Vitamin D

[George999]

Its one of those observational studies.  There are a lot of things that can skew those.  I wouldn't take it too seriously.  - George

[George999]

Here, in fact, are some of them mentioned in this rebuttal to the study in question.  - George

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/blog/nature-knows-best-a-response-to-the-dror-study/

[skunkworks]

That is a great rebuttal.

[George999]

I had actually forgotten about the vitamin A angle.  The problem in a lot of countries is that cod liver oil use is endemic in a minority of the population.  Cod liver oil contains copious amounts of both vitamin D and vitamin A.  That reality will screw up any Vitamin D (or Vitamin A) study that does not carefully factor it in.  Large amounts of vitamin A are just as toxic as are large amounts of vitamin D beneficial.  And, in fact, there is a biological tug of war between the two.

[james1947]

New research on vitamin D.
BBC News - Vitamin D pills' effect on healthy bones queried
Benefits or not?
Complicate subject.

James

[George999]

The problem is that these reports conveniently leave out any detail of the study methodology AND of WHO paid for the study or even the scientific credentials of those doing the research.  In most cases with these studies what they do is to compare a cohort taking 400IU of vitamin D with a control group taking a placebo, and the results are absolutely meaningless because they are not using a sufficient amount of vitamin D AND they are not measuring vitamin D levels throughout the whole process.  And their results diverge sharply from the results achieved by the top vitamin D researchers in the world INCLUDING the researcher who initially identified vitamin D in the first place.  In contrast, in most cases the researchers doing these vitamin D "debunking" studies typically have no prior experience in studying vitamin D.  And their testing methodology typically reflects that handicap.  But the press trumpets these studies with great fanfare, the writers themselves usually having little or no medical background to guide them in their reviews.  Bottom line is that these articles mean nothing because they present no evidence, no disclosure of the methodology employed in order to reach the conclusions they are bold typing.  Much of this is only done to confuse people and in the process make sure they stay addicted to expensive medications in lieu of healthy lifestyles.  They are much ado about nothing but they are very effective at maintain the pharmaceutical industry's customer base.

[George999]

Further reading indicates that this latest "study" is yet another meta-study reviewing older studies using "low-dose" vitamin D treatments.  Vitamin D researchers who advocate using Vitamin D to treat osteoporosis have long maintained that "low-dose" Vitamin D treatments are USELESS.  This meta-study only confirms that and does not even address the efficacy of "high-dose", serum level based treatments.  The ONLY useful Vitamin D treatments out there are high dose treatments based on monitoring serum Vitamin D levels.  Thus the headlines related to this meta-study are misleading to the point of being simply UNTRUE.  But, of course, most people with little medical knowledge or understanding will believe them and follow the wrong advice and end up with very poor outcomes as a result.

[james1947]

George

Thanks for explaining the subject. I was somehow confused based on what I read and understand on the forum and what is written in this article

James

[George999]

I think it is also important to point out that treating osteoporosis requires more than just Vitamin D.  Its a long list, but the major components are Vitamin D serum levels and hormonal levels.  Building bone requires estrogen and in the case of women with low estrogen levels, using Vitamin D in isolation is NOT going to work.  That is not because Vitamin D is ineffective, it is simply because it is only one component in a complex process.  Another major component is Vitamin K2, and, of course, the list goes on from there.  If any one thing is out of whack, the whole bone building process grinds to a halt.  But medical types are totally ignorant of nutrition issues try to measure the effectiveness of Vitamin D like they would the effectiveness of bisphosphonate drugs which do not actually build bone, but simply stop the resorption of dead bone tissue, thus slowing down the rate of decline at the cost of bone health.  Thus it only takes one targeted drug to stop bone resorption, but it takes a whole array of factors to enable efficient bone production.  This is yet another reason that these studies that seem to overturn a growing appreciation of Vitamin D and its benefits need to be taken with a very large grain of salt, if you understand what that expression means.  - George

[NeoV]

Hey guys. I wanted to mentioned that Vitamin D seems to really be helping me.
When I was 20 or so I tested 14 on a blood test, and was told it was dangerously low. I've supplemented D before off and on, but after reading about it's relationship to autoimmune disorders, direct link to testosterone, and healing effect on BPH I started to take it more seriously..

I started taking 2000 twice a day, morning and night. Every night I take it, I have strong erections when I wake up!

This is huge for me, since I almost never have morning or night erections. It's happened this entire week I've been taking it. The only time I can get morning erections is when I don't masturbate for 2 weeks or so. Now it just doesn't seem to matter.

I also have had nothing but strong erections, filling out much more evenly since starting this. Now I know it sounds crazy, but I think I really may have been harmed by low blood levels. The research seems to be strongly in my favor, I just can't believe the sudden change I'm experiencing. My penis, when hard, feels nearly normal. It feels hard as if it's one piece again, rather than segmented from the plaque. It's given me hope I haven't had for a long time.

Reversely, too high blood levels of D were associated with the hardening of arteries and elevated homocysteine levels in this study.
Vitamin D: More May Not Be Better - 05/01/2013

The big kicker, is that I am not taking them in gel form, since I do not have access to any here in Tokyo. I'll be ordering some very soon, since I know I might not be getting close to the full benefit, nor do I even know if I am taking D2 or D3 for that matter (not written on bottle).

Anyway, this is the first feeling of progress I've made in the last 5 months I think. I can't be sure it's related to vitamin D, but it really looks that way from what I'm experiencing.

-V

[MattFoley]

Great news, NeoV!! I'm glad to hear that Vitamin D is having a profound effect on your situation.

Keep it up!! (pardon the pun)  

Good luck and God bless.

[stillwantamor]

I just finished a 3 month stint of taking 50,000 IU once a week.  I actually threw in about another 5,000, 10,000 IU of D3 with it and have started getting a little sun since Sprin finally arrived.  I want to wait a few weeks before I get another blood test to give any artificial spike a chance to settle down and get a good reading.  In the mean time I will take 4,000 IU of D3 a day and continue to get  little sun when I can.  It should be interesting since I was at 21 ng/mL.  I'll be happy to shove it to about 60 ng/mL and if I were to wager, I am nowhere near that yet.

Hawk, what were your results when you took the blood test after posting this?

Thanks!

[james1947]

stillwantamor

Hawk was last online at September 13, 2013, 02:11:48 AM so don't expect a fast answer.

James

[dplookin]

Just added info regarding Vitamin D.  I just read an article about a one year study on males taking 3,332 IU's of Vitamin D for a year.  It raised their Free Testosterone by 20 %.

It slows down the Testosterone from turning into estrogen, and makes the adrenal glands more sensitive to Testosterone production.  

When I get paid, I better buy a lot of Vitamin D...........Testosterone way too low, as is Libido.  Need that to help solve my Bad Peyronies with a 90% turn and loss of 3 1/2 inches....Ouch.  

Info just FYI.........

[George999]

Just beware that anything that changes hormone levels can have very BAD side effects IF something goes wrong.  That is why vitamin D therapy should ONLY be undertaken with the supervision of a physician.  I am ALL FOR vitamin D supplementation and have been an advocate of it for a LONG time around here.  But you need to do it responsibly.  That means making sure you get at least one inexpensive serum calcium screening along the way to verify that your parathyroids are in order and also a few serum vitamin D tests to make sure you are getting your vitamin D levels optimal.  Just mega dosing vitamin D will not guarantee success.  Remember that testosterone number is an AVERAGE, not a universal outcome.  Yes it works, but you need to make sure you get it right.

[dplookin]

Thanks for the Information, George999..........dplookin

[Hawk]

Here is an interesting new meta-analyses of all the data from previous studies.  I am sure some will not like the findings.  It just serves to show how little we can really be sure of.  Vitamin D shows no clear evidence of benefits despite hundreds of studies | BMJ

[nemo]

Seems like every supplement or treatment catches fire for a while then peters out when the "new" wears off and the long view is examined. It's occasionally fun to read very old threads on this forum where we got all atwitter over everything from Vitamin D, to DMSO/Thacker, to hyperthermia, to COQ10, to you name it ... the current brushfire (not quite a wild fire yet) is this "Priapus" injection or "PRP" ...

Sadly, it's indicative of a bunch of guys holding on for hope of something better - me right among them.  

Nemo

[user of no names]

Link showing the benefits of vitamin d.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-disease-in-two-big-studies/

[Newman]

Ashtown, where is your urologist based? I'm getting pentox online but would rather get an official rx

[ashtown]

I stopped taking Pentox a few months back, since I never felt it was effective and it's not something I was happy taking over the longterm. I had a urologist in Bristol who I can't really recommend because I think he presses far too hard during examinations and made my condition worse but he would send through a letter of recommendation to my NHS GP who would then write a repeat prescription for Pentox.  

[rich68]

Hi ashtown

Are you able to say if the urologist you saw in Bristol is the one mentioned in this forum please? As I'm not in that area I'm wondering whether to stay local to start with if it's hit and miss.

Many thanks
Rich

[melting]

Going to nude beach to get the D directly into my dick from the best source the sun.

Im 100% low on vit D. I never was much outside before and since peyronies.

[james1947]

melting

Just be careful to be outside morning and late afternoon.
Otherwise you will burn yourself.

James

[NeoV]

There was some research that showed that exposing your penis to the sun increased testosterone up to 200%. This got a lot of attention in the body building community of course.

Sun exposure is really important and is even more effective that vitamin d supplementation. Do be careful with exposing your penis. I think such fragile skin could be easily damaged and could even lead to skin cancer.  

[melting]

Sure. Best is indirect sun like in the shadow or under trees. Then not more then 20 minutes in open sun.

Was on a nude beach sunning my penis. Felt good. Funny cause for another cause I was too shy/weird to do that but I would do everything to get rid of peyronies ^^
Using some olive/castor oil with Vitamin C afterwards is great.

But it seems that vitamin d needs to reach the liver first before it gets into a bioactive form but Im not so sure if I understand it right reading wikipedia.
Still there are transdermal creams, and some combine it with coconut oil, that are said to easily provide the skin with bio active vit D.

It has a big influence on calcium and many say to supplement magnesium with it(like a magnesium bath/espom salt bath). Might try that comb too at some point.

Im still pretty sure that most stuff we eat wont reach the plague at all(thus taking very long and high doses to get an effect) as they often sit in a place that isnt supplied by much blood(tunica).
____

[UrsusMinor]

I don't know if any of you follow Chris Masterjohn's nutritional research or not. But Chris has been saying for some time that Vitamin D supplements can in fact be dangerous if they are not accompanied by enough Vitamin A and K.

http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmasterjohn/is-vitamin-d-safe-still-depends-on-vitamins-a-and-k-testimonials-and-a-human-study/

A lot of folks are now aware that D without K is risky, but Vitamin A tends to be ignored. Vitamin A itself can indeed become a toxicity risk factor (which may be one of the reasons it is so often ignored in discussions of megadosing vitamines), but it is still vital. So make sure you are getting enough A, but don't overdo it.

Magnesium supplementation is also important. I think most people get way too much calcium and too little magnesium. Magnesium deficiency is hard to detect. The body tends to maintain blood levels of magnesium within a very tight range, and it will deplete tissues and bones to maintain blood levels. By the time a blood test shows low magnesium levels, you are severely depleted.

Magnesium reserves are also built up very slowly. Take too much orally, and you'll get diarrhea. But that doesn't mean your depletion is solved. Mg needs to be gradually reincorporated into bone, and into enzymes and other cellular components, and this takes a lot of time. According to some people, it typically takes about a year.

Magnesium absorbs well through skin, and I find that a bath in hot Epsom salts is a pleasant way to add magnesium. You can also use 'magnesium oil,' which isn't an oil at all, but a supersaturated solution of Magnesium Chloride in water. (Oddly, it feels oily, even though it is just water and a magnesium salt.) You can spray or rub magnesium oil on your body (usually your back, arms, or legs) and let it dry; a lot of the magnesium will be absorbed.

I would advise against rubbing magnesium oil on your penis. It leaves my skin with a dry, itchy feeling, and that's not a feeling I need on Mr Happy. He has enough trouble of his own already these days!  

[NeoV]

Big news for Vitamin D 2?

Vitamin D2, not D3, associated with improved endothelial function. (2014)
Abstract 13830: Association of Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 And D2 With Endothelial Function and Arterial Stiffness in Coronary Artery Disease -- Siasos et al. 128 (10022): A13830 -- Circulation

Back when I did take my D2 pills, it was like taking Cialis or something. Whereas I simply do not have night time or morning erections, after taking some basic D2 tablets at night they were miraculously restored for once in my life. I still don't understand why that was, but D3 has done nothing for me like that.

[UrsusMinor]

Wow, Neo, that's really weird. I've always steered clear of D2, as it doesn't take all that much to become toxic (as opposed to D3).

But that's a very interesting article.

[melting]

Might make sense to supplement it in cycles or with a very low level..

NeoV how much did you take and Ursus what do you consider toxic?

[George999]

OK, hold on just a minute here please.  Both Vitamin D2 and Vitamin D3 are naturally occurring forms of Vitamin D.  Vitamin D2 is plant based, while Vitamin D3 is animal based.  Neither are toxic.  What is toxic is too much Vitamin D circulating in your blood.  And, of course, any amount of supplemental Vitamin D can pose a problem for people with certain other health issues, especially para thyroid issues.  But for most people Vitamin D2 is no more toxic than Vitamin D3.  In fact, once in the body, it must be converted to the same form that Vitamin D3 gets converted to in order to be actively effective.  Most traditional doctors prefer D2 since D2 is used in the prescription form of Vitamin D, while a lot of endocrinologists prefer D3 because it is the more bio-identical form of Vitamin D.  But the endothelial factor in relation to D2 makes it very interesting!  Indeed it is important also to be getting sufficient K with any form of D, but most people on a standard western diet already get too much Vitamin A and that is an important factor to be aware of.

[UrsusMinor]

Well, I'm certainly no authority, but I'd always heard that there were more toxicity risks with D2. An article in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/4/694.full) says:

"The poorer stability of and greater impurities in vitamin D2 powders may also lead to a higher risk of toxicity than that associated with the vitamin D3 metabolites. However, it is more likely that the weaker affinity of vitamin D2 metabolites to DBP produces higher and more biologically available proportions of free 25(OH)D2 and 1,25-(OH)2D2 and may thus be responsible for the greater risk of D2 toxicity."

And Chris Masterjohn, whose opinions I trust because he is so rigorous with evidence, writes (http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Vitamin-D.html) :

"Although vitamin D2 binds well to the vitamin D receptor, it has very little affinity for vitamin D-binding protein. For this reason, it is well-known to be useless in chickens and other birds. When vitamin D was seen merely as a cure for rickets, vitamin D2's ability to treat rickets in the small amounts needed led researchers to believe it equal in power to vitamin D3 in humans. Now that researchers are uncovering the need for much higher levels of vitamin D to maintain optimal health, it is becoming clear that vitamin D2 just doesn't fit the bill.

The researchers Laura Armas, Bruce Hollis, and Robert Heaney showed in 2004 that vitamin D2's low affinity for the vitamin D-binding protein makes it nearly ten times less effective at raising long-term vitamin D levels.

If vitamin D2 has a lower affinity for the DBP, it follows that it is also much more likely to result in toxicity than is vitamin D3. It is therefore unsurprising that, according to Dr. John Cannel, president of the Vitamin D Council, nearly all cases of toxicity from pharmacological doses of vitamin D resulted from the consumption of vitamin D2."

So, I've always been a little cautious with D2. But, you're right, this new research is extremely interesting.

[NeoV]

Definitely is. Then there's the above study that links too high D3 supplementation to the reverse -- the hardening of arteries. Very weird.

I recommend all of you to try D2 before bed and see if it affects your morning erections. It's a long shot, but seemed to work for me in a mysterious way. Unfortunately I'm taking softish tablets, and not a liquid form.

[George999]

I reiterate, the key to preventing Vitamin D toxicity is testing.  The key to preventing toxicity from impurities is to buy from reputable sources.  The reason for the issue of D3 causing hardening of the arteries is actually K2 deficiency.  A lack of K2 WILL result in hardening of the arteries.  Anyone taking large amounts of D should be also taking K2.

[UrsusMinor]

If I understand what they are saying, toxicity from impurities is only one factor.

The proposal they are making is that because D2 doesn't bind as well to the transport proteins, an equivalent input of D2 results in a higher unbound (and therefore unusable) amount of unactivated D circulating in the bloodstream. Therefore an equal amount of D2 is likely to be more toxic than the same quantity of D3, because the D3 gets employed, and the D2 just keeps going round and round.

Now, maybe all that unbound D2 has some beneficial effect...  

[George999]

But where is the evidence of this "toxicity"?  For years doctors have been prescribing massive amounts of D2.  The ONLY period where there is a record of toxicity occurring is before the advent of serum blood tests.  And it was this  early record of toxicity that caused vitamin D phobia in the medical community.  Beyond that, all of this is just speculation.  There are doctors right now who are using large quantities of D2, especially in older patients, and there is no indication whatsoever that they are encountering toxicity.  True SERIOUS vitamin D toxicity occurs only when serum levels reach close to the 400ng range.  When I see EVIDENCE of toxicity specific to D2 confirmed by reputable research I will believe it.  Until then it is all just speculation.  Up to now, I have only ever used D3 although my doctors have recommended that I use D2 instead.  But my preference for D2 was a belief that it was more effective.  But this new research changes everything in that it would seem to indicate that even small amounts of D2 along with D3 would be useful for vascular health.

[George999]

Well ... here is an interesting product ... perhaps its time has come?

http://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-vitamin-d-complex-vitamins-d-2-d-3-60-veg-caps

[NeoV]

Looks good George. I'm still taking D2 before bed and D3 in the morning but I would consider that for sure.

[james1947]

An other interesting article regarding Vitamin D:
BBC News - Low vitamin D 'boosts dementia risk'

James