September 11. 2009 12:15

I was told by my Dr. to take Vitamin D 2000 units per day as it was at a low level.  I have Fibromyalgia and I started V D3.  Is this the correct one?  I never there was more than one.

annieb

September 27. 2009 12:59

Hi, I just read this article and am confused about which form of Vitamin D to take.  I bought a childrens chewable and it has vitamin D2, is this safe?  

Rachel

October 30. 2009 09:03

@Rachel, It takes very high amounts of vitamin D2 to be harmful. Your kids would have to eat the whole bottle and maybe more than that to be injured by it. But D3 is better absorbed and would do them more good. Right now what they're getting in the kids' vitamins isn't enough to do anything to them, good OR bad. I give my boys (2 and 4 yrs old) standard chewable kids vitamins that includes ~400 IU daily, but since that's nowhere near enough for kids who live in northern New England I also give them 2000 IU in vit D drops from Carlson Labs, you can order them online. The bottles are really small but since one drop = 2000 IU, they last forever. Also, there was a really eye-opening story about kids and vitamin D today, it's here: http://ivanhoe.com/channels/p_channelstory.cfm?storyid=22673 - when my younger son was tested over a year ago his vit D level was 28!! No wonder he was always sick, if you need more than twice that to stay healthy! So now I make sure they get 2000 IU daily.

Fenbeast

April 22. 2010 05:38

Dr.Brown,

Thanks for sharing such info with us. However, I read in several accridited medical websites (including FDA) mention that people until the age of 50 need only 200-400 IU daily.

May I know based on what you decided to give your kids 2000 IU daily?

Thanks,

Abdul

AAS

April 22. 2010 08:34

The FDA and other web sites are out of date. I decided to give my kids 2000 IU daily for the winter (I wasn't clear: I only do this in the wintertime when they can't make it from sunlight) for two reasons: one, most of the research I read on this site and others stated that 1000-2000 IU is the optimal amount for maintaining adequate vitamin D levels, and two, I had spoken with his endocrinologist (my son has diabetes) and the endocrinologist was of the opinion that up to 10,000 IU was safe, but that 2000 was certainly a good starting point for a small child living in northern New England. Also, keep in mind, my son was DEFICIENT. That means he needs not only enough for his day to day needs, but also enough to bring his levels up to adequacy. That's why 2000 instead of 1000. Now that winter is over and he is out in the sun daily, I don't supplement unless the weather is bad and he stays indoors for more than a day or two. My son will be retested this week so we'll see how it works.

Fenbeast

June 15. 2010 17:13

In reference to the your article some time back describing the "halt and reversal" capabilities/properties of the humble prune as a natural treatment for Osteoporosis when taken daily (10 -12 per day).  Since I am unable to tolerate the prescribed medication from my physician, I am seeking information on the success track record for this treatment. Can you recommend or reference any reading material where I can find the answers I seek.  Thank you in anticipation of a response. Thanks, Isabelle

Isabelle

June 15. 2010 18:05

My nephrologist prescribed Zemplar--prescription strength Vitamin D--1 mg every other day.  Within one week I was having heart palpitations and had Vitamin D toxicity.  It is possible to get too much of a good thing.

Deb

June 16. 2010 06:15

Read up on vitamin D at www.vitaminDcouncil.org. Nature provided sunlight to make vitamin D through the skin. Only we humans think we have a better way-to take it by mouth. If you get a little sunlight you get the real thing and will never get toxic levels as your body will only use what it needs. But never burn your skin, that's where you get damage-with overexposure. Scientists don't even know if supplements will work the same as vitamin D made through exposure to UVB. Chemical sunscreens block vitamin D production.

Karen

June 16. 2010 20:10

What ever happened to the SUN? Nature already has the perfect system. We only have to use fresh low chemical food, exercise & sunlight!

Frank

June 17. 2010 10:17

Frank, the sun is of course the most obvious, and inexpensive, option for obtaining vitamin D. However, for people farther from the equator (in North America, that means latitudes north of New York City), the sun is only available as a source of vitamin D from ~April to ~October. In fall and winter months, the angle of the sun means that insufficient UVB passes through the atmosphere to produce vitamin D in the skin, and if people don't get sunlight often enough in the summer (as many don't who work indoors), they won't store enough to make it through the fall and winter. In addition, there are genetic factors that can prevent some people from manufacturing or storing vitamin D made from sunlight even if they DO get enough exposure to sun. That's why supplementation is recommended as an alternative.

Managing Editor

June 24. 2010 08:12

Pingback from thebonearchitect.wordpress.com

Why do doctors prescribe ergocalciferol (D2) when cholecalciferol is known to be better? « The Bone Architect

thebonearchitect.wordpress.com

September 1. 2010 22:43

Dr Michael Holick is a world expert on vitamin D and according to his research vitamin D2 is as effective as D3. D3 is animal derived so D2 is an alternative for those who don't consume animal products. I recommend Dr Holick's book "The Vitamin D Solution". (No competing interests).

Madeleine

September 2. 2010 09:24

Madeleine, Michael Holick's new data regarding the effectiveness of D2 postdates this blog. If his research contradicts prior evidence of a disparity in effectiveness, it's certainly worth considering that D2 and D3 may be equally effective... but keep in mind that there is plenty of research out there supporting the opposite point of view, from equally eminent scientists. And certainly the concern about consuming animal products is one reason to choose D2 over D3, when you're using it for maintenance. Nevertheless D2 is a synthetic form of the vitamin, and it is known to be more likely to be associated with toxicity at high doses, where D3 is a natural form that is rarely associated with toxicity -- the one case we've heard of involving toxicity of D3 was an incident in which a manufacturing error caused the tablets to have 1000 times the correct dose (2 million IU instead of 2000!). For individuals who have very low levels of vitamin D, who need to take high doses of ~50,000 IU in order to bring their vitamin D up to health supporting levels, D3 is still a better choice. And, while D3 supplements are animal-derived, they aren't the best or only source of D3 -- sunlight provides the best source of D3 (although in northern latitudes, it's only available during the summer months, and it requires that you don't wear sunblock).

Managing Editor

September 2. 2010 09:29

Bone Architect, keep in mind that most doctors have only recently become aware of the importance of vitamin D testing and management. The mere fact that they're prescribing ANY form of vitamin D is a HUGE step forward. Many physicians, even here in the north where deficiency is rampant, still do not test for low vitamin D unless they see a chronic illness situation that isn't readily explained. It's likely that many do not realize there's a difference between the two forms.

Managing Editor