they cant avoid

oh well....

obvious troll is obvious

fuck vitamin d. fucking overated bullshit.

Not a troll, just an idiot. Check out his rhodiola thread, funnyyyyyyyy...

man you should join some drama forum. you keep trying to stir trouble with your bullshit comments about me. if anyone is a troll, it must be you buddy. glad you are finding my painful rhodiola thread real funny. shows what type of a person you are....