Vitamin D

... from overexposure while allowing essential vitamin d synthesis (plus other unknown sunlight...

... lungs, sunlight boosts our vital vitamin D, and the simple act of...

Yes we must have good vitamin levels for good conversion Essential to test folate, ferritin and vitamin D at least annually No point testing B12 on injections

.../140968737/ultrasound-hashimotos-no-antibody-issues Essential to test vitamin D, folate, ferritin and B12 Low... with autoimmune thyroid disease Lower vitamin levels are more common as... must maintain GOOD vitamin levels When were vitamin levels last tested What... extra fee if GP tests vitamin levels Randox FULL thyroid test... IMPORTANT......If you are taking vitamin B complex, or any supplements...

... bones- with the help of Vitamin D helps your cat with a... good vision, thanks to vitamin A with quality protein The ..., thanks to the inclusion of Vitamin D, and to promote good vision ...with the help of Vitamin A. Each pack contains 750g ...

.... i've also been put on vitamin d . calcium levels now high as...

by opoy submitted by /u/aihumen to r/Naruto [link] [comments]

Hundreds of millions of people take vitamin D supplements for immune support, and many of them, particularly vegans, vegetarians, and people prescribed high-dose supplements by doctors, are taking the form called D2. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials just found that vitamin D2 actively lowers the body's levels of vitamin D3, the more effective form, in some participants dropping D3 below the levels seen in people taking no supplement at all. A separate transcriptome study from the same research group found that only vitamin D3 activates the interferon genes responsible for the immune system's first-line defense against viruses and bacteria. D2 does not. The two forms appear on labels with identical doses and are treated as interchangeable in most clinical guidelines. The research says they are not. submitted by /u/soulpost to r/HotScienceNews [link] [comments]

Why’s everyone and doctors obsessed with vitamin D? There’s other nutrients than vitamin D but vitamin D get the most attention. Why? submitted by /u/This-Top7398 to r/Biohackers [link] [comments]

I have anxiety and I am pretty much agoraphobic so I stay inside all day. This led to me developing a vitamin d deficiency without even noticing so when I got bloodwork done I was in the critical. Now I’ve been taking vitamin d for a month now and it honestly has made a huge difference in terms of my mood. My irritability and anxiety has improved a ton where I can go outside more often without experiencing a sudden flight or fight mode. And I even greeted someone at my local gym. I highly recommend trying it for anyone indoors most of the time. I take 5,000 IU but there’s different ones but get the one with k3! submitted by /u/Otherwise-Setting852 to r/Anxiety [link] [comments]

I am a 22 year old male who has suffered from chronic fatigue for the past maybe 5 years but not to the absolutely debilitating extent of actual chronic fatigue syndrome. My life revolved around being able to get an afternoon nap and being able to get 9+ hours of sleep a night. I could wake up at 11am and fall asleep easily at 2pm. It was absolutely frustrating. Did a couple tests 2 years ago as suggested by a doctor namely fbc, thyroid, b12 among a few others which all came back normal. But not vitamin D. This year I decided I had enough and requested a vit D test. Came back at 16 ng/ml. Started supplementing 50 000iu a week with k2 and magnesium. Noticed a change in the first day which I chalked up to placebo as didn't think levels could improve so quickly. It has now been a week and I am in disbelief at how my life has changed. I feel normal and can easily stay awake during the afternoon and only get tired close to bedtime. It's so surreal I'm afraid to jinx it. I'm beyond grateful. I always wondered how my friends could power through a full day and night with worse sleeping patterns than me and how could I be so fatigued in my 20's. Turns out it was vitamin D. submitted by /u/Icewolf496 to r/Supplements [link] [comments]

took me an embarrassingly long time to figure this out so figured i'd share. i was on 2000 IU daily for probably two years. label said 2000, my doctor said 2000, the RDA basically says 2000. tested my 25-OH D and came back at 28 ng/mL. my doctor said "that's sufficient, you're fine." and technically she was right, the official cutoff is 20 ng/mL, so 28 clears the bar. what nobody told me is that the 20 ng/mL threshold was established specifically for bone health. that's it. it was never meant to represent optimal levels for immune function, mood, testosterone, any of the other systems vitamin D is actually involved in. most of the functional medicine literature and a growing number of researchers treat 40 to 60 ng/mL as the real target for overall health outcomes. i was sitting at 28 convinced i was fine. problem two was timing. vitamin D is fat soluble. this is printed on every bottle and then completely ignored in terms of what it actually means. fat soluble means it needs dietary fat to absorb properly through the gut. one of the absorption studies found roughly 50% greater uptake when D3 was taken with a high-fat meal versus fasted. i was taking mine first thing in the morning with my other supplements, no food. so not only was my dose probably too low, i was absorbing maybe half of it anyway. problem three, K2. when D3 increases calcium absorption from the gut, K2 (specifically MK-7) is what directs that calcium toward bone instead of soft tissue. the two aren't just commonly stacked for marketing reasons, the mechanistic case for pairing them is solid. i wasn't taking K2 at all. so i switched. 5000 IU D3 with 100mcg K2 MK-7, taken with dinner which is my biggest meal. tested 90 days later and came back at 47 ng/mL. i've tested four more times since and been consistently in the 40 to 55 range. that single change, no lifestyle overhaul, nothing else different, moved my levels almost 20 points. just to confirm it wasn't placebo i actually ran a dumb experiment where i dropped back to 2000 IU for 8 weeks to see what happened. levels fell back to 34 ng/mL. went back up to 5000 IU, rebounded to 48 on the next test. so yeah, the dose was the issue the whole time. the thing i keep seeing is people say "i take vitamin D" like that's the end of the sentence. what dose, what form, when, with what, have you ever tested to confirm it's doing anything. those details are everything with a fat-soluble compound. most people's protocol is two years of swallowing a capsule that absorbs at half capacity and keeps their levels in a range that technically avoids deficiency but doesn't actually do much. test your 25-OH D if you haven't. it's cheap to add to a panel. get your levels, not a doctor's reassurance that you're probably fine. wrote a longer version of this with all my actual test results if you want the full breakdown, link's in my profile EDIT: if you're reading this later, the key points are: vitamin D3 absorption depends heavily on taking it with dietary fat, dosage is highly individual (2000 IU is often not enough for many people), and blood testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D is the only way to confirm effectiveness. most guidelines define ≥20 ng/mL as “sufficient” for bone health, but many experts and studies suggest a broader optimal range closer to ~30–60 ng/mL depending on the outcome measured. taking vitamin D with a fat-containing meal can significantly improve absorption, and factors like body weight, timing, and co-nutrients (like vitamin K2 and magnesium) can influence results. submitted by /u/Timely_Ad8989 to r/Supplements [link] [comments]