Agreed on all counts.

By more effective I meant you wouldn't need such high doses, which is what the few studies that have differentiated between the two have indicated.

Like I said, I'll see what my levels are like in a month and I may take that route. I'll look into what D2 is exactly. I know it's synthetic, that's all.

I'm glad your numbers went up so effectively. Keep it up, it's working. I don't know if I'd like to go off D3 for 3 weeks before testing. I may feel like **** again, since I don't take enough for it to stay in my system too long. Perhaps I'm wrong. But it's impressive that the D2 stayed in your system enough for those levels even after having stopped 3 weeks prior to testing.

Here is one article that goes into detail about Quest's problems with Vit D testing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/bu...08labtest.html

And another from more recently 2012:
http://www.webmd.com/women/news/2012...accurate-study

and:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0625152310.htm

These are the only oral products of ergocalciferol in the FDA orange book (on RX)
The D2 sources I am finding are Vegan made.
like this one...
http://www.vitacost.com/source-natur...u-60-tablets-1
800IU to 2,000IU only.

And this was posted yesterday on our MG forum:
http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/thread231959.html

To get around the testing dilemma for Vit D, one might track their calcium serum levels instead. Something to think about.

This MG case is interesting. Thanks for sharing. Thank you also for the link to D2. I'm increasing magnesium and staying with D3 for now, but I really want to increase my doses. Let's see if I can get rid of the insomnia. If not, I'll switch to D2. What I found interesting in the study is that her numbers dropped and she came out of remission when it was stopped, particularly when cholecalciferol was stopped as the article notes. So they were giving her D3 in such insanely high doses. I wonder how I would respond to such doses when I respond so well (minus the insomnia) to such low doses.

I wouldn't go that high as in the article...you would need blood work for calcium at the high doses. But our MS patients do take quite a bit of D also with medical supervision.

The article is to illustrate that high dosing may be useful....but I wouldn't do it yourself.

For example, I met a patient with severe autoimmune kidney disease, whose nephrologist had him on 13 fish oil caps a day.
This was based on a Chinese study showing the treatment for this
difficult malady...which was putting him close to a kidney transplant. The fish oil worked and his kidney healed up over a year and he was very enthused about it and loved to talk to me about it. But I could never recommend this on this board or in my professional career to others. But it did illustrate that sometimes drama and high dosing works. This patient was under supervision by his specialist physician at all times. I did however get him to try going gluten free, and he did and solved his GI problems too.

Oh no, I would never do so without blood work and the right diet, for sure. Supervision and serum checks would be essential. I'm not there yet, but I do wonder. I certainly would take it before Prednisone. Anyway, we'll see what happens.

That story is quite interesting. A family member is leaking protein and has some issues with his kidney or kidney tissue, and I only recently convinced him to take 1000-2000 IU of D3. He takes fish oil, but not that much.

I think my question might have gotten lost in the thread, though excuse me if you answered it and I missed it. Should I stop supplementing with D3 before taking the blood test? If yes, how long before? Thanks.

I really don't know. I would think that since the D is so different from other vitamins, and minerals, that has not appeared in the studies.
If you don't stop a high result would at least show you are absorbing it. But since it is removed quickly from the serum, stopping it will show that it is not there but there is no way to show what the tissues have.

Doctors do evaluate patient responses and value that sometimes over test results. Nutrients do not always behave like drugs, as far as test results go.

Thanks again, Mrs.D. D is just so complex and we don't know quite a lot about it. I understand and agree. I've read a great deal about it the last little while and I've not seen anything on this issue either. But this "If you don't stop a high result would at least show you are absorbing it" is exactly right. This is what we know and so I'll keep taking it. Also, we already know that I'm feeling the benefits, so there's that too.

I honestly have never seen anything comparing the two (D2 & D3) equally, with the only difference being the amount needed for effectiveness. They are completely different substances and the amount needed is not in question...as far as I can tell. My doctors point was actually the opposite...that D2 stays longer than D3. He argued that D3 makes for quick short term increases in levels, whereas D2 takes longer to achieve the level desired, but it lasts longer and is more effective in the long run.

I argued (at length) MrsD's data/info to no avail. In the end, he asked me to give his point a try (using D2 for 12 weeks) and see what the results show before making my conclusion. So I did. And my results certainly proved his point. That doesn't mean I discount MrsD's data...actually I think the points in those articles are valid. But the fact is: taking D2 really worked for me and I cannot just assume that because it did that my labs must be in error now. Had it not worked and my levels stayed low, I doubt there would be discussion that the lab was in error. I'm sure if my levels had not increased that we would all be confirming that it was simply because it was the ineffectiveness of D2.

I have finished the prescription course, so don't plan to take any more D2 at this point. Then I plan to retest in 3 months to see if my level stays or drops...and by how much. I think follow up testing is important in this regard. Of course, if my level is once again in the 20's, then I would have to question the validity of the 58 level lab. Does that make sense?

I have to ask you: If you are afraid of coming off the D3 for just 3 weeks, doesn't that indicate that it would, in fact, be only a short term fix? Certainly, D3 should last longer than that. If it doesn't, then that would confirm exactly what my doctor stated...that it only increases numbers quick and short term...not long term. I know that D2 is Rx and NOT taken every day/week/month, etc...because it's supposed to last in the body (or cells, maybe, as he stated).

Frankly I think I'm confusing myself, the more I write about this and give it more thought...LOL I'm intrigued by this thread and all the info involved.

Well for one thing... Vitamin D is stored in FAT cells. this has been mentioned in regards to people who are overweight needing higher doses to compensate for that storage.

Taking one big whopping dose once a week seems to me to be
likely to be stored rather than utilized.

Taking lower doses every day, seems more logical to me for tissue utilization. The enzyme systems that use D will become overloaded (saturated) and the excess would be stored.

That is just my take.