Posted by JLx on October 31, 2004, at 10:38:21
In reply to Re: Vitamin D » JLx, posted by Larry Hoover on October 30, 2004, at 12:23:00
> > Hi Lar,
> >
> > I read the links but didn't grasp much. You did mean 4000 and not 400 I presume which is way more than we've been recommended. I've always heard 4-800 IU per day.
>
> Absolutely. I meant 4,000 IU/day. What got people looking back at vitamin D was the link between sun exposure and multiple sclerosis. The link turned out to be vitamin D. There was also a concurrent examination of the link between vitamin D and osteoporosis, and voila! they figured out that the RDA was deficient altogether. Rickets, also known as vitamin D deficiency, is on the rise in the United States. Seriously.I'd heard that! And it's outrageous, isn't it? Makes you wonder just how much some parents are paying attention.
> > Is there a preferred type? Right now I'm taking a A and D combo, from fish liver oil, of 10,000 and 400 respectively but I don't want to just take more of that, do I? And increase the Vit A by that much?
>
> No, you don't want to increase the A any more. Just add in some more D. Any type will do.
> > I'm concerned about osteoporosis as I don't drink milk any more. I also take magnesium, boron, Vit. K and only a little calcium (because it makes me crazy!) with osteoporosis in mind. My mother has it, she's in her 70's.
> >
> > JL
>
> Maybe with extra vitamin D your response to calcium will diminish.
>
> LarHmm...really? That's interesting. It's not as pronounced as it was when I first quit taking/eating so much calcium and started supplementing with magnesium, but it's still bothersome at least by supplement. Eating calcium rich foods doesn't seem to bother me.
I'm going to start adding Vit D and I'll find out. Thanks, Larry.
JL
poster:JLx
thread:359642
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20041022/msgs/409530.html