10,000 units of vitamin D

Joanne started with a 25-hydroxy vitamin D level of 23 ng/ml--severe deficiency.

What made this starting value even worse was that it was drawn in August after a moderately sunny summer spent outdoors. (Last summer, not this summer.) It therefore represented her high for the year, since vitamin D levels trend lower as fall and winter set in. This suggests that her winter level was likely in the teens or even single digits. In addition, note that, at age 43, Joanne has lost much of her ability to activate vitamin D in the skin.

So I advised that she take 6000 units of an oil-based gelcap per day, a dose likely to generate the desired blood level, which I believe is 60-70 ng/ml.

Four months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 39.9 ng/ml--still too low. So I advised her to increase her dose to 10,000 units per day. Several months later, her 25-hydroxy vitamin D level: 63.8 ng/ml--perfect.

However, on hearing that she was taking 10,000 units vitamin D per day, Joanne's primary care physician was shocked: "What? Stop that immediately! You're taking a toxic dose!" So Joanne called me to find out if this was true.

No, of course it's not true. It's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level it generates. Although it varies, vitamin D toxicity, as evidenced by increased blood calcium levels, generally does not even begin to get underway until at least 120-130 ng/ml, perhaps higher. Rarely, a dose of 2000 units per day will generate a level this high. In others, it may require 24,000 or more units per day to generate such a high level.

So it's not the dose that's toxic, but the blood level of 25-hydroxy vitamin D it generates.

Provided you and/or your doctor are monitoring 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood levels, the dose is immaterial. It's the blood level you're interested in.

Comments (47) -

  • Pater_Fortunatos

    8/2/2010 8:06:19 PM |

    There is a romanian guy that promotes healthy life style with low carb and other paleo ideas.


    On his forum, a schizo girl was asking about suplemments, but she was really amazed by Dr Davis prescriptions, 6000 UI/zi, she said that NowFoods recomand a 5000 UI gelcap /3 days.

    But Cristian (the body builder from the link) replies:

    "It happened that I had once 100.000 UI on a day of vitamin D. Yes, one hundred thousands! When you try to adjust the level for certain deficencies, the therapeuthical doses can be a lot higher than the usual doses, that look like jokes for healthy people."

    Readind the article that Dr Davis just published, I assume he has a point, but 100.000 on a day!?!

  • Anonymous

    8/2/2010 8:16:33 PM |

    hi Dr. Davis

    could you sum up the benefits of vitamin d for non heart patients?

    im in early twenties and have my vit d at 18!

    i feel normal. what can i expect with higher blood levels of this vitamin?

    i have some source naturals 2000 ui powdered caps is that effective?


  • enliteneer

    8/2/2010 8:49:12 PM |

    There is evidence to suggest a correlation between high circulating Vitamin D blood levels (>40ng/ml) and rare cancers (pancreatic, etc):





  • Anonymous

    8/2/2010 9:05:48 PM |

    My Vit. D level 2 years ago was 42, I started supplementing with 6K per day.  I retested this spring and had decreased to 41.  

    I was amazed and confused.

    After some communications with the Vit. D council,  I found out that the Tretinoin Cream I was using for my splotching skin was interfering with absorption of Vit. D.

    I have since stopped the cream, increased to 12K per day and get 1 hour of sun without any sunscreen.
    I am sure my Dermatologist won't be happy with my tan.

  • aurelia

    8/2/2010 11:22:05 PM |

    Did you call her PCP?

  • steve

    8/3/2010 12:54:59 AM |

    2 questions about vitamin d. Should I take it in the summer months. I work outside all day long? Whats the differences between vitamin d with cod liver oil  and without ? thanks...

  • Tommy

    8/3/2010 1:11:35 AM |

    What about taking Vitamin A to counter balance Vitamin D?

  • Patricia Dillavou

    8/3/2010 3:45:24 AM |

    It has been determined that toxicity concerns for VD3 occur somewhere around 200 ng/ml.  (www.grassrootshealth.net)

    Vitamin D experts recommend between 70-90 ng/ml depending on the doctor.  Some even higher. For instance - Dr. Cannell of The Vitamin D Council (www.vitamindcouncil.org) recommends at least 90-100 ng/ml for cancer survivors.

    Dr. Cannell is also on the board of GRH - both non-profit advocacy groups promoting the health benefits of VD3.

    Grassroots Health is running a five year study on VD3 that is well worth joining.  Anyone can join - find the details at their website.

  • Patricia Dillavou

    8/3/2010 3:54:18 AM |

    Dr. Cannell warns that vitamin A "antagonizes the action" of VD3.  He says you don't need to supplement with vitamin A outside of a good diet.

    Not quite halfway down in this newsletter post:

  • Sara

    8/3/2010 4:07:00 AM |

    I read a study recently where they measured the actual amount of vit. D present in various name brands. They varied in strength from 1% to 82%.
    That's very weak on the mfgs. part and would only encourage the use of prescription D.
    Here is the link:

  • Pat D.

    8/3/2010 4:08:36 AM |

    Enliteener - a quote from the study at the second link you provide:
    ( 7). Ecologic data are not supportive of a strong positive association between vitamin D and pancreatic cancer as sunnier regions do not have higher rates of pancreatic cancer. In fact, the opposite is true, in the United States, relatively high pancreatic cancer rates are observed in states where UV exposure is low.

  • vlado2020

    8/3/2010 11:46:08 AM |

    as much I respect dr. Davis he is like all the docs obsessed with numbers and stability and "safety". Unfortunatelly it ignores the basic properties of vitamin D which is an essential , perhaps most important hormone in all the living beings. First of all , vitamin D gets activated in kidneys first and if kidneys get saturated in tissues where all the healing properties of vitamin D occur. Second of all , there is a reason why oral supplementation is possible throughout life as opposed to simple skin synthesis. Then our bodies can absorb much more orally at once than through the skin which leads me to believe that we are designed to take much larger doses at once to correct deficiencies. Lastly vitamin D is fat soluble so it stays with you for 2 months at least. Having said all that , it doesn't make any sense to supplement every day with lesser doses than you can synthesize in the skin or to follow some magical numbers.
    I have dealt with a very stubborn case of psoriasis for 3 years but in a few days I am taking a big vitamin D experiment, 30 days / 500 000 IU daily, 15 million in a month. Indeed if you search google archives you can find newspaper clippings from 30's and 40's when doctors were more liberal and less obsessed with money of such doses reversing psoriasis and arthritis and other auto immune conditions.

  • MissPkm

    8/3/2010 2:16:13 PM |

    Dr Davis, A great post yet again. I guess that is the one single line I have forgotten to tell people "it is not the dose, it is the blood level that matter"!! GREAT! Thank you.

    There is a big concern for supplements on the market as they are not being checked by any agencies, and just like Dr Davis previous have been reporting on - some Vitamin D3 over the counter are not what they say they are. However in this study that you refer to (the part that I was able to read) they do not list the name brands or the type of Vitamin D (pill, gel cap, liquid) as that also plays a big role. I think it is a big separation from the message in the report of saying to only take Vitamin D2 (which is the prescription vitamin D) when we know D2 is not natural to us humans nor is it better. I suggest you read a little bit more about D2 and D3 before deciding what is best for you.

  • Ned Kock

    8/3/2010 5:00:11 PM |

    Hello Dr. Davis.

    Let me point out a few things based on research on vitamin D. Not all agree with what you said in your post, but then again you may well be right and the research wrong:

    - Indeed, toxicity signs do not seem to occur until one reaches the 50,000 IU/d level of intake.

    - Among the elderly (i.e., those aged 65 or above) pre-sunburn full-body exposure to sunlight is equivalent to an oral vitamin D intake of 218 µg (8,700 IU). That is close to 90 percent of what a 20-year-old would produce.

    - People on average will plateau at 130 nmol/L, after months of 10,000 IU/d supplementation. That is 52 ng/mL. Assuming a normal distribution with a standard deviation of about 20 percent the peak mean (a rough guesstimate), one would expect 68 percent of the population to be in the 42 to 63 ng/mL range. That might be the range most of us should expect to be in at an intake of 10,000 IU/d.

    As we know, some people are outliers. A person who is two standard deviations above the mean would be at around 73 ng/mL. Three SDs above the mean would be 83 ng/mL. These are outliers; non-average people.

    There are other factors that may have affected the results for this patient. Being overweight tends to reduce D levels. Sunscreen also does that. Excess cortisol may also be affecting D levels.

    Below are two links with more details:



  • stop smoking help

    8/3/2010 6:56:15 PM |

    I wonder what levels are found in smokers? I know smokers aren't supposed to supplement with beta-carotene as it statistically increases their risk of developing lung cancer.

    What about vitamin D? Is there any data on this as it relates to people who smoke cigarettes or other tobacco products?

  • Anonymous

    8/3/2010 9:57:45 PM |

    This is so off topic, but for some reason I cannot find the Pharmax website for fish oil. Can anyone help?  Thank you
    From an old person who is not tech savvy.

  • Matthew

    8/3/2010 11:01:03 PM |

    There is a graph of vitamin D blood levels on the video by Dr. Michael Holl+
    ick that shows the knee of the runaway blood levels is around 10,000 IU per day, and he recommends no more than that on an ongoing basis.

    For me, 5000 iu per day stopped my gums from bleeding when I brushed, and ended decades of dysthymia.


  • Anonymous

    8/5/2010 6:21:19 PM |

    Dr Davis,
    You are absolutely right that "it is not the dose, it is the blood level that matters”. But, what about the blood level of calcium? One of the causes of the toxicity of Vit D is that it may cause high calcium levels in blood. So, should we not measure also the calcium level, and if it is high then should we not stop taking D, even though  its blood level may be normal or low? Thank you.

  • Ganesh

    8/6/2010 8:17:05 AM |

    How does a dosage of Vitamin D3 supplementation totaling 2,260,000 IU over 56 days averaging daily to about 40,000 IU sound?? Resulting in a blood level of 239.0 ng/mL?? This is no fiction...but my personal experience...and I have never felt more better since then! I got rid of my pre-diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and other fancy new-age potential diseases...  Read all about it at gkwellness.wordpress.com.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/6/2010 9:16:15 AM |

    Perhaps it would be well for others to read what Dr Cannell has to say about massive doses of vitamin D.

    Warning: If you intend to take massive doses of vitamin D based on this newsletter, which I highly recommend you do not, read the entire newsletter. In addition, accurate determination of side effects of massive doses of vitamin D was not available in the early 1930s, nor was accurate determination of the true amount in each pill possible.

    You'll find the Vitamin D Council newsletter at this link.
    Gary Null and Vitamin D Toxicity

  • Josh

    8/6/2010 12:44:21 PM |

    I've been taking 10,000 IUs a day for the last 3 months.  Got my results back today:  I went from 51ng/dL to 65 ng/dL.  I eat strictly paleo and I also get regular sun.  I expected a greater increase.  I also had a CMP run to check for hypercalcemia - all good.

  • Anonymous

    8/7/2010 1:03:50 AM |

    I recently went to a doctor for pre-diabetes and high cholestrol and found my vitamin d level is 17 and I am breastfeeding. Does anyone know what a safe amount would be for me to take. I am taking 5000 d3, liquid dropper full. I am very tan, and out in the sun...why am I not absorbing or making the hormone? My crp level was 24, they said that wasn;t normal. Could this be a effect of this wheat allergy I am reading about? What do you think Dr. Davis?

  • Jimmy Moore

    8/7/2010 11:12:16 AM |

    I too got the same reaction from my doctor when I told him I take 10,000IU daily.  But I HAVE to in order to reach that optimal level you're talking about.  Two years ago my D3 was 42, so I went on a 6-month Vitamin D3 gelcaps regimen to get it up to 68.  Wanting to find the balance of how much to take, I backed off to 6,000IU for about 8 months and my D3 level dropped back down to 50.  So I've been on 10,000IU daily again for the past 8 months and look forward to seeing my levels return into the 60s where they need to be.  THANK YOU Dr. Davis for leading the way on this important issue.  My wife Christine had a D3 level of 9 before starting 10,000IU herself--today her D3 is 54 and she's completely off of her Paxil medicine.  WOO HOO!

  • Anonymous

    8/8/2010 6:57:56 PM |

    I can't find the link but I recall reading something, possibly by Dr. Cannell urging people who are taking higher quantities of vitamin D to ALSO take extra Magnesium and Potassium to prevent kidney stones(which may occur with higher dosing of Vitamin D).

    If this is the case, how much mag and potassium should one take to prevent stones?

  • Neonomide

    8/11/2010 9:58:48 PM |

    Vitamin D3 decreased relapse rate by 50% in Crohn's disease patients in a 12 month randomized controlled trial:


    I knew this for almost two years already and got to ditch my meds, just by taking enough Vitamin D3. If everything in healthcare was this simple we would not have major healthcare problems, yes ?

  • mike V

    8/21/2010 4:56:17 PM |

    Dr D.
    It has probably by now come to your attention that there is some evidence for a U shaped mortality curve with vitamin D in elderly men, esp cancer.

    Here is one report:
    *Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study.*

    Michaëlsson K, Baron JA, Snellman G, Gedeborg R, Byberg L, Sundström J, Berglund L, Arnlöv J, Hellman P, Blomhoff R, Wolk A, Garmo H, Holmberg L, Melhus H.

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Aug 18. [Epub ahead of print]PMID: 20720256 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]Related citations

    My suspicion is that it may  be related to insufficent vitamin K2, which of course may relate to typical elderly diets.

    Please comment, and/or refer us to earlier comments you may have made.
    Thank you
    Mike V

  • TedHutchinson

    8/21/2010 10:39:36 PM |

    How to Optimize Vitamin D Supplementation to Prevent Cancer, Based on Cellular Adaptation and Hydroxylase Enzymology
    At the most northerly latitudes such as Sweden, where the study Mike V linked to was done and Finland where P Tuohimaa has reported similar findings, we have to appreciate the people with the highest vitamin D status probably have the largest changes in status over the year.
    Vieth provides a hypothesis that explains how people with extreme changes in status experience longer periods of imbalance between the forces controlling cell proliferation.
    Vieth suggests keeping 25(OH)D BOTH HIGH and STABLE is the safest option that way there is little or no CHANGE in status through the year, so no periods where dis-regulation of the counterbalancing forces could occur.

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 11:50:44 PM |


    If I'm reading what you posted correctly, Vieth is indicating that one should maintain higher serum d-levels year round as opposed to allowing them fluctuate?

  • Anonymous

    8/22/2010 11:53:29 PM |

    I'm sure this has been asked before but what's a suitable dosing strategy for someone who just flat out refuses to get their 25(OH)D3 levels checked? My brother is 28, I've convinced him to start supplementing with vitamin D but her refuses to go to the doctor to get blood drawn and when I suggested he order a kit online and do it himself he looked at me like I was crazy.

    I have him on average taking 5000 to 6000 units per day.


  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 9:39:52 AM |

    @ Vieth is indicating that one should maintain higher serum d-levels year round as opposed to allowing them fluctuate?

    Vieth says so long as serum 25(OH)D concentrations are in a phase of decline, there can be no full achievement of tissue 1,25(OH)2D to match its ideal set-point concentration.

    There have been a couple of papers recently showing ANNUAL vitamin D supplementation (raising status with high intakes before winter) only makes matters worse because it creates a longer period of declining 25(OH)D.

    Note also that because Ergocalciferol has a shorter half life than D3 it amplifies this problem so should be avoided.

    Supplementing DAILY or WEEKLY reduces the potential for fluctuation so are ideal but fortnightly or even monthly supplementation with D3 probably avoid the periods of declining status, if the person concerned really isn't capable of more regular dosing.

    The amount of vitamin D made in the skin varies with 25(OH)D status This reduces the summer rise in status but if you get lots of sun in summer (unlike the UK)it may be sensible to REDUCE (but not stop) vitamin D supplements while you are also getting near full body sun exposure, and then resume the full amount of supplementation as soon as sun exposure reduces.

    I think people who live furthest from the equator have to be particularly careful when taking winter sun holidays in the tropics.
    As Vitamin D is itself photoprotective it's worth supplementing with vitamin D before a winter sun break rather than relying on the holiday sun to raise status. Then reduce intake while sunning in the tropics but resume supplementation as soon as you return. Careful supplementation increases serum 25(OH)D concentrations and reduces the effect of the seasonal amplitude in 25(OH)D on the tissue fluctuations in 1,25(OH)2D.

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 10:11:13 AM |

    @ Mike
    Grassrootshealth graph of typical responses to various vitamin D intakes

    Startling Findings About Vitamin D Levels in Life Extension® Members

    The graphs at the above links show 5000~6000iu/daily gets most people above insufficiency status and doesn't raise status above a safe amount.

    The range of response to regular D3 supplements is about 100ng/ml so without a few 25(OH)D tests it's impossible for anyone to say if you're at the lowest or highest end of that response scale.

    If you're diabetic or celiac then it's likely you're a poor responder but there are people reading this with inflammatory conditions who've taken very modest vitamin D3 amounts but had extremely high 25(OH)D test results.

    It's so simple to put a couple of drops of blood on a test strip and post if off that I'm surprised everyone doesn't get it done.

    Once you've had a few tests done you can more or less predict what the result will be, but there have been instances where people have changed brands of D3, been tested and discovered problems.

    Only if you've had a test can you be certain the brand/batch/amount/dosing regime of D3 you are taking is working for you.

  • mike V

    8/23/2010 1:30:20 PM |

    Thanks for the helpful posts, Ted.
    Is it your interpretation that variability still remains important, even if one's 25(OH)D does not fall below say 30 or 40 ng/mL over the year, or do you think the the lower excursion limit would have to drop to a deficient level at least for a part of the year? It would seem to me that storage in body fat would be a consideration in minimizing variability.
    Have you come across any studies on U curve effects  performed at lower latitudes, or perhaps on those supplementing?

    I am a vintage Brit, living in the "Deep South", and whose last readings were between 60 and 70 ng/ml so I have no personal concerns.
    Last winter I was using 8000iu, but I drop back to 4-6000 in the Summer months, when we typically have highs between 90 and 100F.
    FWIW I have been gradually escalating my dose over a period of more than 10 years. Now in 75th year.
    Mike V

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 2:01:16 PM |

    @ It would seem to me that storage in body fat would be a consideration in minimizing variability. I agree.
    Bear in mind we don't see significant stored D3 reserves below 40ng/ml but at 50~60ng/ml reserves are measurable.
    I stay around 60ng/ml with 5000iu/d + regular full body UVB/SUN exposure.
    I'm not aware of any data on Ushaped curve at lower latitudes or with people maintaining a steady state 25(OH)D by avoiding declines in 25(OH)D.
    I'd be more than willing to participate in any trial, providing I'm assured of remaining on the high end arm of the study.

  • mike V

    8/23/2010 2:56:12 PM |

    Thank you.
    One more question.
    It appears that UVB/sun exposure is useful way to 'top off' supplementation in a natural or controlled way.
    Seems we evolved our African metabolisms getting a heavy daily full body dose.

    Are you aware of any data suggesting that UVB sourced D has any other advantages over presumingly well managed supplementation?
    Thanks again
    I appreciate your awareness of, and facility at quoting relevant studies.
    Mike V

  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 6:42:53 PM |

    Ted, you bring up an interesting point regarding different dosing methods. Here's a study comparing daily vs. weekly vs. monthly dosing of D3.


  • Anonymous

    8/23/2010 7:28:43 PM |

    Seasonal fluctuations may be of importance but the overall 25(OH)D levels still seem most important.

    The Framingham Study data and other papers have already pointed out that not only total mortality, but also bone health seems best in about 35-40 ng/ml, not more. Similarly, not-so-rare cancers like in prostate and pancreas (kills practically everyone) may well increase in susceptiple populations ie in smokers.

    There are also racial differences that may be of huge importance. Not only CHD risk and 25(OH)D does follow the skin color pretty closely, but native Africans also have rather low 25(OH)D levels which perhaps explains the association. Even doctor Cannell wrote previously about this:

    "Dr. Freedman and his Wake forest colleagues measured vitamin D levels and plaque (the build-up in your arteries) on 340 diabetic, obese (BMI 35) African Americans and found higher vitamin D levels were associated with more plaque build up in the arteries."


    Infants in Nigeria have much higher 25(OH)D levels, yet as Nigerian people get older, their 25(OH)D levels drop a lot.

    I'd imagine that tremendous UVB exposure for decades makes it progressively harder to make Vitamin D and that seems to be the simplest explanation. Elderly white-skinned people may on the other hand make a lot more Vit D as a recent study shows. I'd die to know if the same works out for native Africans as well - which I very much doubt.

    Vitamin D has tens of metabolites that form only in the skin. This may be the single biggest challenge to the claim that Vitamin D supplementation fixes "everything".

    A quick googling on a wide array of problems people have had when supplementing more than 2000 IU a day is dazzling. So D3 may be a wonder vitamin, but it's benefits are dose dependent and probably highly dependent of other nutriotional factors as well, since D3 affects the absorption of minerals, expression of hundreds of genes and so on.

    Food rep

  • TedHutchinson

    8/23/2010 10:47:56 PM |

    @ you bring up an interesting point regarding different dosing methods ...Comparison of Daily, Weekly, and Monthly Vitamin D3
    Perhaps that is because I regard the natural level at which humans produce vitamin D replete breast milk, achieve 25(OH)D equilibrium and maintain a stored reserve of vitamin d3 as ideal, not the level used in that study that barely ever provides sufficient even for basic daily needs.

    Health professionals may aim for a level that maximises health service interventions. I want a level that minimises my need to use those services.

    Bankers make more money from people who frequently use overdraft and loan services. I prefer to save up, keep a reserve of cash in an instant access savings account, only every pay cash and get discounted prices.

    You may be happy to manage your Vitamin D account without ever having any spare reserves available for emergency use but IMO that is neither prudent or safe.

    Why on earth would your skin produce 10~20000iu in a relatively short time if only 1500iu were required?

  • mike V

    8/24/2010 1:39:15 AM |

    Food Rep:
    Suggest you take as a baseline levels that are thought to be closer to the equatorial 25(OH)D blood levels we evolved with. Not minimal levels to mitigate some particular symptom or disease.
      Yes, achieving this goal largely by supplements, can be complicated depending on skin color, genetics, latitude, age, body fat, but in my judgment it is well worth achieving, and it will become easier as time goes on.

    IMHO, Ted and Dr Davis have it about right.

    Do you visit www.grassrootshealth.net?
    If not I recommend you do so... soon. IMHO there is not a more authoritative resource on this topic.
    Mike V
    By the way, vitamin D does not *cause* calcification. It does enable homeostasis.

  • Anonymous

    8/24/2010 2:51:38 PM |


    I only posted that study above to show that different dosing schedules (daily, weekly, monthly) all seem like viable approaches in maintaining 25(OH)D3 levels granted you are consistent with it. I wasn't trying to suggest that the actual doses they were administering were adequate.

  • Anonymous

    8/25/2010 4:45:49 PM |

    I just trying to have ripped abs.  I am not taking any supplements or anything like that but the literature here suggests that taking some substances could actually have an adverse affect on your body even though they are supposed to be healthy.

  • mike V

    8/26/2010 6:29:59 PM |

    Ted, Dr D.
    I suggest that vitamin 2K should be considered in association with Vitamin D where the cancer mortality curve is in question.
    note: I believe I am right insaying that the first 15 references cited in this article relate to cancer.

    Mike V

  • max

    9/25/2010 7:50:35 AM |

    good article.

  • Anonymous

    10/30/2010 4:40:15 PM |

    I recently did the Vitamin D Council blood spot test. It cost $70.00 including shipping I think. It was painful and two weeks later, my finger still hurts. If I ever do another blood spot test, I'll try to draw blood from my forearm, although the test requires at least 2 large blood drops. I have no results yet. I am 114 lbs and take 2400 IU a day (softgels). I don't really plan to test ever again, especially on my finger, so I'll play it safe and keep my level around 40. Obviously, I'll have to adjust accordingly, once I get the results. I don't have the luxury of a good doctor. Doctors around here are virtually useless.

  • Anonymous

    1/21/2011 5:19:23 PM |

    Hi there,
    Been researching Vit D here on the heartscan blog and others such as Vit D counsil, Dr. Ben Kims' site,getting good info to stay away from D2 of course.
      But this site, "The Peoples Chemist"- Shane Ellison and blog poster "Chuck" say we all should stay away from any man-made D3(sheep wool) included. They back it up stating specific chemical biological changes in the body.  They say it just isn't the same and can do more harm in the long run. The site states basically that we should be using only food for Vit D3. meats, eggs, cod-liver oil(w/o the vitamins depleted or added)ect...
       This is real important for all of us if this is true.  Please Heart scan Bloggers/Dr. Davis read the info @ Vit D on Shanes site... Thanks

  • Anonymous

    1/21/2011 5:19:47 PM |

    Hi there,
    Been researching Vit D here on the heartscan blog and others such as Vit D counsil, Dr. Ben Kims' site,getting good info to stay away from D2 of course.
      But this site, "The Peoples Chemist"- Shane Ellison and blog poster "Chuck" say we all should stay away from any man-made D3(sheep wool) included. They back it up stating specific chemical biological changes in the body.  They say it just isn't the same and can do more harm in the long run. The site states basically that we should be using only food for Vit D3. meats, eggs, cod-liver oil(w/o the vitamins depleted or added)ect...
       This is real important for all of us if this is true.  Please Heart scan Bloggers/Dr. Davis read the info @ Vit D on Shanes site... Thanks

  • Lynn D

    9/20/2012 10:32:05 PM |

    If our vite D levels show up low 20every year ,even when take 4000/day, then
    are we not absorbing or are we using it up. It sounds like some websearch showed up maybe
    additional testing such as also 1,25 OH in additon to the 25OH
    Thanks for any info