The bottom line in this country, is that most doctors are woefully under informed on how to use nutrients to 1) replace those lost from some drug therapies, and 2) to prevent disease.

A prime example is osteoporosis which doctors treat with bisphosphonates (and all their now known toxicities) instead of adequate Vit D3 (real name is cholecalciferol) replacement.

It is becoming possible now to normalize absorption of calcium from the GI tract from food, so that none need be supplemented at all, (or a very small amount).

In fact, many doctors still think Vit D is a vitamin. And it is not.

So if you ask your doctor, it would be wise to have an informed answer of your own ready, so you can compare, the two.

Do this test..... ask your doctor what the elemental values for his recommendations are. Most doctors (as well as lay persons) do not know the difference. Ask him how much elemental calcium is in 600mg of calcium carbonate, and how much is really absorbed. ( I gave these figures above).

That is the primary reason I come here, free of charge on my own time, to help educate people so they will get the most useful results for their problems (and avoid toxicities).

Ok, they just called me and my level is 23. She said 20 is deficient, but they want me at 30. So they said to take 1000mg per day. The ones I bought this spring are units, 2000 units....it is D3. I guess I better go back and read all your posts on Vit D. I cant figure out how some one who is out in the sun all freaking day for months at a time, can be deficient at this time of year. Foo. :mad: I hope this is being absorbed....:confused:

Does this mean I can eat more cheese cake??:p

Vit D is not done in milligrams. IU's is the typical measurement.

That was what I thought....this inspires confidence. I will go back and read your posts....you know more about this than any one I know.

Maybe she meant I could eat several grams of cheese cake?? Maybe??

Ok, I looked at the links. Thanks for posting these. It looks like even 30 is deficient. On the sunshine...just how much SKIN needs to be exposed. I don't want to traumatize any passers by. The man said 10,000Units for 15 minutes of exposure....is that stark naked or maybe 25% exposed?

Other question: I have cholecalficerol here....I remember you posting what you thought was best...is this one OK? Then the dose, really, I am quite deficient....I would expect rather than 4000U, I should like do the 8000units...then there is the issue of absorption. If I am not absorbing, then my Vit. D level will likely stay low, then what? They won't give me shots unless I am below 20.

Also, if Vit D is made primarily by sun exposure....how come so many kids in developing countries have rickets, when those kids are outdoors all the time?

Anyway, I am sure my bone is affected, no doubt....is it possible that some people have a higher need for Vit D? This kidney issue likely is affecting the D level.

Thanks for the posts...and given both my gmother and mother had dementia and likely LOW vit. d, I will take my chances and TAKE the vit. d.

This is what I have learned about Vit D levels and why they may vary from person to person.

1) As we age, we may not make as much Vit D from sun exposure as when we were young. Some references say this happens. If you take a drug to lower cholesterol this may also impede Vit D synthesis, since the substance in the skin is made from cholesterol.

People in developing countries, have more melanin in their skins to block UV...so they need far more light to make Vit D. Also their diets can be very poor, and they may not get enough calcium from food.

2) In people with more fat on their bodies, the Vit D may go there for storage, and not be available in the blood for doing its various jobs. I have seen reports that overweight people may need higher doses.

I would start at 5000 IU daily. If you have say a blood test showing you are at 20...that would put you at 70 if you utilize it properly. I think 8000 is high, unless your test was in the single digits? Current medical thinking, is that if you have NO test yet, 2000IU is safe enough. The average ratio is 1000IU to 10ng/ level in test. But this varies from person to person.

Then you should get tested again in 3-4 months to see what your calcium levels are then, and your D levels. The risk of hypercalcemia is considered low these days with the new information, but it may still happen. For this reason, some doctors are keeping calcium supplements lower in dose...the link on my Vit D thread at Vitamin forum, suggests 600mg tops now. If you still are taking that dilitazem, I'd watch for leg cramps etc. That is my signal to take calcium now and then, because diltiazem affects calcium levels to some extent, lowering them. Otherwise I don't take calcium at all, normally, because I eat cheese and yogurt and good diet. Yogurt is a good source of calcium.
(for example, two summers ago, when we did not have the big refrigerator on vacation, we couldn't keep food very well. So my yogurt and most of the cheese was out of my diet. I was taking the diltiazem every day there, with a lower dose on my other BP med, and within 2 weeks I was having leg cramps. At home when I have my yogurt every day, I rarely get the leg cramps with the diltiazem at all. So that one change was significant for me!)

I stopped diltiazem when my calcium came back low. I wont go back on it, i didn't feel all that good on it. I am very leery of taking anything until I get a baseline and they figure out what is going on. Meds always complicate things.

Yes, meds do complicate. I went in to see my primary today at her request to review my labs. Vitamin D came in at 28 (23 D3, 5 D2). She prescribed a supplement.

What really disturbed me in my Lipid panel:

Cholesterol 385 (125-200)
Triglicerides 171 (<150)
HDL 75 (>46)
LDL 276 (0-100)
Chol/HDL 5.1 (0.0-5.0)

The numbers have been fairly consistent for at least a year. My HDL has increased on this round, which is good, maybe because I am fairly disciplined about cardio exercise when I am able to do it.

She thinks most of this is hereditary. I am 48, I eat pretty well and I am not overweight. Don't smoke and only drink once and a while.

She prescribed Crestor and said she does not care for statins but that she feels it might be beneficial for me. I was afraid this would be the case. I hurt every day so I am weary of taking this med. I am just sick and tired of medications and having my health issues force the need for medications...

Re: Crestor....

I think you should inform yourself whether this is a good idea for you before you decide to take it.

You can have a "Lipoprotein a" test to see if you have that risk factor. (it is genetic and some believe predictive of cardiac problems)

I'd suggest you read the link I put up on the "Drugs that may cause PN" post in the Subforum above. The newest link has the statistics of benefit you can perhaps hope to achieve with a statin (which is pretty low).
http://www.naturalnews.com/028988_st...e_effects.html

One factor that will raise cholesterol like that is low thyroid functions. Often elevated cholesterol is the first sign of that.

It is your decision after all. But with no other risk factors, or close relatives with heart attack/stroke, I'd wait and see myself.

Uff dah! That is high.

MRSD what is the scoop on that new prescription made from fish oil....foo, I can't remember the name, but it is basically highly concentrated fish oil....any one know the name? Would that maybe be less 'bad' than a statin? Darn, can't remember the name...

My platelets were on the higher side, still not too high by lab standards, altho my lab says high, at 389....

359 is the cut off at my lab. I saw 450 was the cut off when I did research.

I don't even want to see my cholesterol. ugh.