266 replies to this topic

[eon]

Yeah but the instructions of this product says to take like 6 tablets daily depending on condition such as stress, etc. I guess it's a way to get pass the FDA rules? 99mg of potassium is really only about 3% daily value.

Each tablet of that 6X HPUS homeopathic product has 0.001 mg KH2PO4 in 999.999 mg lactose.

Since 1975, the U.S. FDA has required a long warning label on supplements containing 100 mg or more potassium, so non-prescription potassium supplements in the U.S. seem to all have 99 mg.

[eon]

Regarding zinc, before I purchase I need some input from you people. I don't have a multi vitamin anymore. The zinc I get is probably only from a bowl of cereal. It's probably not even quality zinc.

zinc picolinate is said to be the higher quality zinc since it is absorbable, etc. Walmart sells a 50mg, 200 tablet for $4 (but it's zinc gluconate). The zinc picolinate online that I have seen is 25mg, 100 pills for about $7. The most ridiculous price I have seen though was a 30mg zinc picolinate, 180 capsules for about $24 (by Thorne Research). I guess the price differences determines quality (you get what you pay for). I've also seen 100mg zinc for sale but it's not picolinate so therefore it's not as high quality then so even that much zinc probably would be a waste. I've used real testosterone (steroid) before as well as over-the-counter testosterone booster gimmicks so I know what works (in other words stick with the real thing as much as I hated needles LOL).

Edited by eon, 22 November 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[balance]

Regarding zinc, before I purchase I need some input from you people. I don't have a multi vitamin anymore. The zinc I get is probably only from a bowl of cereal. It's probably not even quality zinc.

zinc picolinate is said to be the higher quality zinc since it is absorbable, etc. Walmart sells a 50mg, 200 tablet for $4 (but it's zinc gluconate). The zinc picolinate online that I have seen is 25mg, 100 pills for about $7. The most ridiculous price I have seen though was a 30mg zinc picolinate, 180 capsules for about $24 (by Thorne Research). I guess the price differences determines quality (you get what you pay for). I've also seen 100mg zinc for sale but it's not picolinate so therefore it's not as high quality then so even that much zinc probably would be a waste. I've used real testosterone (steroid) before as well as over-the-counter testosterone booster gimmicks so I know what works (in other words stick with the real thing as much as I hated needles LOL).

http://www.nutraingr...bioavailability

[eon]

Interesting they left out zinc picolinate from the study...

[AstralStorm]

D3 doesn't really, it gets converted to calcidiol providing you have working kidneys. Calcidiol does and it is metabolised to it, the problem might be that calcidiol has hormonal effects on its own, which are not completely researched... especially a large bolus dose over long term. I'd like to know more about it, but what I do know is not reassuring.

That is not a "problem", that is what nature intended. Bolus doses up to 20.000 IU are perfectly safe;

Data please, not assertions. Sunlight in that amount isn't safe (this would require prolonged, as in hours, whole-body UVB irradiation, in a Caucasian with a light skin), who knows then how safe that amount of D3 is, especially chronic intake.
Physiological sunlight exposure at bare (that "surfer" study) suggests between 1000 and 3000 IU for full body California sunlight for many hours.

there are plenty of studies (not "one very old study") showing endogenous production of 10.000 to 20.000 during a short midday full-body sun exposure. This is beyond any reasonable debate, as well as the fact, that populations having plenty of near-equatorial sun exposure maintain plasma concentrations of ~50ng/ml. I won't give any references for that, it isn't hard to find them.

No, I couldn't. Citations?

Here's a good one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/18348447

2000 IU daily seems recommended in this; bit of an uncharted territory already... 50 ng/ml is achieved by 1000-1500 IU.

Never listen to "Vitamin D council", which should be called "supplement producers council".

Edited by AstralStorm, 24 November 2013 - 10:09 AM.

[eon]

AstraStorm, does sunlight exposure tolerance vary with ethnicity then? People living in Africa (or equatorial countries) seem to be more exposed in sunlight more than someone from Scandinavia. Some supplements work for others, some it doesn't.

[CholinergiX]

ok so what are the 4,400mg of it? Since 5 g of magnesium chloride hexahydrate is only about 600mg of elemental magnesium? So a 200mg of my magnesium aspartate is how much elemental magnesium?

When you get skin smooth like baby you know that you are taking enough magnesium
I am taking 5 grams of magnesium chloride hexahydrate, in water, sipping troughout the day, it's about 600mg of elemental magnesium.


sorry my english

It's about 530mg

I'm not sure about aspartate, It was somewhere here on forums.
--------------------------------------------
Someone talking about pottasium? I am taking over 4 grams of pottasium chloride daily in water with no problems.

[pamojja]

2000 IU daily seems recommended in this; bit of an uncharted territory already... 50 ng/ml is achieved by 1000-1500 IU.

Never listen to "Vitamin D council", which should be called "supplement producers council".

I would say always listen to sensible advise, like to regularly test serum 25(OH)D3, if you want to be at certain levels. In my case it took about 10.000 IU/d to get an average of 60 ng/ml during the last 5 years (7 times tested).

[AstralStorm]

2000 IU daily seems recommended in this; bit of an uncharted territory already... 50 ng/ml is achieved by 1000-1500 IU.

Never listen to "Vitamin D council", which should be called "supplement producers council".

I would say always listen to sensible advise, like to regularly test serum 25(OH)D3, if you want to be at certain levels. In my case it took about 10.000 IU/d to get an average of 60 ng/ml during the last 5 years (7 times tested).

Yes, that's best, not necessarily regularly, but every so often. Your problem is that you're already saturating with lower doses or were testing too often. Remember, 25(OH)D3 takes a long time to build up using plain D3. You might be already saturating your kidneys at such dosage, so you're wasting it - metabolism is highly dependent on kidney function. I'd check that if I were in your place. (GFR, creatinine clearance, other markers - preferably compared with urinalysis)

It's also possible that the lab is measuring high levels of blood calcidiol inaccurately, since the test is typically used to detect deficiency and not accurate levels. Try another one to be sure.

AstraStorm, does sunlight exposure tolerance vary with ethnicity then? People living in Africa (or equatorial countries) seem to be more exposed in sunlight more than someone from Scandinavia. Some supplements work for others, some it doesn't.

Not really, more with skin color - tanning (melanin) prevents/reduces UVA and UVB burns, reduces UVB hitting the deep layers of the skin where D3 is produced, meaning less vitamin D production. But there are some other racial differences in production as well, those haven't been that well researched yet. Wikipedia suggest (based on a good source) that black people might be more sensitive to large vitamin D doses - they can be more harmful for them.

Edited by AstralStorm, 24 November 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[pamojja]

Yes, that's best, not necessarily regularly, but every so often. Your problem is that you're already saturating with lower doses or were testing too often. Remember, 25(OH)D3 takes a long time to build up using plain D3. You might be already saturating your kidneys at such dosage, so you're wasting it - metabolism is highly dependent on kidney function. I'd check that if I were in your place. (GFR, creatinine clearance, other markers.)

It's also possible that the lab is measuring high levels of blood calcidiol inaccurately, since the test is typically used to detect deficiency and not accurate levels. Try another one to be sure.

Both labs used to test serum 25-hydroxyvitamin-D3 have a normal reference range of 30 - 100 ng/ml.

How do you mean that I was already saturating with lower doses? Or even were testing too often? - Because I actually wasn't saturating with lower doses, but would have stayed ignorant of that if I weren't testing that often.

My kidney functions have never been better.

[Darryl]

Two useful papers for determining ideal plasma D levels:

Michaëlsson, Karl, et al. "Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study." The American journal of clinical nutrition 92.4 (2010): 841-848.
Zittermann, Armin, et al. "Vitamin D deficiency and mortality risk in the general population: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies." The American journal of clinical nutrition 95.1 (2012): 91-100.

Each suggests a U-shaped mortality curve, the first with a minima at about 70 nmol/L, the meta-analysis (which didn't have access to individual data) a minima at about 80 nmol/L.

[AstralStorm]

Wow, those studies are great! The levels in 70-80 nmol/l (30-40 ng/ml) which is achieved around 2000 IU/d given normal kidney function in young people, generally 2000-3000 IU/d range.
Also NHANESIII analysis says 60-80 nmol/l: http://books.nap.edu...=13050&page=435
With a possible strong racial, gender, seasonal or age component, since the first adjustment created the easily visible U shape.
In my opinion, age component hid the U shape from the first model.

About vitamin K2: http://jn.nutrition....34/11/3100.long
Pretty strong results, protective against atherosclerosis, specifically calcifications. This would suggest > 32 ug/d, perhaps 50ug/d.
Not sure if MK-7 is as protective as MK-8/MK-9 they suspect (present in cheese), but it is likely that it's even more so.

Edited by AstralStorm, 25 November 2013 - 12:46 AM.

[timar]

Two useful papers for determining ideal plasma D levels:

No, they are not useful at all in determining ideal plasma levels, even though some of the researchers were naive enough to suggest so. Excuse me if I sound a bit harsh but it can be frustrating to repeat the same things over and over again on forums like this.

Why do you think such a seemingly deleterious allele as ApoE4 becomes more and more sucessfull the farther up you go to the north? Why do you think there is similar U-shaped mortality curve for total cholesterol? What do you think cholecalciferol is made of?

Please read the answer I gave in the topic about the Danish study.


As I neither have the time nor inclination to rebut each and every one of AstralStorm's misguided statements about vitamin D, I can only suggest the reader to be wary of his advice and to trust the most renowned scientific authorities on vitamin D like the GrassrootsHealth Initiative and the Linus Pauling Institute instead.

Note that AstralStorm isn't even consistent in his own assertions:

Wow, those studies are great! The levels in 70-80 nmol/l (30-40 ng/ml) which is achieved around 2000 IU/d given normal kidney function in young people, generally 2000-3000 IU/d range.

2000 IU daily seems recommended in this; bit of an uncharted territory already... 50 ng/ml is achieved by 1000-1500 IU.

Someone who claims to be knowledgeable in vitamin D should never confuse ng with mmol. It usually takes 4000-5000 IU to achieve 50ng/ml. As a personal anecdote, I once took 3000 IU beginning with october and my 25(OH)D level was at 23ng/ml by the end of february. I need 6000 IU to reach 50ng/ml which is about avarage when there is no UVB in the sunlight (which at 50°N is the case from mid-october to mid-march). It takes a bit more than the avarage for me because of my low cholesterol levels (less endogenous production in the summer).

Never listen to "Vitamin D council", which should be called "supplement producers council".

GrassrootsHealth gives the exact same recommendations and has no ties to supplement producers at all. However, its panel includes the most accomplished scientist in the field, including world renowned epidemiologists like Harvard's Walter Willet. Those are poeple who are certainly above naive hypes. The Linus Pauling Institue gives slightly more conservative recommendations, but only because they don't ask their readers to do blood tests.

For quick and authoritative summary on the subject look at these slides by Robert P. Heaney.

Edited by timar, 25 November 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[timar]

Also NHANESIII analysis says 60-80 nmol/l: http://books.nap.edu...=13050&page=435
With a possible strong racial, gender, seasonal or age component, since the first adjustment created the easily visible U shape.
In my opinion, age component hid the U shape from the first model.

Of course it did. The deleterious effects of ApoE4 and other genetic variants regarding cholesterol homeostatis related to higher than avarage vitamin D levels generally appear with old age. That's how natural selection works when it has to decide between vitality during reproductive age and longevity. It always favors the first.

Another obvious reason for the age effect on the U-shape is that old and frail pople who are at risk for osteoporosis and hip fractures are much more frequently tested for vitamin D and given high-dose prescription supplementation than young poeple. This in common medical practise not only in Denmark but also in the US.

You see that the fact that adjustment for age creates most of the U-shape is a very strong argument against the naive notion that those curves would show the "optimum" serum levels of vitamin D. Note that this is not only my opinion. Ask Walter Willet...

Edited by timar, 25 November 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[AstralStorm]

Funny that you ignored NHANES III findings, which actually corrected for age. And it shows the same reverse-J curve in the models 2 though 4, but not in the uncorrected model 1, where there's a proportional relationship between survival and vit. D level.

The blood level/IU mapping depends very much on the testing methodology, so... Actually yes, my conversion tables said 50 ng/ml is quite achievable in some people with 1000 IU.
However, the range is more like 20-55 ng/ml with that dose, some people respond sharply, others much less. It's not exactly gaussian either - I suspect hypothyroidism might be the cause for the spread.
Just says how accurate IU actually are - not very much. 2000 IU is more certain to reach 70-80 mmol/ but might overshoot. Personally, I'd stick to ~1500 IU as a general recommendation... and testing once in a while.

1500 IU as a supplement allows for some seasonal sunlight without overdosing and for occasional fortified food.

Edited by AstralStorm, 25 November 2013 - 07:53 PM.

[timar]

Funny that you ignored NHANES III findings, which actually corrected for age. And it shows the same U curve in the models 2 though 4, but not in the uncorrected model 1, where there's a proportional relationship between survival and vit. D level.

You don't seem to understand what I wrote. Please read the third paragraph of my last post carefully.

The blood level/IU mapping depends very much on the testing methodology, so...

Funny how you try to rationalize your widely inconsistent assertions. (No, it doesn't really depend on the testing methodology as long as you don't follow a completely flawed mehodology).

[AstralStorm]

I quoted a study, the study seemed correct. What have you quoted? Me, quoting the darn study which was correct and reported averages. What I didn't spot is that this was in D3 deficient people, read: temporarily functionally hypothyroid. Which makes D3 absorption actually temporarily way better than in normal people.

Again ignored the fact that the U shape appeared only after they corrected for age. That means old people need more D3 for survival. (Both due to APoE4 effects and also reduced efficiency of skin metabolism.) If uncorrected, you get a sharply falling curve.
Also check where those ApoE4 mutations are most common. I'd say not in the tropics: http://www.alzgene.o...a.asp?geneID=83

You are pitting some "theory" that optimal level of D3 is higher than one producing best survival outcomes. This is absurd. You need to back that assertion up with data, say, libido levels or what have you.

Edited by AstralStorm, 25 November 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[timar]

You are pitting some "theory" that optimal level of D3 is higher than one producing best survival outcomes. This is absurd.

LOL! If anything, it is absurd to simply assume that an epidemiologic correlation is producing these outcomes.

I don't think it makes any sense to engage in further discussion with you. You should first learn some basic theory of science.

[AstralStorm]

While correlation does not imply causation, it does point in the right direction for further analysis. In the meantime, good diet (whole grains, lots of plants) is correlated with long life, but does not cause it.
It is highly likely that D3 levels that are correlated with survival are good ones for long life. I'll dodge the question whether they are optimal, since that cannot be answered in general, but only per person.
If we're talking about bone health, those levels are also maximizing calcium absorption. (Higher ones don't increase it, more than one study pointing it out.) If we're talking about muscle strength, I'm not entirely sure - might be sure if I find enough trustworthy data.

In nutrition science, deciphering causation definitively is quite rare.

Edited by AstralStorm, 25 November 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[timar]

It is highly likely that D3 levels that are correlated with survival are good ones for long life. I'll dodge the question whether they are optimal, since that cannot be answered in general, but only per person.

No, it is not likely, for reasons I have explained. You did not just fail to understand what I wrote but got most of it exactly the wrong way round.

[AstralStorm]

You do know that "higher than average" still means low? Average Caucasian is D3 deficient. (Even if taking 40 ng/ml as the measure of sufficiency.)
In mice, ApoE4 doubles D3 status. That is still lower than the center of the U. You'd need high incidence of "supplemented and ApoE4 presenting" to account for this result..
Not to mention ApoE4 is rare, about 13% and mostly in Caucasians, so that'd disappear with the adjustment for race.
(Method 2,3 and 4 adjust for that.)

(Teaching grandma to suck eggs.)

Edited by AstralStorm, 25 November 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[eon]

Isn't it just best to follow directions that's written on the back of the vitamin bottle? I doubt Spring Valley vitamin (Walmart brand) would put out anything that can cause issues with people. I am taking their 5000 IU Vitamin D3 max potency, which is saying that it's tolerable otherwise they would not sell it. The direction is to take 1 capsule daily.

Aren't all these different research from researchers simply a way to get funding? No one does it for free...

Regarding the talk about calcification; is this only possible with supplemental calcium or calcium we get from daily meals especially with cheeses and milk which usually has 20% to 30% daily value of calcium, per serving. Would supplementing with RAW calcium be better than other types of calcium? I saw a RAW calcium supplement, not sure if that was just marketing, another nickname for another calcium or it really exist.

Edited by eon, 26 November 2013 - 02:54 AM.

[eon]

timar, regarding your mention of selenium, chromium, zinc, and folate on the 1st page; I think I could supplement with zinc and chromium as the ones that come with the multis is mostly cheap ingredients. Selenium I can get from brazil nuts. Now regarding folate; Most multis seem to have the synthetic folic acid. This comes with my sublingual vitamin b12, 400mcg folic acid (common dose of this in most multis). I think I read that it's for the absorption of b12 sublingually. Folic acid is said to be cancerous even at low dosage of 1 mg:

http://chriskresser....e-vs-folic-acid

Edited by eon, 26 November 2013 - 04:31 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Can I go back to the vitamin-D, or is this thread getting out of control?

Mercola is a superfan of Vitamin-D and has some interesting writing on the subject. He states the vitamin-D you get from sunlight is superior to vitamin-D from supplements as your body produces "vitamin-D sulphate" which D-3 supplements do not provide.

He also states that in most areas of the US, the UVB rays from sunlight are only strong enough to produce vitamin-D sulphate from around the Spring Equinox to the Fall Equinox. In Fall & Winter months, even in warmer parts of the US, you only get UVA, which will burn, but not produce vitamin-D. He's big on UVB sunlamps for generating Vitamin-D Sulphate in the Winter months. Says it's the only way. I sunbathe in late summer and take D-3 through the Winter as the next best thing.

I did some research into tanning salons, and apparently "many" of them provide the vital UVB required for generating D-Sulphate, though some may not include the proper wavelength light. Something our D-Freaks might look into.

Sorry I'm too lazy to look up the links for this, but I found it an interesting read. Whoops, here ya go:
http://articles.merc...-on-sulfur.aspx

http://articles.merc...n-benefits.aspx

Regarding the Folate/Folic Acid... I've cut back on folic acid. Very hard to find B-Complex with less than 400mcg, but I've found some "Stress Formula" B-Complex that has only 50mcg/tab (Solgar B-Complex Stress Formula) and 200mcg (Swanson Super Stress B-Complex with Vitamin-C). Romaine Lettuce (Caeser Salad) is my favorite source of folate... Yum!

Edited by synesthesia, 26 November 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[AstralStorm]

Mercola is a superfan of Vitamin-D and has some interesting writing on the subject. He states the vitamin-D you get from sunlight is superior to vitamin-D from supplements as your body produces "vitamin-D sulphate" which D-3 supplements do not provide.

That is true, vit D3 sulphate is soluble in water. Plain vitamin D would stick in the subcutaneous fat.
However, the final calcidiol with VDB protein is made just the same so there's no superiority unless you do not take your D3 with fatty foods/oil/fat to improve its absorption.

He also states that in most areas of the US, the UVB rays from sunlight are only strong enough to produce vitamin-D sulphate from around the Spring Equinox to the Fall Equinox.

Correct, but even then that is not enough D3 from sunlight unless you sunbathe full body daily for hours. You might get bare minimum perhaps.

In Fall & Winter months, even in warmer parts of the US, you only get UVA, which will burn, but not produce vitamin-D. He's big on UVB sunlamps for generating Vitamin-D Sulphate in the Winter months. Says it's the only way. I sunbathe in late summer and take D-3 through the Winter as the next best thing.

UVB also causes skin cancers and photoaging, but UVA amplifies that effect and is even more problematic due to deeper skin penetration, so a pure UVB lamp is safer. Still not safe though at the required levels.

Regarding the Folate/Folic Acid... I've cut back on folic acid. Very hard to find B-Complex with less than 400mcg, but I've found some "Stress Formula" B-Complex that has only 50mcg/tab (Solgar B-Complex Stress Formula) and 200mcg (Swanson Super Stress B-Complex with Vitamin-C). Romaine Lettuce (Caeser Salad) is my favorite source of folate... Yum!

If you eat enough vegetables, you shouldn't need extra folate. However, quite a few people have a folate metabolism defect (MTHFR gene) reducing efficiency of (in some cases even almost stopping) conversion to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate - the active form. For those people, it is recommended to directly supplement that active form. (Trade name is metafolin, Solgar also makes that form.) There are genetic tests for it, but it should be as safe as folic acid supplements, if not actually safer.
For a simpler tests that would catch two variants of this mutation (out of four), if one of the alleles is mutated, the blood homocysteine levels will be elevated and that's a reasonably common blood test.

Yes, higher folate levels have been linked to leukemia and colon cancer risk. However high homocysteine levels have been linked to cardiovascular risk. Pick your poison.

Edited by AstralStorm, 26 November 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[eon]

synesthesia, I've done the light therapy thing for depression. Not sure if it was supposed to give any vitamin D at all since it's just light, not from the sun. But I've used something similar to this light therapy product:

http://www.amazon.co...ight therapy p2

Mine was the P2 version, not M2 like this one on the link.

Now regarding Chromium it has some mixed benefits maybe it's not as well studied. People with blood sugar issues says it has worked very well for them. I'm still deciding if I should get Chromium Picolinate or Polynicotinate.

http://ods.od.nih.go...thProfessional/

[eon]

is everyone ignoring vitamin B2 Riboflavin? I thought it activates B6? Is Riboflavin not that important?

[AstralStorm]

is everyone ignoring vitamin B2 Riboflavin? I thought it activates B6? Is Riboflavin not that important?

It is, but most everybody gets enough of it. It's present in common supplements as well. Similar with B6.
(Albeit optimal levels would be nice to know.)

Those are good for the heart and excess is quickly eliminated in urine, so there's little chance of toxicity.
HOPE 2 found 25% mortality reduction at levels 2x current RDA (but they measured combined B6, B12 and folic acid), also possible with a good diet alone.

You can overdose B6 chronically though and that has bad effects. We're talking about levels beyond 1g daily.

Edited by AstralStorm, 26 November 2013 - 08:47 AM.

[eon]

are the vitamins in cereals "added" meaning the cereal itself does not have those vitamins by default but it was added? Most of these cereals still have copper and iron. I thought I was free of those ever since i dumped my multi vitamin. So when I supplement with zinc, it is said to deplete copper. Do I simply use the natural copper that comes with food sources if there's such a thing? I know peanuts/peanut butter has about 4% daily value of iron. Not sure which food source has copper. I don't think I've seen copper in food sources. The Raisin Bran cereal I have has about 50% daily value of iron. Copper is about 15%. These probably isn't as active since it is processed in food as an added "bonus" for people who think they are getting a sweet deal buying a cereal with more "added" vitamins. Would the raw cereals people mentioned here have no "added" vitamins like the commercial brands?

[eon]

regarding "picolinate"; I was looking at getting zinc picolinate and chromium picolinate.

"Chromium is paired with acidic picolinate in pill form to help aid the body's ability to absorb the mineral. Picolinate is produced when tryptophan is made, therefore it's also known as a by-product of tryptophan [source: Merck]. http://health.howstu...-picolinate.htm

I've heard of the word tryptophan before. I think it has something to do with treating depression. I'm not exactly sure but I came across that word before.