Hello,

My name is Steve. I am new at this. I am 70% raw. I started about a month or so ago. It's going well. Except that I wonder about my vitamin D intake. First of all, do we need vitamin D like the doctors are telling us. I do not get much sunshine. Very little. Especially in the cold months. And now that I'm eating fruits and vegetables,and not salmon, I wonder if I'm getting enough vitamin D.

I used to take a vitamin D supplement. But I've stopped all my supplements since I've been going raw. Or at least 70% raw. Should I be taking my vitamin D supplement? I took it today with my meal. And I had stinky gas. Are there some vegetables that are okay with vitamin D pills? That don't give you stinky gas? As I said I'm new at this. Any information you could give me about this topic would be great.

Thank you. Happy eating.

Steve

Your gas is not from your supplement, it's from your diet.

Yes, keep taking your supplement. It's the lesser evil compared to damaging your skin. And despite what you may have read, D2 from mushrooms is just as good as D3:

[www.nutraingredients-usa.com]

The full paper is free, here:
[jcem.endojournals.org]

When we were on the savannas running around naked we did not often pass the age of 30. Now that we get much older and get profoundly saggy and wrinkly at later ages we can protect our skins from most of this destruction and get our D from a pill. I think that's fantastic.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2010 02:13AM by arugula.

Interesting


"More studies are needed to determine whether the media (i.e., ethanol vs oil vs lactose) that vitamin D2 and vitamin D3 are dissolved in influence either their bioavailability or catabolism," concluded the researchers.'

Arugula - do you have any thoughts on that statement? I would like to be made aware of the results of any such studies.

' Previously, researchers from Creighton University in Omaha reported in 2004 that while both forms of the vitamin do produce similar rises in serum concentration of the native vitamin, indicating equivalent absorption, only vitamin D3 sustained 25(OH)D levels over a 14 day period. However, serum 25OHD fell rapidly in the D2-supplemented subjects and was not different from baseline at 14 days.




Source: Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism


Does this mean that Vit D2 levels cannot be maintained after you stop taking the supplement?
The results of the Boston University trials seemed very straightforward but this last paragraph confused me somewhat. Could you clarify for me please

'

In the Creighton study, the subjects were given a single dose of 50000 IU rather than 1000 IU per day.

They were likely some problems with their assays. A lot of the negative studies can be traced to this issue.

But also it might be that most of the subject just didn't need that massive jolt of D and didn't keep it, with excess D2 being easier to excrete than excess D3.

For topical use, ethanol promotes much more penetration of an active ingredient than fat. I would not be surprised if this were the case with orals as well. But I haven't read anything that confirms this for orals, and it might also have a lot to do with the particular compound. Generally, fat-solubles are also soluble in ethanol.

I think taking a reasonable dose of a fat-soluble nutrient daily is much safer than a huge dose in a one shot deal. But it might be useful for people with marked deficiencies at the onset. I wouldn't do it myself without supervision.

Boston University is really focusing on vitamin D lately, this study just released reporting that D2 or D3 in fortified orange juice is as effective as supplements --

[www.nutraingredients-usa.com]

Regarding Vitamin D status at northern latitudes Boston University reports --

"Our current data demonstrate that the conversion of epidermal 7-DHC to previtamin D3 in Type II skin is approximately 5–10 fold more efficient than the highly pigmented Type V skin (Figure 1), suggesting that sufficient previtamin D3 can be synthesized in the Caucasian skin after a brief exposure to summer noon sunlight even in Boston, 42 °N. Since the sunlight spectrum (UVB radiation) responsible for the synthesis of previtamin D3 also increases risk of skin cancers (1,22), dietary supplementation of vitamin D is advisable in order to prevent vitamin D-deficiency, especially elderly and highly pigmented skin individuals who will not be able to synthesize sufficient vitamin D3, even in the summer months."

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

..so the elderly who don't get out much and those with dark complexion are especially at risk in the north.

BU's suggestion to supplement D2 or D3 at 1000 IU is double what I've been taking.

The Boston University study, observing subjects around Boston (42 degrees N. latitude), suggests supplementing with 1000 IU (for this latitude?) --

"Our observations also suggest that 1,000 International Units (IU) of vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 is required to sustain blood levels of 25(OH)D above a mean of 20 ng/ml, but was insufficient in raising the levels above a mean of 30 ng/ml."

"Currently, the vitamin's RDA is 400 IU, but calls have been growing louder to increase this level considerably. The new study appears to support this view."

[www.nutraingredients-usa.com]

..uh, would the worlds' tallest man need more having much more lean body mass than the average person around boston? Does an individual's bulk matter?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2010 12:17PM by loeve.

Trying to get more sun would be ideal!

Yes, but in the far north it's difficult though I've been going barefoot a lot and my size 13 feet are acting like solar collectors. Canada Health always has nice information.

[www.hc-sc.gc.ca]

They recommend 200 IU's for infants and 600 IU's for the elderly, with a tolerable upper limit of 2000 IU's/day.

The Canadians just completed a study and found 4 to 10% of the population deficient in vitamion D.

"Results
"The mean concentration of 25(OH)D for the Canadian population aged 6 to 79 years was 67.7 nmol/L. The mean was lowest among men aged 20 to 39 years (60.7 nmol/L) and highest among boys aged 6 to 11 (76.8 nmol/L). Deficiency (less than 27.5 nmol/L) was detected in 4% of the population. However, 10% of Canadians had concentrations considered inadequate for bone health (less than 37.5 nmol/L) according to 1997 Institute of Medicine (IOM) Standards (currently under review). Concentrations measured in November-March were below those measured in April-October. White racial background and frequent milk consumption were significantly associated with higher concentrations."

[www.statcan.gc.ca]

Of course, it's possible to get no sun at all. BU's Dr. Holick's 1000 IU recommendation is for those, and also for those with very deep skin pigmentation --

"Dr. Holick: But here's even a bigger shock. I had been concerned, and others had been concerned as well, that if you're not exposed to any sunlight or if you have very deep skin pigmentation, that you need 1000 international units of vitamin D to satisfy your body's requirements. And so we reasoned that probably women during pregnancy, even though they're taking their prenatal vitamins that contain 400 units of vitamin D, they're only getting 40% of what they need. So we did a study at our hospital, and we looked at women coming in and giving birth, and we measured their vitamin D levels -- their 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels, and the infants' 25-hydroxy vitamin D levels at birth. 49 infant-mother pairs were looked at, mostly African-American and Hispanic but some Caucasian as well. 76% of mothers were severely vitamin D deficient. 81% of infants were severely vitamin D deficient."

[www.naturalnews.com]

vitamin D deficiency is quite common especially in the countries with less sunlight, also if your liver isnt working optimally then you may have problems absorbing fat soluable vitamins.

i was deficient recently with the 25-hydroxy test, i used vitamin D3 5000IU.

I am curious WHY you don't get Sun. Even in the winter, being outdoors is a good way to stave off SAD and I feel like the pills are not the same as being in that Light. Of course, I am not one of those who thinks the Sun is bad for you; on the contrary, I think it heals.

[Does an individual's bulk matter?]

Yes, smaller BMI people need less, larger BMI people need more. Most of the people in the studies are around BMI 27.

In fatter subjects, there is decreased bioavailability of vitamin D3 from cutaneous and dietary sources because it tends to be stored in the fat and not be as available for the plasma as it would for a person carrying less body fat.

One's needs are based on a lot of things: age, muscle and fat mass, ethnicity. They try to make a one-size-fits-all rec but it's not that simple.

Old people need more than young people.
Fat people need more than thin people.
Darker skinned people need more than lighter skinned people.
Taller people need more than shorter people.
Unexposed people need more than exposed people.

But in general, I think a great deal of the mass hysteria about vitamin D and all it's hoopla is due to the fact that 60% of us are overweight to obese, and whatever the fat people get is going to get preferential storage in the fat, not the plasma, where it is needed. So of course they are going to have problems and show low plasma markers.

Thanks, arugula.

"I am curious WHY you don't get Sun. Even in the winter, being outdoors is a good way to stave off SAD and I feel like the pills are not the same as being in that Light. Of course, I am not one of those who thinks the Sun is bad for you; on the contrary, I think it heals."

I agree, and believe the winter is even the best time to get outdoors for those reasons, though am not averse to select supplemental vitamins, believing humans are fish out of water and can use these little helps. Being outdoors is stimulating in many ways, but with my skin type the sun can take a toll over the years as well. My father has made many trips to the dermatologist for treatment on his face and hands.

Are you sure it was the sun alone causing his skin problems? Did you check all the shampoos and other products that he might be putting on his skin. People glob known cancer causing agents on their skin and then blame the sun. You can check the safety of his products here: [www.cosmeticsdatabase.com]

This is interesting, you have to be outside to get UVB rays, you can't get them through glass in winter time. I'm not sure how UVB lamps work then because the UVB rays have to pass through the glass of the lightbulb, maybe they use a special type of glass?: [ods.od.nih.gov]
"UVB radiation does not penetrate glass, so exposure to sunshine indoors through a window does not produce vitamin D "

If they work, I really want a sun-light simulating lamp for winter, I'd prefer it to vit D supplements because when vit D is made by the skin it never over-produces the vitamin, but you can accumulate oral vit D to toxic levels. [www.answers.com]
"Vitamin D and vitamin A are the most toxic of the fat-soluble vitamins. The symptoms of vitamin D toxicity are nausea, vomiting, pain in the joints, and loss of appetite. The patient may experience constipation alternating with diarrhea, or have tingling sensations in the mouth. The toxic dose of vitamin D depends on its frequency. In infants, a single dose of 15 mg or greater may be toxic, but it is also the case that daily doses of 1.0 mg over a prolonged period may be toxic. In adults, a daily dose of 1.0-2.0 mg of vitamin D is toxic when consumed for a prolonged period. A single dose of about 50 mg or greater is toxic for adults. The immediate effect of an overdose of vitamin D is abdominal cramps, nausea and vomiting.

Toxic doses of vitamin D taken over a prolonged period of time result in irreversible deposits of calcium crystals in the soft tissues of the body that may damage the heart, lungs, and kidneys."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2010 11:58AM by tropical.

"Are you sure it was the sun alone causing his skin problems?"

Untill the age of 25 he got lots of sun but afterwards not so much. His shampoo is moderately hazardous acording to cosmeticdatabase.com, his hand care nothing special. He likes his dairy and sweets and at 88 is just hanging in there.

That's interesting about the UVB light and possible toxicity of long term Vitamin D supplements in the 1 to 2mg/day range. Health Canada notes the upper tolerable limit at 2mg/day for all ages as I recall. But if one gets plenty of sun who needs it. We're the only species who wears cloths so I wonder if we're supposed to fully sun bath or if it's enough that the face and hands are exposed.

-I mean should we fully sunbath for 20 minutes here and there, and is the alternative to be clothed in the sun more often? Then it depends also on our skin pigmentation...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2010 05:22PM by loeve.

"Health Canada notes the upper tolerable limit at 2mg/day for all ages as I recall."

Sorry, for vitamin D Health Canada notes a tolerable upper limit of 2000 IU, not 2mg.

"Overdose by ingestion
"For more details on this topic, see hypervitaminosis D.
"In healthy adults, sustained intake of 1250 micrograms/day (50,000 IU) can produce overt toxicity after several months;[76] those with certain medical conditions are far more sensitive to vitamin D and develop hypercalcaemia in response to any increase in vitamin D nutrition, while maternal hypercalcaemia during pregnancy may increase fetal sensitivity to effects of vitamin D and lead to a syndrome of mental retardation and facial deformities.[77][78] Pregnant or breastfeeding women should consult a doctor before taking a vitamin D supplement. For infants (birth to 12 months) the tolerable Upper Limit (maximum amount that can be tolerated without harm) is set at 25 micrograms/day (1000 IU). 1000 micrograms/day (40,000 IU) in infants has produced toxicity within 1 month.[79] The U.S. Dietary Reference Intake Tolerable Upper Intake Level (upper limit) of vitamin D for children and adults is set at 50 micrograms/day (2,000 IU). Vitamin D overdose causes hypercalcemia and the main symptoms of vitamin D overdose are those of hypercalcemia: anorexia, nausea, and vomiting can occur, frequently followed by polyuria, polydipsia, weakness, nervousness, pruritus, and ultimately, renal failure. Proteinuria, urinary casts, azotemia, and metastatic calcification (especially in the kidneys) may develop.[80] Vitamin D toxicity is treated by discontinuing vitamin D supplementation and restricting calcium intake. Kidney damage may be irreversible.

"Exposure to sunlight for extended periods of time does not normally cause vitamin D toxicity.[77] This is because within about 20 minutes of ultraviolet exposure in light skinned individuals (3–6 times longer for pigmented skin) the concentrations of vitamin D precursors produced in the skin reach an equilibrium, and any further vitamin D that is produced is degraded.[81] According to some sources, endogenous production with full body exposure to sunlight is approximately 250 µg (10,000 IU) per day.[77] According to Holick, "the skin has a large capacity to produce cholecalciferol"; his experiments indicate that

"[W]hole-body exposure to one minimal erythemal dose of simulated solar ultraviolet radiation is comparable with taking an oral dose of between 250 and 625 micrograms (10 000 and 25 000 IU) vitamin D."[81]"

[en.wikipedia.org]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2010 06:51PM by loeve.

I don't expose myself because I happen to like getting carded when I am pushing 47. And I take very good care of my skin.

If you don't care about ruining your skin, go ahead. But your skin is an organ, too. I don't understand why people are so concerned with their internal organs and so eager to destroy their external ones.

We use to rarely live past 30, so skin destruction wasn't so much of an issue. But now that most of us live so much longer than that, it is. And it isn't because of toxic skin care products. UV radiation is responsible for up to 90% of aging skin problems.

Checked my e-mail and David Wolfe had sent me an 18 minute talk by Mercola about vitamin D. He talks about how Vitamin D used to be used to cure things but once they put windows in the sanatoriums it stoped working. He also talks like vitamin D is a cure-all.

[www.longevityconference.com]

Avoiding strong sun and using D2 is cool with me. Just for weighing our options, according to Dr. Holick 5-10 minutes of exposure 3 times weekly on the face, arms or legs for those light-skinned at 40 N. latitude spring, summer and fall should do it for the year without overexposing the skin to harmful effects. There should be tables for all the latitudes, skin pigmentation and other variables. Also vitamin D supplements even up to 10,000 IU/day is now considered by some to have benefits outweighing the risks.

"Sources
"Sunlight
"Solar ultraviolet-B radiation (UVB; wavelengths of 290 to 315 nanometers) stimulates the production of vitamin D3 in the epidermis of the skin (94). Sunlight exposure can provide most people with their entire vitamin D requirement. Children and young adults who spend a short time outside two or three times a week will generally synthesize all the vitamin D they need to prevent deficiency. One study reported that serum vitamin D concentrations following exposure to 1 minimal erythemal dose of simulated sunlight (the amount required to cause a slight pinkness of the skin) was equivalent to ingesting approximately 20,000 IU of vitamin D2 (95). People with dark-colored skin synthesize markedly less vitamin D on exposure to sunlight than those with light-colored skin (1). Additionally, the elderly have diminished capacity to synthesize vitamin D from sunlight exposure and frequently use sunscreen or protective clothing in order to prevent skin cancer and sun damage. The application of sunscreen with an SPF factor of 8 reduces production of vitamin D by 95%. In latitudes around 40 degrees north or 40 degrees south (Boston is 42 degrees north), there is insufficient UVB radiation available for vitamin D synthesis from November to early March. Ten degrees farther north or south (Edmonton, Canada) the “vitamin D winter” extends from mid-October to mid-March. According to Dr. Michael Holick, as little as 5-10 minutes of sun exposure on arms and legs or face and arms three times weekly between 11:00 am and 2:00 pm during the spring, summer, and fall at 42 degrees latitude should provide a light-skinned individual with adequate vitamin D and allow for storage of any excess for use during the winter with minimal risk of skin damage (37)."
...
"Toxicity
"...Research published since 1997 suggests that the UL for adults is likely overly conservative and that vitamin D toxicity is very unlikely in healthy people at intake levels lower than 10,000 IU/day (39, 97, 98). "

[lpi.oregonstate.edu]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2010 01:18AM by loeve.

I moved from grey wintery Chicago to Los Angeles. One of my favorite things is running errands and walking around right in the middle of the day or early afternoon when the sun is at the top of the sky. Sometimes I do this for an hour, go inside for an hour, go out for an hour (riding my bike, being at my destination, riding my bike home). I must get enough vitamin D? The sun is out pretty much EVERYDAY.

I notice I'm not as sensitive to the sun and even get my version of tan (I'm fair skinned but not super pale). Some people say sunscreen is cancerous. But then no protection is dangerous. What do I do? My mom used to sunbath with her siblings and has TONS of freckles and sun damage. I stayed out of the sun a lot more when I was a kid. I'm 27 and since going vegan and now trying raw I have the best skin ever. I'd like to keep it that way. Any tips/comments? I'd also like to keep going out into the sun.

Stellium,

I like to do errands by bicycle too and have gotten lots of sun over the years from my lifestyle and at 54 have some sun damage.

Going from Chicago (42 degrees latitude) to Los Angeles (34) you're going to get a lot more exposure over more of the day, so if 11 to 2 was peak in IL the peak in LA might be 10 to 3.

There's actually a program that let's one plug in latitude, longitude, skin type and even altitude. I haven't tried it yet but if looking to estimate the minimum sun needed to make one's own vitamin D such a program might help --

[blog.nutritiondata.com]

..so I just ran the vitamin D calculator for myself and in the Boston area this time of year it takes roughly 4 minutes sunny day exposure on the face, arms and legs every-other-day at mid-day to maintain vitamin D status (assuming no dietary sources).

I ran it for Los Angeles and it only takes 3 minutes there --

[nadir.nilu.no]

..hope I filled in the calculator right.. it's not that user friendly. The longitude for LA was enered at -118?, the time 11.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2010 02:39PM by loeve.

I have heard that sunblock is actually a carcinogen. That wouldn't surprise me. The natural hygienists use the sun as part of their program for healing (along with raw foods). Even in the mainstream, sending children with TB who lived in overcast places like England to sunnier climes was not unheard of. Doesn't it just make sense that the Sun would be a healer? I think David Wolfe said that you can eat your sunblock! In other words, antioxidants also shield the skin from the inside out. It seems that the fact about the Sun making Vitamin D in the body and the very importance of D are relatively recent in terms of being revealed to the masses. The relationship between calcium and D for healthy bones has been pretty new, as far as I can tell. I don't take supplements. Bee pollen and spirulina are foods, IMO. Any vitamins or minerals I get via food or the Sun.

What would you suggest for women that cover themselves from head to toe? I have heard that muslim women who dress in this way have serious Vitamin D issues.

I would also like to point out that here in the UK we get negligible sun from early October until May - infact I am still outside in trousers and jumpers at the moment - so not getting much sun yet this year!!!

Wow, you know I never even thought about Muslim women! I heard that mushrooms have Vitamin D and then yesterday I heard that you must expose them to the Sun. But I also think that even covered up, the very fact that even totally covered, you can still get the Sun via your face. Don't the Saudis wear long robe-like garments and even long sleeves in the desert? I remember being surprised that they were so covered up but I guess it's to protect from the harshness of too much Sun.

Those with very fair skin sometimes are careful of the weave of their clothing, the sun able to penetrate some fabrics.

Even on overcast days some UVB gets through so those living in London this day (May 15) can get their UVB dose even on overcast days (complete cloud cover) by spending about 22 minutes outdoors with their face, hands and arms exposed (roughly double that if just face and hands) --

[nadir.nilu.no]

..they make it easy since the default settings appear to be for London... The Norwegian Institute for Air Research has just published the supporting paper to their online UVB/vitamin D calculator.

[www.mdpi.com]

..a nice tool for estimating UVB exposure relating to skin synthesis of vitamin D, IMO, though they do caution more and larger studies are needed on the subject.

Hi again,

Thank you all so much for replying. I am impressed. Impressed with all of the information and the studies posted. And I do believe it has been helpful. I think I have a little better handle on vitamin D. My strategy going forward will be to get enough sun and when I can't I will take a little bit of vitamin D. And then I'll have my doctor check that level of my blood compared to last year when it was a little low. Anyway thanks again for your smarts and your humor and happy eating. Have a good day.

Steve

ok i read sometime ago that vitamin d is also absorbed thru the eyes so wearing sunglasses constantly can hamper this

yet ive not been able to validate this with any proof , has anyone else heard this?

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

i love the myth that when people ran around in the sun (up until the 1980's) they all died of skin cancer by 35. Cause all the native americans, indians, africans and pacific islanders all died by 35. until sunscreen and umbrellas.

we have plenty of evidence people lived long full lives with sun, and without. i like the sunshine, but I'm greek, and we tend to live long, wrinkly brown lives by the sea. i don't think everyone does best on sunshine, but for some of us, it is key to our happiness and health.

peace-