Multi vitamin instead of Vitamin D + fish oil?

[SociallyChallenged]

Aren't they part of your yearly physical blood tests?

Nope. I don't believe they are. I've had several physicals in recent years and never had Vitamin D results.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

He is an idiot.

Um, I wouldn't go that far. I imagine the doc knows more than we do into the severity of the deficiency. Perhaps he's not into the whole loading dose thing and just wants the OP to start with a dose that can both load and maintain later. That would be sensible. It's unfair to call someone an idiot without knowing the circumstances.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There is reportedly widespread vitamin D deficiency around my area. Can anyone guess why? 😛

 

[mb]

There is reportedly widespread vitamin D deficiency around my area. Can anyone guess why? 😛

Hmm... too much Starbucks? 😕

 

[eits]

Um, I wouldn't go that far. I imagine the doc knows more than we do into the severity of the deficiency. Perhaps he's not into the whole loading dose thing and just wants the OP to start with a dose that can both load and maintain later. That would be sensible. It's unfair to call someone an idiot without knowing the circumstances.

2k iu of vitamin d per day is not enough for north americans. i can just about guarantee that if there were someone who took that little amount of vitamin d per day, they'd show up deficient on a blood test.

clearly he doesn't know too much about vitamin d deficiency.

 

[eits]

There is reportedly widespread vitamin D deficiency around my area. Can anyone guess why? 😛

cloud cover.

 

[marvdmartian]

Nope.

Also, because of where most Americans live in relation to the equator, you probably will always have a vitamin D deficiency unless you heavily supplement on a regular basis.

I might agree, with the exception of the word "heavily".

I take a multi-vitamin every day, which provides 400 IU's (considered 100% daily requirement), along with a 1000 IU supplement pill. Most days I take in a protein shake, which is probably giving me another 200+ IU's. Total for most days is in the neighborhood of 1600 IU's of vitamin D, which is nowhere near the "heavy" supplementing that I've heard recommended (both here, in this thread, and by doctors, who speak of 6000 to 10000 IU's per day).

And yet, my last blood test showed me in the 38-40 range for vitamin D, well within what's considered the "safe" area of 25 to 100.

OP, a multi-vitamin, if you so choose to take one, will help, but should be supplemented with an extra 1000 to 2000 IU's of vitamin D, on a daily basis. Try that first, for a month or so, then have yourself re-tested, and see how much of a difference it makes. Also, spending 15-30 minutes out in the sun, daily, will help (more than that, and you might have to start worrying about using sun block, to prevent excessive UV).

 

[Zen0]

I don't understand why people who are clearly not doctors here think they know better than the NIH (which says 600 IU is recommended per day).

I googled Vitamin D intake recommendation and the second link pulled this up, a recent finding:

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/vi...mendations-institute-of-medicine-101130-0807/

I highly doubt any significant number of people are at all Vitamin D deficient in a modern society.

 

[Zen0]

2k iu of vitamin d per day is not enough for north americans. i can just about guarantee that if there were someone who took that little amount of vitamin d per day, they'd show up deficient on a blood test.

clearly he doesn't know too much about vitamin d deficiency.

I just read this and I burst out laughing...

From the "Vitamin D Council": http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml

How much Vitamin D should I take?

"Again, we don't know."

It also goes onto say most Doctors don't know how to interpret Vitamin D blood tests to begin with.

It concludes - take 5000 IU of Vitamin D. Hell, why not? These concerned citizens and doctors who are so concerned that people are needlessly dying of Vitamin D deficiency surely have your best interests in mind. 🙄

This whole business is BS, typical of the healthcare and supplement industry.

 

[eits]

I just read this and I burst out laughing...

From the "Vitamin D Council": http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/deficiency/am-i-vitamin-d-deficient.shtml

How much Vitamin D should I take?

"Again, we don't know."

It also goes onto say most Doctors don't know how to interpret Vitamin D blood tests to begin with.

It concludes - take 5000 IU of Vitamin D. Hell, why not? These concerned citizens and doctors who are so concerned that people are needlessly dying of Vitamin D deficiency surely have your best interests in mind. 🙄

This whole business is BS, typical of the healthcare and supplement industry.

go back and read what i said about taking 5000 iu.

2000 is not enough, in my opinion, and 400 is ridiculous. the only reason why nih is comfortable with saying 2000 iu/day is because not everyone is deficient and, when dealing with the general public, you need to make broad statements that can still be therapeutic/beneficial even though it may not be enough... and toxicity can occur if you take too much.

i never said there's a clear-cut number or dose that should be given. however, there should be a ballpark and 5000 iu/day is about right in order to make sure you're getting a high enough amount to improve health and wellness while preventing disease.

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/treatment.shtml

this basically says pretty much the same thing i said earlier. if you're the average american, you want to take at least 5000 iu/day.

 

[eits]

I might agree, with the exception of the word "heavily".

I take a multi-vitamin every day, which provides 400 IU's (considered 100% daily requirement), along with a 1000 IU supplement pill. Most days I take in a protein shake, which is probably giving me another 200+ IU's. Total for most days is in the neighborhood of 1600 IU's of vitamin D, which is nowhere near the "heavy" supplementing that I've heard recommended (both here, in this thread, and by doctors, who speak of 6000 to 10000 IU's per day).

And yet, my last blood test showed me in the 38-40 range for vitamin D, well within what's considered the "safe" area of 25 to 100.

OP, a multi-vitamin, if you so choose to take one, will help, but should be supplemented with an extra 1000 to 2000 IU's of vitamin D, on a daily basis. Try that first, for a month or so, then have yourself re-tested, and see how much of a difference it makes. Also, spending 15-30 minutes out in the sun, daily, will help (more than that, and you might have to start worrying about using sun block, to prevent excessive UV).

where do you live? how often do you get outdoors?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I don't understand why people who are clearly not doctors here think they know better than the NIH (which says 600 IU is recommended per day).

I googled Vitamin D intake recommendation and the second link pulled this up, a recent finding:

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/vi...mendations-institute-of-medicine-101130-0807/

I highly doubt any significant number of people are at all Vitamin D deficient in a modern society.

The NIH defines the recommended daily values based on research. The problem? They require an obscene amount of conclusive evidence before they change their recommendations. However, a ton of research has shown that 1000 to 2000IUs decreases risk for nearly every cancer, metabolic disorder, bone issues, etc. They are just extremely slow on the draw. On top of that - they aren't nutritionists. They're a medical profession. They actually follow what nutrition institutes suggest rather than make up their own mind for the mostpart. Please don't overestimate the medical field when it comes to nutrition. They are the same ones who suggest getting 50-60% of your calories from carbs, mostly from grains and breads, while the majority of recent research has shown that less is better, especially if you're sedentary.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

2k iu of vitamin d per day is not enough for north americans. i can just about guarantee that if there were someone who took that little amount of vitamin d per day, they'd show up deficient on a blood test.

clearly he doesn't know too much about vitamin d deficiency.

I disagree. I've read research that shows 2000IU is more than enough to keep Northern Americans healthy.

 

[marvdmartian]

where do you live? how often do you get outdoors?

I live in north Texas. I used to get outside regularly, for my job, and never had a Vitamin D deficiency. About 4 years ago, my job brought me inside more and more, and currently (last ~2 years), it's inside 99% of the time. It was when I took the office job that my doctor told me I needed to supplement, as my numbers had been good before then.

 

[eits]

I live in north Texas. I used to get outside regularly, for my job, and never had a Vitamin D deficiency. About 4 years ago, my job brought me inside more and more, and currently (last ~2 years), it's inside 99% of the time. It was when I took the office job that my doctor told me I needed to supplement, as my numbers had been good before then.

Well, there ya go.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

cloud cover.

What's also interesting is that our population exhibits strikingly higher rates of Multiple Sclerosis compared to other areas. Some have tried to tie the two together, but with no clear connection demonstrated as of yet.

 

[eits]

What's also interesting is that our population exhibits strikingly higher rates of Multiple Sclerosis compared to other areas. Some have tried to tie the two together, but with no clear connection demonstrated as of yet.

That's an interesting statistic. I didn't know that.