Is Vitamin D Safe? Understanding Health Risks and Dosage Levels

There is total confusion about the amounts to take because doctors typically recommend unnecessarily low doses due to fear of a toxicity that has never existed. However, the Ministry of Health has recently increased the maximum daily dose from 1000 to 2000 IU.

A new study clearly reveals that the doses of vitamin D to be taken are instead…

In the Paleolithic era, we lived for millions of years in the African savannah, where we spent all day in the sun, naked, in a territory with few trees.

This meant that the production of this precious substance, Vitamin D, through our skin, was so high each day that evolution had to shield it with very dark skin.

For this reason, almost every cell in the body contains a receptor for vitamin D.

However, about 100,000 years ago, we left Africa and moved to places (especially in the northern parts of the world) where it was very cold, forcing us to cover ourselves with animal skins and also to take shelter inside caves. This blocked the sunlight and consequently the production of vitamin D.

Not to mention that we also settled in places like present-day Scandinavia, where there is hardly any sun at all.

Currently, the majority of doctors do not even perform vitamin D testing for their patients, and when they rarely do, they typically recommend 25,000 IU every 15 days, or worse, per month.

In reality, these dosages are practically useless, so much so that even the Italian Ministry of Health has recently increased the daily intake of vitamin D3 from 1000 to 2000 IU that can be taken as a supplement.

Moreover, since 2011, the American Endocrine Society has revised the international guidelines, with vitamin D doses reaching up to 10,000 IU per day without causing any toxicity.

VITAMIN D INTAKE RECOMMENDED BY THE ENDOCRINE SOCIETY’S GUIDELINE COMMITTEE

Evaluation, Treatment and Prevention of Vitamin D deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline

Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, July2011, 96 (7):1911-1930

After all these conflicting recommendations, it’s no wonder people can become totally confused.

But what is the truth? How much vitamin D does our body really need? At what level is vitamin D truly excessive or toxic?

Well, some researchers conducted a study (published in the “Journal of Dermato-Endocrinology Volume 9, 2017”) in search of these answers.

They included a total of 3,882 participants in the study, with an average age of 60 years. Less than 1% of the participants were considered underweight, 35.5% had a normal BMI, 37.0% were overweight, and 27.5% were obese.

The Body Mass Index (BMI) is a widely used parameter to obtain a general assessment of one’s body weight.

It relates, through a simple mathematical formula, the height to the weight of the individual.

It is obtained by dividing the individual’s weight in kilograms by the square of their height in meters.

The result of this formula classifies the individual into a weight category that can be: normal – underweight – overweight – moderately obese – severely obese.

At the beginning of the study, 55% of participants reported taking vitamin D.

The average dose of vitamin D increased from 2,106 IU per day at the start of the study to 6,767 IU per day about a year later.

Average vitamin D levels increased from 34.8 ng/ml to 50.4 ng/ml during this period.

The researchers wanted to determine the dosage necessary to achieve healthy levels of vitamin D, defined as levels of 40 ng/ml or higher.

They also wanted to determine the incidence of side effects, including hypercalcemia, which is the presumed reason why 90% of doctors worldwide do not prescribe vitamin D.

Here is what the researchers found:

1. Changes in vitamin D levels were influenced by vitamin D dosages, body mass index (BMI), and initial vitamin D levels at the start of the study.
2. Participants who had a vitamin D deficiency (<20 ng/ml) at baseline experienced a higher increase in vitamin D levels compared to those with insufficient or sufficient vitamin D levels at baseline.
3. Participants without a vitamin D deficiency at baseline experienced a less sensitive response to the same dose of vitamin D compared to those with a vitamin D deficiency.
4. The response to vitamin D supplementation was lower with an increase in BMI. In other words, obese individuals required the highest supplementation to achieve sufficient levels; whereas those with normal or underweight needed minimal supplementation to achieve sufficient levels.
5. For individuals with a normal BMI, at least 6,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 was necessary to reach a vitamin D status above 40 ng/ml.
6. Overweight participants required at least 7,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 to achieve a vitamin D status above 40 ng/ml.
7. Obese participants required at least 8,000 IU per day of vitamin D3 to achieve a vitamin D status above 40 ng/ml.
8. The average calcium level did not change from the beginning to the end of the study.
9. A subgroup of participants (285) did not experience a significant increase in vitamin D status, despite reporting significant intakes of vitamin D (>4000 IU per day).

The researchers determined that this was likely due to intestinal malabsorption, but undoubtedly non-compliance (i.e., the subjects did not take the vitamin D3) also played a role. (For example, the rate of non-compliance with antihypertensive drugs is about 30%.)

10. Twenty new cases of hypercalcemia occurred between the start and the end of the study. Those with vitamin D levels below 40 ng/ml were more likely to experience hypercalcemia compared to those with vitamin D levels of 40 ng/ml or higher.

This is exactly the opposite of what 90% of doctors worldwide think, namely that excessive levels of vitamin D would increase calcium levels, thereby causing damage to the arteries, producing kidney stones, etc.

In fact, the researchers found that the incidence of hypercalciuria actually decreased after vitamin D supplementation, starting from a total of 67 hypercalciuric cases, but at follow-up (i.e., a series of scheduled periodic checks), 67% were no longer hypercalciuric.

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that none of the participants developed any proof of clinical toxicity from vitamin D, which is characterized by hypercalcemia and 25 (OH) D > 200 ng/ml, fatigue, anorexia, abdominal pain, frequent urination, irritability, excessive thirst, nausea, and sometimes vomiting.

Here’s the English translation of your text:

Biochemical toxicity of vitamin D would consist of a value higher than 200 ng/ml, hypercalcemia, and a suppressed level of PTH (parathyroid hormone) without clinical symptoms, but none of the participants experienced such a thing.

Since most laboratories identify the normal range of 25 (OH) D as 30-100 ng/ml, some doctors believe that 25 (OH) D above 100 ng/ml is toxic.

It is not, of course. In fact, it is usually just hypervitaminosis D, which in 99% of cases leads to no consequences.

The researchers concluded:

“Doses of vitamin D higher than 6,000 IU/day were necessary to achieve serum 25 (OH) D concentrations above 100 nmol/L [40 ng/ml], especially in individuals who were overweight or obese, without any evidence of toxicity.”

One thing the authors did not mention is the role that genetics can play in this.

For example, the gene that encodes for 25-hydroxylase has a genetically determined variation in its transcription, and some people have more 25-hydroxylase than others and thus will achieve higher levels of 25 (OH) D compared to others.

Considering these findings, taking genetics into account, the only way to be sure of having more than 40 ng/ml of vitamin D in the blood is to perform a simple 25 (OH) D test at any analytical laboratory.

In fact, in cases of autoimmune diseases, cancers, etc., or if engaging in medium-high intensity sports activities, the recommended level is 75-80 ng/ml and in this case, it is advisable to take 10,000 IU per day of Vitamin D3 along with 1000 mcg of Vitamin K2-MK7 which plays a fundamental role in the metabolism of D3 and eliminates potential calcification in the arteries.

The ratio should be 1000 IU of vitamin D together with 100 mcg of vitamin K2-MK7 (not MK4, MK9).

So, to summarize, the protocol to follow is this:

• Get a blood test (Vitamin D – 25 OH).
• If the result is at least 40 ng/ml and NOT in the presence of autoimmune diseases, cancers, and sports activities, still try to get as much sun exposure as possible in the summer and take at least 2000 IU per day in winter, without protection (as protection would not allow vitamin D production).
• However, in 90% of cases, the result will always be below 40 ng/ml, so in this case, take 10,000 IU per day of Vitamin D3 along with 1000 mcg of Vitamin K2-MK7.

For example, take 30 drops of Vitamin D3 per day (or in 5 soft-gel capsules) + 5 mini-tablets of “Vitamin K2 1000” (2 at breakfast, 2 at lunch, 1 at dinner).

In general, avoid vitamin D supplements based on sunflower oil, which are very cheap, but this oil damages the intestine creating the so-called “intestinal permeability,” which triggers practically all autoimmune diseases.

Essentially, one takes vitamin D to heal, and inside the product, there is something that actually worsens the situation; therefore, choose those based on olive oil, preferably organic extra virgin, and there will be no problems.

Also, Vitamin K2-MK7 should NOT be derived from soy “Natto” (as 90% of the products on the market are), but from other plant sources. Also avoid forms MK4 and MK9.

• After two months, repeat the analysis; if the value has reached at least 40 ng/ml, take a maintenance dose of 7,000-8,000 IU per day and try to get as much sun exposure as possible in the winter, without protection.
• In the presence of autoimmune diseases, tumors, etc., or if engaging in medium to high-level sports activities, the blood value to be achieved is at least 75-80 ng/ml.

The dosage in this case will always be the same, i.e., 10,000 IU per day of Vitamin D3 along with 1000 mcg of Vitamin K2-MK7, which equates to 30 drops per day (or in 5 soft-gel capsules) + 5 mini-tablets of Vitamin K2 1000 (2 at breakfast, 2 at lunch, 1 at dinner).

• After two months, repeat the analysis; if the value has reached at least 75-80 ng/ml, take a maintenance dose of 7,000-8,000 IU per day and try to get as much sun exposure as possible in the winter, without protection.

If these values have not been achieved, continue for another month with the dosage of 10,000 IU per day of Vitamin D3 along with 1000 mcg of Vitamin K2-MK7.

Repeat the blood analysis and if the desired value of 75-80 ng/ml is reached, only slightly reduce the dose, such as 8000 IU of vitamin D + 800 mcg of Vitamin K2, and continue to get as much sun as possible in the winter, without protection.

If this is not the case, continue with the classic dose of 10,000 D-1000 K2 for another month.

Do not worry if you happen to exceed 100 or even 200 ng/ml; as you have read above, it is not toxic in any way. For example, an African black person averages 110 ng/ml of Vitamin D in their blood throughout their life.

Subsequently, repeat the analysis every 2/3 months to check that the levels are stable at 40 ng/ml or 75-80 ng/ml. After a few months, you will be able to understand your rate of absorption and maintenance of vitamin D levels.

Ultimately, more than 71,000 studies prove the efficacy of Vitamin D for our health and for increasing athletic performance, provided it is taken in “high” doses to be truly effective.

Do not be terrorized by doctors, now forever trapped in useless bureaucratic protocols; vitamin D will save your life and that of your children.

Bibliography:

– https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28458767/

– https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/kder20/current