So I was convinced I had low vitamin D, this after I took high doses and my chronic fibromyalgia-like muscle pain subsided when I took it like that. I'm now very confused, my levels were 102 so they want me to stop.
My best guess now is that that high a dosage, 20K to 30 K per day was forcing my calcium to absorb better into my muscles and maybe it's more about an underlying calcium absorption problem? I wish the naturopathic student had anything at all for a possible explaination for this situation. She just said stop taking D, and we will retest, and come back in if your back hurts again. Well, duh, I told her I suspect I'll be back in big time pain in days! I'll keep my calcium now plenty high, as I increased it some when I took d for best absorption between the two. But if anyone knows more or can tell me if maybe the d can circulate in your blood stream in high amounts but not be getting into the tissues very well, or if Chrons/Celiac/other malabsorption could do this sort of thing, I'd really appreciate it.
20k to 30 k per day is one of the highest dosages I have heard. A Vit D level of 102 (assume ng) is also very high. Vit D can get toxic and casue lots of problems. I believe the ideal range is 50-80ng, but everyone is different. Ive been taking 5k/day for 5 months and got my levels from 29 to 42ng in that time. Good luck.
All I can say is, I make no stomach acid and likely have a serious absorption problem.
I'm going to demand hard copy so I know what levels and what test they ran to being with.
It's been 24 hour off of D and I'm in muscle pain again. I suspect that they either ran the wrong test, or are not up on what is written on the vitamindcouncil website, which states that the min should be 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L), and optimal levels, 50-80 ng/mL (125-200 nmol/L).
I'm going to be sure they know what they are talking about because I'm tired of suffering.
It makes no sense that I could get my results up that high in such a short time on that level, I mean only 8 days. I think they may be interpreting the (nmol/L number) as the ng/mL and I only have 102, out of a min of 125 and I'm still low on the nmol/L measurement by blood.
If I don't ask, I won't know if they've messed up. If this isn't the solution, then I'm sure it's much more likely all about calcium deficiency.
You must be outside the US :)
We use the ng measurement here so the 102 sounds high until you said it was nmol! Lol
You numbers are not too high. Though I would take 10k iu/ day until you feel better then drop to 3-5k. I was taking 10k /dayfor over 9 months... Dropped to 5k. I have no insurance so I can't afford to retest:(. But I feel better than I have in many years.
Copyright 1994-2018MedHelp.All rights reserved. MedHelp is a division of Vitals Consumer Services, LLC.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. MedHelp is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.