Vitamin D

I've had my vitD level checked/tested 3 times in the last year.
The first time, March 2025, it was 30 ng/mL
my research indicates to me:
healthy Vit D level = 40-100 ng/mL, so I started taking 1 of the pictured caps twice/wk.
Too much Vit D, > 100 ng/mL = unhealthy
In Oct of 2025 I tested again and it was 104, then again Feb 2026 = 113 ng/mL.
So, I've backed off to 1 cap/wk.
I'll test again in a few months
Your results may vary

Again, my research indicates to me:
no or low Vit D ng/mL level = no or low immune system
sunlight exposure = > Vit D uptake
a healthy metabolism = > Vit D uptake from diet, supplements, etc

I'm metabolically healthy these days. I wasn't a yr ago when I tested 30 ng/mL. I get a lot of sunlight exposure. All my exercise, lawncare, gardening is outdoors. I never use sunscreen. I never get sunburned.
Your results may vary.
Vit-D.webp

Vita D.webp
 
Last edited:
I've had my vitD level checked/tested 3 times in the last year.
The first time, March 2025, it was 30 ng/mL
my research indicates to me:
healthy Vit D level = 40-100 ng/mL, so I started taking 1 of the pictured caps twice/wk.
Too much Vit D, > 100 ng/mL = unhealthy
In Oct of 2025 I tested again and it was 104, then again Feb 2026 = 113 ng/mL.
So, I've backed off to 1 cap/wk.
I'll test again in a few months
Your results may vary

Again, my research indicates to me:
no or low Vit D ng/mL level = no or low immune system
sunlight exposure = > Vit D uptake
a healthy metabolism = > Vit D uptake from diet, supplements, etc

I get a lot of sunlight exposure. All my exercise, lawncare, gardening is outdoors. I never use sunscreen. I never get sunburned.
Your results may vary.
View attachment 325076
View attachment 325077
Yeah, 50,000 IU should be considered a megadose. About 10 or 20x the amount in most D3 supplements.
 
William David MD discussing Vit D and its role in lowering of Calcium Scores:

To those who don't want to watch the video:

The video presents that cholesterol testing is an outdated and useless concept for assessing heart disease risk (2:18-2:20). The speaker claims that optimal medical therapy, which includes statin drugs and low-fat diets, has no impact on the progression of coronary calcium scores or atherosclerotic plaque, which typically grows at 25% per year (11:21-11:29).

Instead, the crucial importance of vitamin D is highlighted. The speaker states that by addressing vitamin D deficiency and raising 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels to 60 to 70 nanograms per milliliter, it was the first time he observed actual reductions in coronary calcium scores and soft plaque (15:38-16:05, 16:37-16:42, 16:55-17:06). Vitamin D also offers other benefits such as reducing insulin resistance, improving arterial relaxation, raising HDL, reducing triglycerides, and lowering blood glucose and blood pressure,

Taking 8000 IU could get you to the 60-70 ng/mL level But of course this depends on many factors like your size and weight etc.
 
Yeah, 50,000 IU should be considered a megadose. About 10 or 20x the amount in most D3 supplements.
50,000 IU is a prescription strength amount and is available with a prescription. I wouldn't use something with that amount coming from a vitamin store. You just don't know what you are getting. When a doctor prescribes it , the dosage is one every week for six weeks. Then you get retested. It is not meant for long term use. Longer use likely will get levels up into the toxic region.
 
Last edited:
I'm bemused by some of the high D3 dosages being mentioned.

In the UK the NHS recommended dosage for winter use is only 400 IU so that's what I take. I reckon to get a minimum additional 200 IU from food intake. My wife was put on D3 by prescription and that is only 1000 IU.

If these dosages are not enough then the NHS doctors and guidance are wrong.
 
I'm bemused by some of the high D3 dosages being mentioned.

In the UK the NHS recommended dosage for winter use is only 400 IU so that's what I take. I reckon to get a minimum additional 200 IU from food intake. My wife was put on D3 by prescription and that is only 1000 IU.

If these dosages are not enough then the NHS doctors and guidance are wrong.
There's been a lot of correlational studies that show that, on average, people with a number of diseases and health conditions are more likely to have low blood levels of D. The hope is that raising D levels through supplementation will improve outcomes. The issue is that it's relatively difficult to significantly raise one's D levels through supplementation and it requires fairly high doses over a period of time. Plus, the more body fat one has, the longer it takes.
 
In regard to K2, one doctor told me it was important only for blood-clotting in newborns. Seriously! As far as nutrition goes, doctors have on average received no more than 11 hours of education on that topic in medical school. 11 hours isn't much. I have had more than 11 hours in sensitivity training and how has that worked out? 🤣

That's 10 hours and 55 minutes longer than I've looked into it.
 
I'm bemused by some of the high D3 dosages being mentioned.

In the UK the NHS recommended dosage for winter use is only 400 IU so that's what I take. I reckon to get a minimum additional 200 IU from food intake. My wife was put on D3 by prescription and that is only 1000 IU.

If these dosages are not enough then the NHS doctors and guidance are wrong.
Have you tested your blood? You are 5° or so north of me and in the winter here it's seemingly impossible to get enough sunlight to produce much D3 - especially in folks over 60 years or so.

To address the dosage, I won't say your NHS is wrong, but they are only half right. They are likely addressing minimums for bone health, which is fine, but not optimal for all the other roles D3 plays which are quite important.

It's longer to toxicity than we are scared to believe is another factor, BUT the answer to all this: You must be tested to have any idea of what direction to go. Anything else is just guessing.
 
Back
Top Bottom