re: Vitamin D
Most scientific studies are false. Experts cannot be trusted. But read my comments below too.
See also: Vitamin D in foods and as supplements
Vitamin D supplements are currently recommended at a dose of 600 international units (IU) per day by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), alongside a warning about potential toxicities if people take more.
But for some people, supplementing with what would be seen as a very high dose of vitamin D every day may reap health benefits rather than toxicities, experts suggest.
In 2019, board-certified internist Dr. Patrick McCullough published a report on the experiences of three patients who were taking high doses of 20,000 to 60,000 IUs of vitamin D daily for many years, all three of whom have since seen significant health improvements.
...The reference suggests a daily intake of 600 IU to reach a serum level of 20 ng/ml vitamin D in the blood—an adequate amount. It set an upper tolerable limit of 4,000 IUs per day; therefore, any dosage higher than that would be considered a high dose.
Yet some experts believe that the current recommendations are not sufficient for optimal health.
McCullough argued that “the current doses recommended by the IOM are sub-physiologic,” meaning that they are below the natural needs of the body. Instead, McCullough proposed that 10,000 IUs a day would be the adequate physiologic dose.
WIND: I’m not signed up for the claims made, which is not a statement that they are wrong/false—who can say whether in specific cases whether benefits are real. We would need a proper trial for that, and that’s the issue: when specific individuals can benefit, but others do not, the results will be touted as a failure. Or be designed to fail by choice of subjects. After all, who would favor of a low-cost and effective dietary supplement that might cut into profit margins of the the Big Medicine assembly line gravy train?
For me and for you, N=1 tests are all that matter if improvement is seen. And I don’t care if it’s the placebo effect.
RDA of Vitamin D is a joke—RDA is a bare minimum for health, not optimal health. IThe government persists in recommending RDA as entirely sufficient for all sorts of nutrients, when in fact it is likely to cause all sorts of subclinical issues. A perfect fit for prescription meds to bandaid-over the fundamental issue of nutritional deficiencies. That’s how modern medicine works.
Sunlight is not enough. Now in my late 50’s, even with 90 minutes of summer sunlight mid-day, I cannot get my Vitamin D levels beyond about 42, only somewhat better than winter, where it will fall into the 30's without supplementation. In other words, my aging body is making poor use of even robust mid-summer mid-day sunlight. Sunlight has other photobiomodulation benefits, but Vitamin D production is marginal for me at this point.
Boosting with supplementation. As an experiment last fall, I supplemented with 20000 IU for 3 months (Oct - Dec). This raised my Vitamin D levels from 42 to 82 ng/mL. (Note: always take Vitamin K2 and magnesium along with extra cholecalciferol (Vitamin D3) or you will steadily deposit excess calcium deposited into your body, e.g. arteries and brain and bladder, etc. My health steadily improved very poor energy in late September to steadily better into December. I dropped it to 5000 IU in early January, and things declined. Coincidence? Probably, but I am going to repeat the experiment because right now things suck in terms of energy.