So, blood levels of vitamin D3 are probably as important if not more than the dosing as blood levels give a better idea of the vitamin D3 status of an individual. Let’s look closer at blood levels that were not really considered as treatment basis.
Think about that! As in this VITAL study selected men 50 and older and women 55 and older. This according to a Winter 2018 article in the magazine Holistic Primary Care written by Erik Goldman and Becky Wright. 1, 2
Thus, it is likely both these groups were coming into the study with low vitamin D3 blood levels, low possibly for decades. Also, what time of the year as levels typically will be lower than in winter then summer.
This article also states that in the 15,787 participants who had blood samples taken initially the 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcifediol and blood storage form) average blood level was 30.8 +/- 10.0 ng/ml. They further state in most cases, those taking the high dose arm of the study the 2,000IUs/day dose had their blood levels eventually exceed 40ng/ml.
Though there is no mention as to how many reached this level nor how high their levels reached. They did state that 32.2% of the group started at 20-30 ng/ml. They do not state nor; can I find how many if any started out below 20 ng/ml or above 30 ng/ml. 30 ng/ml is considered the minimal blood level the Institute of medicine considers normal.
Nor do they explain how they came to decide 2,000 IUs is a high dose. Thus, starting out with a huge range of blood levels, no explanation of how they chose what they considered a high dose and then using what I consider essentially minimally useful blood levels and doses, these facts alone totally negates the study.
When studying a substance like vitamin D3 that has a blood level why would you not focus on assuring that everyone had at some point close to the same blood levels? If as the “experts” which they appear to represent argue we need only 30 ng/ml blood level why would you not better lay out your study?
For example, why did they not choose, say those with below “normal” blood levels, say below 30 ng/ml. If as they argue that vitamin D3 has such minimal effects, then surely, they could lump that group together. That group say versus those who maintained say high blood levels, say above 80 ng/ml? Why 80 ng/ml?
Because many labs did, and some may still list levels above 100 ng/ml as possibly toxic. No, I have shown that is not a toxic level but at least they could be consistent by using what is in common use! Thus, by using 80 ng/ml they would allow plenty of room to still be below the 100 ng/ml levels.
As anyone who has ever tried to raise a patient’s vitamin D3 blood level knows it takes a lot for a long time to significantly raise the level and that is shown by the currently accepted treatment for vitamin D deficiency in US.
Which is 50,000 IUs of vitamin D once a week for 6-8 weeks then treating with 2,000 IUs until “normal”. That to achieve a 30 ng/ml minimal blood level. That is 300,000 to 400,000 IUs over 6-8 weeks. Not a small amount for such a supposedly dangerous vitamin! If I had set up such a study as a freshman at UT I would have received an F.
It is like studying a group of people with the extremes from some of whom are starving to death and others who are morbidly obese and then saying putting them on a calorie restricted diet is deadly. That is after not considering that a third of the test group was starving to death and after placing them on a calorie restricted diet which then killed most of those who were already starving!
- Keaney JF, Rosen CJ. (January 3, 2019) VITAL Signs for Dietary Supplementation to prevent Cancer and Heart Disease. N Engl J Med. 380:91-93.
- Goldman E, Wright B. Vital Study Casts Shade on Sunshine Vitamin’s Benefits. Holistic Primary Care. Winter 2018. Pg. 2.
*The information posted above is for educational purposes only. Always check with your doctor before initiating any changes in your medical treatment. If you do not, then The Two-Minute Health Fact, Dr. Judson Somerville, nor The Optimal Dose is responsible!