Hello everyone. We have heard a lot about vitamin D3 supplementation for some time.
So here is what I found on various sources including wiki.
A daily dose of up to 10000IU is considered a “physiological” dose, that is to say that it does not represent any danger of toxicity and it is even recommended for all. Beyond this limit one is within the framework of a “therapeutic” dose and that requires a medical follow-up, with control of the blood concentration in calcitriol (active form of D3, cholecalcipherol, expressed in ng / ml) which does not should not exceed 150ng / ml.
Until then everything is simple.
Now, what I have just read is that up to 10000IU / day D3 helps to absorb and fix calcium from food in the bones, while if we exceed this physiological dose it mobilizes calcium from the bones with the famous risk of ‘hypercalcemia.
My question is simple:
What triggers this calcium mobilization of the bones, the high dose itself or a concentration that exceeds 150ng / ml?
I explain myself by making an example. Suppose I have a very low level of 30ng / ml and start taking 40,000IU / day. After a month let’s say that my rate is still below 150ng / ml. What happened during this month? Was there a mobilization (therefore loss) of calcium because of the daily 40,000IU or a normal fixation of dietary calcium despite the high dosage because the concentration is still within the normal limit?
Thanks for clearing me up
I do not know how to answer your question but I wanted to testify.
After having read “vitamin d the health scandal” (type that on google it is the 1st result in PDF). I don’t know if you will find any possible answers in it, but personally I started a course of D3 following this article because I have a seasonal depression with strong fatigue from October to March. and the cause could come from there, there are studies which try to bring together depression and vitamin D as well as skin problems (excema, psiorasis) …
Regarding your question, it is not the dose you take that is important, but your vitamin D status. In your hypothesis, as long as you stay below 150 ng / mL, I do not see any risk.
On the other hand, studies suggest that vitamin D would be more effective on the bones for more spaced outings (15 days or 1 month) rather than a daily intake.
Thanks a lot to both of you.
My logic told me that it is the rate that matters and this spaced outlet is not the first time that I have heard this, but it was related to prostate cancer. Anyway in Chinese medicine it is connected to the meridian of the kidneys which in turn manage the bones. So I am not surprised.
I will watch this article on this scandal, although it is just one more of all that I have read before.
Good day to you…