I've been taking 5K IU of D plus K2 for a number of years (>10). I had my level checked in late 2021 (not summertime), and it was a bit more than 60 ng/ml. I'm not an outdoor worker, and I live where there's not enough UV in the sunlight anyway, except in the summer.
This seems inconsistent with the assertion that D supplementation is worthless.
I have been suspicious of the Vitamin D supplement craze since it began. And as soon as allopathic medicine jumped in and doctors started recommending it, I became even more suspicious. This might interest you, Roman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBsuCzehrU
So, the author is supporting an idea based on 1, possibly 2 studies of which they are 17 years old? Yes, it's known that natural sunlight is much better (I'm assuming that natural is best). But, why are there no long term empirical studies that the author can reference? Are there none available? Please put more work into your article.
"The group that received vitamin D (2000 IU per day) supplementation didn’t lower incidence of invasive cancer or heart disease.
However numerous studies have shown that a high vitamin D level in our blood, obtained naturally, improves the chances we won’t develop various cancers.3"
Designed to fail? 2000 IU/d is nothing. But it's what doctors here (Germany) sometimes recommend as "high dosage" for special cases, lol, something like 800 IU is a more common & laughable recommendation.
Last info I had from someone into the topic was that, for an average person, 3000 IU/d is a good holding dose (to not get into deficiency when not already in it). In a study I saw it took 10'000 IU/d over 6 months to move all of the group out of severe deficiency into non-deficiency (whereas the drops taken, didn't entirely make it, only almost, when tablets and capsules all made it)
"When vitamin D is not sulfated by sunlight, calcium can build up in arteries, which is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease."
- no mention of vit-K2 ?
So far, my blood pressure has been going down in the last year. Taking 5000 IU D3 + 200µg K2 /d for the past 5 years or so, but making "carb feasts" more rare and attempting time-restricted eating.
So I can't say what's exactly from what - but that D3+K2 does not seem to overpower (in worse direction) whatever else I have been doing.
I'm just one guy, of course, but there are studies out there about the role of K2 here.
Rhonda Patrick (foundmyfitness @ youtube) has some videos on such topics, lengthy interviews with guests more specialized in this, she is also a nutrition scientist., big into broccoli sprouts, heh.
Some other sections don't even mention the level of D3 given, only "was supplemented, no worky". Not useful.
There are a lot of studies that seem to have been designed to show no effect, esp. more recently w.r.t. infectious diseases...
That part about the sulfate deficiency is interesting, I need to check that out.
interesting, i would recommend looking into vitamin K2 mk4/7 for calcium distribution and MSM (methylsulfonylmethane) for sulphate replenishment
i take both of these and 4000iu of D3 a day
I've been taking 5K IU of D plus K2 for a number of years (>10). I had my level checked in late 2021 (not summertime), and it was a bit more than 60 ng/ml. I'm not an outdoor worker, and I live where there's not enough UV in the sunlight anyway, except in the summer.
This seems inconsistent with the assertion that D supplementation is worthless.
I have been suspicious of the Vitamin D supplement craze since it began. And as soon as allopathic medicine jumped in and doctors started recommending it, I became even more suspicious. This might interest you, Roman. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wBsuCzehrU
So, the author is supporting an idea based on 1, possibly 2 studies of which they are 17 years old? Yes, it's known that natural sunlight is much better (I'm assuming that natural is best). But, why are there no long term empirical studies that the author can reference? Are there none available? Please put more work into your article.
I stopped taking hormine D years back, about the time I discovered my mag deficiency.
Now I rely in the sun, even up here in the North American attic.
I am no worse for iy
From where do you derive the D levels you list?
I have seen much lower levels listed as optimum, but I don't recall which units were used.
Too speculative
Undermines much of your other Inputs
Thanks. Excellent article.
"The group that received vitamin D (2000 IU per day) supplementation didn’t lower incidence of invasive cancer or heart disease.
However numerous studies have shown that a high vitamin D level in our blood, obtained naturally, improves the chances we won’t develop various cancers.3"
Designed to fail? 2000 IU/d is nothing. But it's what doctors here (Germany) sometimes recommend as "high dosage" for special cases, lol, something like 800 IU is a more common & laughable recommendation.
Last info I had from someone into the topic was that, for an average person, 3000 IU/d is a good holding dose (to not get into deficiency when not already in it). In a study I saw it took 10'000 IU/d over 6 months to move all of the group out of severe deficiency into non-deficiency (whereas the drops taken, didn't entirely make it, only almost, when tablets and capsules all made it)
"When vitamin D is not sulfated by sunlight, calcium can build up in arteries, which is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease."
- no mention of vit-K2 ?
So far, my blood pressure has been going down in the last year. Taking 5000 IU D3 + 200µg K2 /d for the past 5 years or so, but making "carb feasts" more rare and attempting time-restricted eating.
So I can't say what's exactly from what - but that D3+K2 does not seem to overpower (in worse direction) whatever else I have been doing.
I'm just one guy, of course, but there are studies out there about the role of K2 here.
Rhonda Patrick (foundmyfitness @ youtube) has some videos on such topics, lengthy interviews with guests more specialized in this, she is also a nutrition scientist., big into broccoli sprouts, heh.
Some other sections don't even mention the level of D3 given, only "was supplemented, no worky". Not useful.
There are a lot of studies that seem to have been designed to show no effect, esp. more recently w.r.t. infectious diseases...
That part about the sulfate deficiency is interesting, I need to check that out.