Currently viewing the category: "vitamin D insufficiency"

Vitamin D Testing Determines “How Much?”

By On · Add Comment · In 50000 international units (IU), Life Extensions Foundation, sunlight, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D test

I was recently asked by a twitter follower how much vitamin D is needed, and how much is too much. This question is much more complex than can be done justice in 140 characters, so I decided to write a quick guide to determining your vitamin D needs.

You’ll need to start by getting your blood D levels checked. Okay, there’s lots of differing opinion on how, and what, and where, and so forth. Let’s just keep things simple: Next time you are at the doctor’s getting a physical, ask him or her to do a vitamin D test (serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D test). They will run the blood you are already providing them with, although my physician often forgets, requiring me to go back in for a second blood letting. Whatever–it’s worth it to me.

You’ll probably have to pay for the test if you live in the U.S. The last one I got cost me somewhere in the $200 range, and that was after insurance covered a minimal portion. Listen, I believe so strongly in getting blood levels of D checked, that the cost is also worth it to me. (Life Extensions Foundation endorses a $47 test that you can get by calling the 800-number in their article here).

You will get your results within a couple of days. The numbers can vary depending on the lab, but good reference points for adults are between 30-100 ng/mL for optimal levels. Levels of Serum D between 20-29 ng/mL indicate insufficiency, while anything below 20 ng/mL is a frank deficiency (that includes in children as well, although anything above 20 ng/mL is considered optimal for pediatrics).

If your blood D levels come in at 29 ng/mL or less, your doctor may prescribe 50,000 international units (IU) for a short course to bring you back up to par. After that, taking anywhere from 1,000-10,000 IUs per day is recommended to keep levels up, of course, those numbers depend on the source. The standard is that you want to bring the numbers above 30 ng/mL, but according to some, optimal levels are above 50-60 ng/mL (this is the range I’d shoot for as I trust these sources, and here).

Obviously, what you need depends on your current levels, so again, getting tested is a must. I want to emphasize that vitamin D is the sun-nutrient, and in my opinion, getting adequate sunlight is the best approach. But I do realize that parts of the world get very little sunlight at various times of the year, so I am a believer in supplementation.

So, there is no easy answer to the “how much vitamin D” question. Get tested, find where you are, and then go from there. Hope that helps.

Vitamin D Supplementation VERY Effective

By On · Add Comment · In cardiomyopathy, diabetes, heart disease, immunosuppressive, increased risk of death, skin cancer, sun exposure, sunscreen, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D supplements

More evidence showing the dangers of vitamin D insufficiency, as a large new study shows that people with low blood concentrations of this vital nutrient are at an increased risk for dying of any cause. Any cause? Yes, and even more startling was that  by simply boosting low levels with vitamin D supplementation it cut peoples’ risk of dying in half.

According to the latest study, which looked at 10,899 patients at the University of Kansas Hospital, 70% were deficient in vitamin D, and they were also at significantly higher risk for a variety of heart diseases, including  hypertension, coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathy and diabetes. D-deficiency also nearly doubled a person’s likelihood of dying, whereas correcting the deficiency with supplements lowered the risk of death by 60%.

rickets_boy

Rickets

These numbers highlight previous research that has shown many North Americans to have insufficient blood levels of vitamin D. While Rickets due to vitamin D deficiency has been well understood for years,  the degree to which blood levels of vitamin D play a role in overall health and well-being is just starting to become clear: We now know that levels falling below 30 ng/ml are incompatible with good health.

According to the latest National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, an estimated 25-57% of adults are vitamin D insufficient, while other studies have suggested the number is as high as 70%.  Cardiologists from the University of Kansas study have found that people deficient in D were more than two times as likely to have diabetes, 40% more likely to have high blood pressure and about 30% more likely to suffer from cardiomyopathy (diseased heart muscle) than people without D deficiency.”We expected to see that there was a relationship between heart disease and vitamin D deficiency; we were surprised at how strong it was,” said Dr. James L. Vacek, a professor of cardiology at the University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center. “It was so much more profound than we expected.”
Vacek believes that so many people are deficient because they aren’t getting enough sun. Humans should get 90% of their vitamin D from the sun, while only getting 10% from food. We need sunlight to make vitamin D in our bodies, so 20 minutes per day is the minimum necessary exposure to maintain proper blood levels. With the fear of skin cancer looming large, many have taken to using sunscreens to reduce total sun exposure.

130571880-18130246

Experts say that in the Northern United States and Canada the sun isn’t strong enough during winter months to make sufficient vitamin D, even if the weather was warm enough to induce people to expose their skin for an extended period. To combat this seasonal deficiency, adults should get vitamin D levels checked by their doctors, and take vitamin D supplements.
This study definitely comes at an opportune time, as many in the medical field have dismissed previous vitamin D research as inconclusive, particularly the role supplements can play in returning the health to normal (or optimal) for those suffering from deficiency. I have wondered  for some time why so many doctors and med-policy stiffs have been so adamant at denying the research results on vitamin D. The only thing I can think of is that they just despise being wrong. I don’t believe it’s a pharmaceutical industry conspiracy necessarily, as many have been wont to do, but purely a clinging to old, outdated beliefs; really that’s the only explanation that makes sense to me, in light of some pretty solid data. I can certainly understand the uncertainty, but many of the previous studies have been well done, and they are vast in number, so really…what’s the problem?
I just think the old guard will never accept that they were wrong about supplementation from the start, no matter how well-intentioned their skepticism might have been; and I think many are wrong today for advocating minimal sun exposure for the masses. Some increases in skin cancer can be from chronic pharmaceutical use, too, you know…particularly medications that are immunosuppressive. It was easy to blame skin cancer on the sun in the past, but that was wrong. The sun is the most life-giving source in the solar system—avoiding it is just unwise. This latest vitamin D study is simply more evidence to support a universal truth.

Oral Steroids Linked to Vit D Deficiency

By On · Add Comment · In osteomalacia, rickets, steroid medication, sun, sunscreen, vitamin D, vitamin D deficiency, vitamin D insufficiency

People that take oral steroid medications, particularly children, could be at an increased risk for serious vitamin D deficiency. So says a recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.  Some conditions people take these drugs for are asthma, certain types of arthritis such as rheumatoid arthritis and autoimmune diseases like Crohn’s disease, lupus and multiple sclerosis.

Researchers looked at nearly 23,000 Americans in a government health survey, and found that those using oral steroid medications were twice as likely as non-users to have a severe vitamin D deficiency. Eleven percent (2,530 people) of those on steroids had a vitamin D level below 10 ng/mL–far below the minimum requirement to remain healthy. That compared with five percent (1,150 people) of study participants not on steroids.

Blood levels of vitamin D lower than 10 ng/mL:

associated with the most severe deficiency diseases: rickets in infants and children, and osteomalacia in adults. A concentration above 15 ng/ml (37.5 nmol/L) is generally considered adequate for those in good health. Levels above 30 ng/ml (75 nmol/L) are proposed by some as desirable for achieving optimum health, but there is not yet enough evidence to support this. ~ Wikipedia (as of 10/31/11)

The link was especially strong among children. Steroid users younger than 18 were 14 times more likely to have a vitamin D deficiency than kids not taking the medications.

The authors of the study point out the findings do not prove causality, but this should alert doctors and parents to keep an eye on vitamin D levels of the children taking these drugs.  Something else parents can do is make sure their children are out in the sun as much as possible. Some parents may inadvertently keep their asthmatic kids indoors, but I think this is a mistake. Lots of sunshine is necessary for the production of vitamin D. At the very least, the inhaler should be countered each time with a good vitamin D supplement.

As the severity of vitamin D insufficiency in North America is dismissed, data showing its pervasiveness continues to accumulate.  The smart reader will continue to get plenty of sun-screen free sun, and supplement if necessary (not so for those getting sun daily). And making sure that if you or your child are on oral steroids, you get your blood vitamin D levels checked.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.