i spent exactly 5 seconds searching merely to disprove your 50ng/ml.
>Although it is not known what the safe upper value for 25(OH)D is for avoiding hypercalcemia, most studies in children and adults have suggested that the blood levels need to be *above 150 ng/ml* before there is any concern. Therefore, an UL of 100 ng/ml provides a safety margin in reducing risk of hypercalcemia [0].
well, that reinforces what i said. weird, that. also:
>But in 2011, the respected Endocrine Society issued a report urging a much, much higher minimum blood level of vitamin D. At that time, their experts concluded: "Based on all the evidence, at a minimum, we recommend vitamin D levels of 30 ng/mL, and because of the vagaries of some of the assays, to guarantee sufficiency, we recommend between 40 and 60 ng/mL for both children and adults."
so your information is at least 13 years out of date (and science marches on, as i mentioned, my ~100ng/ml is from Q1 of this year.) Technically, the research i heard and read hedged saying 80-100ng/ml "is probably the best range" - specifically to avoid hypercalcemia which occurs as noted above when the concentration is over 150ng/ml. Basically, if you tell people *only* that vitamin D is good and they should dose themselves, you get people taking 50,000IU/day for months, without Vitamin K and/or proper monitoring.
There's a reason that the "general" recommendation is 600-800IU/day for children and adults, it's because "vitamin D is good so more vitamin D is better" and while technically true there's that hypercalcemia risk "gotcha."
Anyhow, it's not my duty or job to convince you of anything.
No, your job is not to disprove me. Your job is to show evidence via studies that 100 ng/ml is better than 50 ng/ml, and you haven't yet shown any studies to do it. In contrast, I can in principle show evidence that 50 ng/ml is better than 30 because Covid studies say so. Until you do, you don't have a basis to ask people to get their level higher than 50.
This is not about convincing me. It is about converting me. If you can convert me, I will convert many others, but you don't have the evidence to do it. If you are going to ask someone to gamble on a higher level, at least they deserve to know exactly why.
No risk of hypercalcemia in patients taking extremely large doses of vitamin D - D blood levels of 118ng/ml and calcium levels at 9.6 (8.5 - 10.6 is normal) not sure of the units and don't care since it's in the same range.
oh and it was (mentioned in the DOI hotlink above) used to treat tuberculosis, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma - blood levels over 100ng/ml. I am unsure of what sort of evidence you need for ~100ng/ml being optimal. Preventing or curing covid? Preventing cancers? aiding treatment of cancer? Psychological and neurological health?
In fact, that paper explains why the limit was set to 50ng/ml, so maybe that will nudge you a bit ;-)
also here's two doctors discussing the reasoning and how to achieve 100ng/ml
https://youtu.be/2hO7fniCbmw?t=139 you can rewind, but the timestamp is where that discussion starts.
If you don't have time; partially an IU of D is the amount a 10 gram mouse needs, daily. So a 60kg human needs 6000IU, daily. Overweight people need more, underweight people need less. This was discovered ages ago (several decades).
>Although it is not known what the safe upper value for 25(OH)D is for avoiding hypercalcemia, most studies in children and adults have suggested that the blood levels need to be *above 150 ng/ml* before there is any concern. Therefore, an UL of 100 ng/ml provides a safety margin in reducing risk of hypercalcemia [0].
well, that reinforces what i said. weird, that. also:
>But in 2011, the respected Endocrine Society issued a report urging a much, much higher minimum blood level of vitamin D. At that time, their experts concluded: "Based on all the evidence, at a minimum, we recommend vitamin D levels of 30 ng/mL, and because of the vagaries of some of the assays, to guarantee sufficiency, we recommend between 40 and 60 ng/mL for both children and adults."
so your information is at least 13 years out of date (and science marches on, as i mentioned, my ~100ng/ml is from Q1 of this year.) Technically, the research i heard and read hedged saying 80-100ng/ml "is probably the best range" - specifically to avoid hypercalcemia which occurs as noted above when the concentration is over 150ng/ml. Basically, if you tell people *only* that vitamin D is good and they should dose themselves, you get people taking 50,000IU/day for months, without Vitamin K and/or proper monitoring.
There's a reason that the "general" recommendation is 600-800IU/day for children and adults, it's because "vitamin D is good so more vitamin D is better" and while technically true there's that hypercalcemia risk "gotcha."
Anyhow, it's not my duty or job to convince you of anything.