[lurkingforacure]

And now, from the other side...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...111112159.html

Don't forget I just bought that liquid D3, one drop = 1,000IU. We're on day two, and I figure it'll be at least two weeks for it to get working in the system to build up the GDNF. I'll post updates along with everyone else who is trying this.

[Conductor71]

Originally Posted by lurkingforacure

And now, from the other side...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...111112159.html

Don't forget I just bought that liquid D3, one drop = 1,000IU. We're on day two, and I figure it'll be at least two weeks for it to get working in the system to build up the GDNF. I'll post updates along with everyone else who is trying this.

I am going to just play the diplomat and say that I understand the caution in reccommending any big changes in vitamin D intake based on studies linking vitamin D levels to multiple diseases. Everything is more complex than simply noting a deficiency in such a wide spectrum unless we can maybe step back and see a common link between these diseases like inflammation, for example. Even then it would be unlikely they would recommend sweeping changes based on a link that needs fleshing out or longitudinal studies looking at higher levels of D as it occurs more naturally.

I would be most interested in how D levels play out in other countries notably Scandinavia for lack of light and in maybe tropical climates where residents naturally take in more vitamin D. Are there any statistical correlates with normal levels of D and disease? I also would like to see that basic research be done to find out why deficiency surfaces in so many different disorders and diseases. That is what do all these things have in common that take a hit when Vita D is low? Maybe mitochondrial dysfunction? Some

My biggest concern is that they are choosing to suppress information; they are not releasing the finding of their expert panel. What is up with that? I assume it is because it is supportive of boosting levels more, but they either do not want to explain or substantiate their final recommendation and/or they don't want people like us trying to optimize themselves based on results.

My response is let's send that panel a strong message. This grassroots campaign is an adjunct of the Vitamin D Council. You can sign up to be a white rat with them; the D'Action program involves a five year commitment to having your D3 levels tested and reported. This could impact PD studies if they include our "co-morbidity" in the results. I am going to participate and write the panel letting them know that many are doing exactly what they were trying to avoid in the first place. It might also be great to start a white rat contingent of our own who are in this study and we can share our biannual results here on the forum.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/daction

[soccertese]

Originally Posted by Conductor71

I am going to just play the diplomat and say that I understand the caution in reccommending any big changes in vitamin D intake based on studies linking vitamin D levels to multiple diseases. Everything is more complex than simply noting a deficiency in such a wide spectrum unless we can maybe step back and see a common link between these diseases like inflammation, for example. Even then it would be unlikely they would recommend sweeping changes based on a link that needs fleshing out or longitudinal studies looking at higher levels of D as it occurs more naturally.

I would be most interested in how D levels play out in other countries notably Scandinavia for lack of light and in maybe tropical climates where residents naturally take in more vitamin D. Are there any statistical correlates with normal levels of D and disease? I also would like to see that basic research be done to find out why deficiency surfaces in so many different disorders and diseases. That is what do all these things have in common that take a hit when Vita D is low? Maybe mitochondrial dysfunction? Some

My biggest concern is that they are choosing to suppress information; they are not releasing the finding of their expert panel. What is up with that? I assume it is because it is supportive of boosting levels more, but they either do not want to explain or substantiate their final recommendation and/or they don't want people like us trying to optimize themselves based on results.

My response is let's send that panel a strong message. This grassroots campaign is an adjunct of the Vitamin D Council. You can sign up to be a white rat with them; the D'Action program involves a five year commitment to having your D3 levels tested and reported. This could impact PD studies if they include our "co-morbidity" in the results. I am going to participate and write the panel letting them know that many are doing exactly what they were trying to avoid in the first place. It might also be great to start a white rat contingent of our own who are in this study and we can share our biannual results here on the forum.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/daction

you have to buy the full IOM report but the synopsis states 4000 IU's is the acceptable upper limit. vitamin D is fat soluable and accumulates in the tissues.

http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Rep...rt%20Brief.pdf

there isn't a conspiracy against high dosage vitamin d imho, just common sense science being practiced.

[mrsD]

Thank you for that link. I have a parallel thread at our Vitamin forum here, so I am going to copy it over there.

[soccertese]

Originally Posted by lurkingforacure

And now, from the other side...

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...111112159.html

Don't forget I just bought that liquid D3, one drop = 1,000IU. We're on day two, and I figure it'll be at least two weeks for it to get working in the system to build up the GDNF. I'll post updates along with everyone else who is trying this.

i get a little suspicious when you see a vitamin d expert get quoted thousands of times who makes a lot of money on presentations and most people have never read a paper he has published.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...f24a67740fa236

[soccertese]

http://www.endocrinetoday.com/view.aspx?rid=66516

[mrsD]

Here are some responses to the IOM report:

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/iomquotes

[imark3000]

...and I read that we make 10000 IU vitamin D by 30 mins exposure to the sun. So we must have made a lot of vitamin D when we were hunting in the forest. Much more then FDA 600 or 4000 IU limit.
Personaly I trust God more than the FDA !
Imad

[olsen]

Dietary intake of vitamin D and cognition in older women
Neurology, 12/02/2010  Exclusive author commentary
Annweiler C et al. – Serum vitamin D concentrations are associated with global cognitive function among older adults. Weekly dietary intake of vitamin D was associated with cognitive performance in older women.

... We also found that the inadequate dietary intakes of vitamin D were associated with cognitive impairment among these older women...

http://www.mdlinx.com/neurology/news...subspec_id=202

[lurkingforacure]

Originally Posted by soccertese

you have to buy the full IOM report but the synopsis states 4000 IU's is the acceptable upper limit. vitamin D is fat soluable and accumulates in the tissues......

OK, Vitamin D3 accumulates in the tissues, but at some point it gets used...so if PWP and/or others are using up more than a non PWP is, wouldn't it stand to reason that they actually can tolerate taking more since they are using more? Fighting off a cold, recovering from surgery, all similar, you'd be using more than normal so should increase accordingly. Question to me is, how much?