How Much Vitamin D Should You Be Taking?

I am 64 yrs. old and work out at least 5 Xperia week .How much vitamin D should I be taking?

JoAnn Robbins of NY 11:53AM February 15, 2012

My insurance no longer covers the Vitamin D test, even though I am a cancer patient taking an adjuvant oral chemotherapy to (hopefully) prevent recurrence. The medication has an unfortunate side effect of bone loss. The test itself costs about $185.00. So, we're now just guessing as to how much Vitamin D I should take.

katieb684 of GA 7:53PM May 30, 2011

I started taking 4,000 IU of vitamin D3 about a year ago for chronic muscle pain. It was recommended by my physical therapist, not my doctor. Blood work back in September showed my level to be 35 ng/ml. A couple of months ago I happened onto the Vitamin D Council web site. As a result of what I read there, I increased my intake to 8,000 IU per day. Within a few weeks the pain was mostly gone and has not returned. I also have considerably more energy. My balance and stability are greatly improved, and I feel better mentally, more in control and not so beaten down by every little ripple life throws at me. Last week I dropped back to 6,000 IU per day for a few days, but honestly, I feel better on 8,000 IU.

I think some people just need more vitamin D due to age, weight, genetic makeup, etc. I will get my vitamin D level checked again soon. I am hoping to get it above 50 ng/ml.

IMHO, 50,000 IU once a week is going to cause a peak-and-valley situation. It would seem to me that a daily dose of 5,000 IU (for a healthy person) is a better idea. Also, from what I've read, prescription vitamin D is almost invariably vitamin D2, which, in addition to being more expensive, is not as well absorbed as good old over-the-counter vitamin D3. You would think the MDs would know this stuff, but many of them don't.

S. Curtis of CO 10:23PM January 20, 2011

I agree that controlled trials need to be done on vitamin D supplementation. But I think it is safe to say that people are definitely deficient, considering how even moderate sun exposure has been unfairly vilified by the American Dermatological Association and people have attempted to avoid it all costs by slathering on obscene amounts of SPF 5000 or however high that number gets.

Where I think the vitamin D argument is more sound has to do with the way we acquire sufficient levels. Since it's scant in food sources, the sun is the only "natural" way to get it. Now why the RDA is 400 iUs is something of a mystery. Is it based on the assumption that people get plenty of it from being outdoors? Who knows. But we fail to see that being outdoors is perfectly "natural" and healthy; no one would ever recommend that people stay locked up in a dark room from here to eternity - that's ludicrous. Unlike dietary recommendations, sunlight is quite different. People have been led to believe that a pill will replace what you should be getting from food, but that has not panned out. Specific diets that emphasize certain things (ie low fat, low carb, high fruit/vegetable intake) have been disappointing and vitamin supplementation trials have produced neutral and even negative results.

But as for the sun and getting vitamin D the "natural way" , a mere 15 minutes a day of exposure (not the kind where you lie there until you actually burn!) causes the body to synthesize 10,000 iU. Intuitively, it seems that arguing against this normal practice is unfounded. All wild animals live outdoors and see the light of day!! Now how long we should be in the sun is not known, but NONE is certainly not good and likely not without consequences.

With regard to actual trial evidence utilizing supplements, yes it is limited. There are data that therapeutic weekly dosing (50,000 iU/weekly) in women with osteoarthritis and arthralgia/myalgia caused by estrogen lowering aromatase inhibitors (to treat breast cancer) leads to quick resolution of their symptoms. Senior citizens also have improved mobility, agility, and fewer fractures when given vitamin D. In fairness, the efficacy to alter the risks of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc. is not yet substantiated. But for now, it is perfectly reasonable to tell people that staying indoors constantly is unnecessary and unhealthy. And if your sun exposure is slim to none, than supplementing is warranted.

JonathanR of CA 2:33PM November 29, 2010