Posted by Larry Hoover on October 26, 2008, at 14:10:08
In reply to quite vitamin D deficient, strange results, posted by iforgotmypassword on October 19, 2008, at 0:42:15
> it looks like i am very vitamin d deficient.
Yes, you are.
> in any case i will share the numbers my psychiatrist gave me over the phone, he said for 25 D i had a "10", and that the reference ranges for 25 D are:
>
> <25 is "deficiency"
> 26-75 is "insufficiency"
> 76-250 is normal
> >250 is "toxicity"
>
> but here is what is wierd, while my vitamin D stores (what 25 D is) seem to be quite low according to this, he said the 1,25 D (the active hormone converted from the stores (which are converted from the vitamin)) test was apparently normal, i didn't ask for the number, since i was trying to remember enough already.What that indicates is that you have secondary hyperparathyroidism. Parathyroid hormone increases the activity of the kidney sites that convert 25-D to 1,25-D. This skews the ratio of the inactive precursor/storage form to the active form, in favor of the active form. Your parathyroid gland is in overdrive to try and elevate the activity of vitamin D, despite gross deficiency. The serious consequence of this is that osteoclasts, the bone cells that dissolve bone minerals, are also highly activated. You are at substantially enhanced risk of osteomalacia/osteopenia. And, as you indicated early, your risk of a number of other serious medical conditions is also elevated.
> there seem to be a certain other physical problems that may cause paradoxical results like this, but i haven't read enough. from what i read, apparently: sarcoidosis and hyperparathyroid disease, but it seems hypoparathyroid as well. i found it interesting and worth remembering that when i was reading about one of the parathyroid diseases, they mentioned parkinson's disease occuring as a consequence of the illness.
>
> not sure what to make of all of this...Your labs are consistent with secondary hyperparathyroidism (i.e. due to another factor, vitamin D deficiency) rather than primary hyperparathyroidism, as caused by a parathyroid tumour. It's possible to have both, however.
> then there is the debate over D2 and D3, that i cannot make sense out of. it seems that D2 effectively contributes to 25 D stores, so that then it should also contribute to reliable availability of these stores for conversion to 1,25 D (again the process seems to be in this order: D2/D3 -> 25 D -> 1,25 D) it seems that there are bot studies saying that D3 is better, and studies saying that D3 and D2 are the same.My take on that is that some experiments are of sufficient quality that they demonstrate the superiority of D3 over D2. Other experiments simply fail to obtain statistical significance. If the findings of superiority of D3 over D2 were a fluke, if they really were both the same, then some studies would show superiority of D2 over D3. To my knowledge, there are none of those.
D3 has a longer half life, a higher affinity for vitamin D enzymes, a higher affinity for vitamin D storage proteins, and something else that I forget for the moment.
> it still does not explain why i am not hearing the same miraculous getting better stories from other "chronic lyme" patients taking D2, that i am hearing from those taking D3. and possible immediate explaination may be is that certain popular sentiments that D3 is better (that seem to get stronger in the alternative realm) may indicate that too few people are buying and trying D2, and that's why i'm not hearing anything. but also, it is interesting, it appears that vitamin D3 may be its own hormone with its own effects? is this plausible. there seem to have been favourable studies on vitamin d supplementation for mood, but i don't remember if they used D3 or D2. i should look into that.
It is quite plausible that D3 has effects not directly related to its ability to be converted into 1,25-D.
> i am also a vegetarian. so i do not want to take D3 unless there is solid reasoning it could be better, the larger sheep industry is absolutely vile.
I think there is such reasoning, but I can't make a moral judgment for you.
Your vitamin D status is so low that it almost couldn't get any lower. I'm really concerned that you take immediate action to supplement your vitamin D intake. Your blood level of 25-D is only 4% of the "high normal" value. Frankly, I don't like the categories they use. What they call low normal may in fact be typical, but that cannot be equated with the concept of health or optimal function. In a relative sense, you barely have any vitamin D at all, and your body is reacting abnormally to try and keep you alive.
Take care,
Lar
poster:Larry Hoover
thread:858207
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20081016/msgs/859355.html