Time to report that review - and click that it wasn't helpful.   There is a remedy and we need to get on it.

On one of his/her other reviews, there is a reference that states, "For real information on healthy and balanced lifestyles including moderate physical activity go to www.mypyramid.gov."

Moderate physical activity? Is that like moderate eating activity?

Another person comparing a Paleo-style diet to a cult. You really just have to laugh at these idiots. Sure I like to shave my head and chant over a hunk of beef in the basement, whilst burning candles and wearing a robe, but that's not because of Dr Davis.

Hope this isn't a dupe; I tried posting and got an "internal server error," so I'm trying again.

Dr. Davis: Have you heard of the "Streisand Effect?" This 'reviewer' is basically drowned in positive reviews, and is best ignored. The review that you mention is feeble enough that anyone capable of sentient though would dismiss it, and I think you would have been better off not calling anybody's attention to it.

Hi, Howard--

Point taken.

What I was intending to do was not so much pick on a negative review, which I can live with quite easily, but point out that this may be the start of a bigger effort, a larger campaign of disinformation. In other words, if this was just some guy who thought Wheat Belly sucked, that's okay. But I suspect this was not the work of a lone individual; I'll bet this was posted by an ad agency being paid by the wheat lobby.

If you step back for some perspective, Sean, you are absolutely right: This is, at many levels, pretty entertaining stuff!

Funny, Donald.

I feel pretty "balanced" myself!

Raise awareness is my answer, Linda.

Raise awareness that this is not likely the work of someone who disagrees with the premise of Wheat Belly. It is likely the work of someone in an advertising agency being paid for by the wheat lobby, the start of a broader disinformation campaign---just like they said they would in their press releases.

It reminds me of the magazine ads from years ago paid for by Big Tobacco countering the arguments that smoking was bad. Did anybody take them seriously?

Well of course they are right.  Just look at some of the people online who have wrecked their health by eliminating healthy wheat:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x23grt_my-atkins-diet-success-story_webcam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WIH9TnQ1uY

Yep brothers and sisters, keep the faith, eat the wheat (and drink the Kool Aid) NOT.

Nina

Oh..... I forgot the other zombie cripple who is a victim of an unhealthy wheat free diet.

Yep Dr Richard Bernstein.  He was just an engineer, but trained as a doctor so he could spread the world.


Very very dangerous man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyOI9bk3VZc&feature=related

Keep the faith and eat a muffin (NOT).

Nina

To many people, there are many NEW revelations in the book Wheat Belly.  I have seen so much criticism of this book in various forums and it is by people who have never even held the book in their hand let alone read it.  Over time, this book will have a pretty big impact as more people actually do read it.

With just the first 5 words of that review, "The author has no credentials", I knew the reviewer was just blowing smoke out his butt.  Hello, a cardiologist is not credentialed???  The whole thing is unprofessionally written.  If the wheat lobby wants to discredit your book. they'll need better people than this joker.

You know it is kind of funny, I'm often asking the opposite question of where isn't media!

"Rsyinh Greens Alters Your Genes"

A new Chinese study showing that genes from plants survive the digestive tract and can be expressed in animal tissues. There is some limited discussion near the end of other studies regarding GMO genes and the claim that in at least one study, the GM O genes were found in animal tissues.

So, the dangers of drastic gene modification and cross-breeding of plants (such as our friend wheat) may be getting a more scientific basis.... but this is only one animal study. So, time will tell, hopefully.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128323.100-eating-your-greens-alters-your-genes.html?

So creepy....I guess with all the opposition, you must be on the right track. Thanks for all your research. I appreciate you.
Jana

You are absolutely right. The cultish comparisons are very laughable, but I think there are some similarities when someone discovers such a drastic improvement in the quality of their life in such a small change... sure, eliminating wheat and eating more bacon are a science backed and delicious notion, but I, for one, am willing to admit that I have happily proselytized a handful of curious friends.

Now they eat a more paleo/primal diet and no longer suffer from the fatigue, lethargy, and autoimmune issues they weren't even aware of. So I guess I have converted them (like a cult aims to do?), but it wasn't malicious or ill-founded. It's changed their lives in tangible ways and none of them have looked back on the glorious life of cupcakes and doughnuts as a safe harbor before their new increased energy levels, more comfortable and fit body, and depression and mood swing-less days.

So maybe we should be weary of sharing "the good news" of paleo lifestyle/wheat elimination... or maybe we shouldn't feel bad about sharing this information with people who want what we've uncovered.

Either way, Sean, are we still on for bleeding out that lamb in my garage tonight? I'd like to boil the bones, too.

You could be optimistic this is just a classic troll, but I agree given the tone and wording that this is obviously written by someone paid by someone from the wheat lobby.  Heading over to hit the button that that review is not helpful.

I left an e-mail with John Stossel, who has written about toxic partnerships involving government and ADM in his books. I like his work, and I like his ideas. I don't know if it will help, but I am on your side Dr. Davis. I am committed to ideas and not ideology, and dialogue and not dogmatism. Keep up the excellent work. I am recommending Wheat Belly for all of my obese patients who have wound problems, diabetes, and even for my carpal tunnel patients who have type II and are obese. With 47 trillion dollars expected to be spent for care of chronic illness in 2030, we need to do something. What I was so surprised about this book is how my wife took to it, and now is spreading the word to. By the way, your recipes ROCK!

I am going to amazon right now to make so waves with this ignorant post by the wheat trade organization rep.--what bogus propaganda!

Dear Doctor Davis and fellow anti- wheat bellies:::::I'll be posting this on Amazon

Attention real facts 2000 and other uninformed critics who fear the truth, that can save your own life
.....Walk down the street and see the flagrant, extreme, mutli-generational obesity. Go into a doctors waiting room and see the huge numbers of diabetic, metabolically ill patients.
Look at some old photos taken in America in the 1900's- 1970's such as those of crowds on Jones' Beach, or crowds in the streets after World War II AND OBSERVE ONE VERY SIGNIFICANT thing...there is no  OBESITY !   WHAT'S WRONG...WHAT HAPPENED???? APPARENTLY THE "SO-CALLED-RECOMMENDED FDA DIETARY EATING PROTOCAL "   HAS FAILED....IT'S NOT WORKING !!!!!!     America 's got a lot of weight to loose.....At least try getting the wheat out.    TTthere is too much MSG (wheat based) a known neurotoxin hanging around in our food sources also.
Be sure your fighting for your health....not against it !

If Washington, along with the various special interst groups, would have real interest in promoting health and economic reform they would get rid of corporate welfare like wheat, corn, soybeans, rice, and cotton subsidies instead of lining their pockets with taxpayer dollars.  The following excerpt is from http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies

Six Reasons to Repeal Farm Subsidies

1. Farm Subsidies Redistribute Wealth. Farm subsidies transfer the earnings of taxpayers to a small group of fairly well-off farm businesses and landowners. USDA figures show that the average income of farm households has been consistently higher than the average of all U.S. households. In 2007, the average income of farm households was $86,223, or 28 percent higher than the $67,609 average of all U.S. households.19 When large-scale federal farm subsidies began in the 1930s, farm incomes were only half the national average.

Although policymakers love to discuss the plight of the small farmer, the bulk of federal farm subsidies goes to the largest farms.20  For example, the largest 10 percent of recipients have received 72 percent of all subsidy payments in recent years.21 Numerous large corporations and even some wealthy celebrities receive farm subsidies because they are the owners of farmland. It is landowners, not tenant farmers or farm workers, who benefit from subsidies. And one does not even have to be the owner of farmland to receive subsidies: Since 2000 the USDA has paid $1.3 billion in farm subsidies to people who own land that is no longer used for farming.22  

2. Farm Subsidies Damage the Economy. The extent of federal micromanagement of the agriculture sector is probably unique in American industry. In most industries, market prices balance supply and demand, profit levels signal investment opportunities, market downturns lead to cost cutting, and entrepreneurs innovate to provide better products at lower prices. All of those market mechanisms are blunted or nonexistent in government-controlled agriculture markets. As a result, federal agricultural policies produce substantial “deadweight losses” and reduced U.S. incomes.

Farm programs result in overproduction, overuse of marginal farmland, and land price inflation, which results from subsidies being capitalized into land values. Subsidy programs create less efficient planting, induce excess borrowing by farmers, cause insufficient attention to cost control, and result in less market innovation. And policies often work against the claimed goals of Congress. As an example, while members of Congress say that they support small farms, owners of large farms receive the largest subsidies, which has given them the financing they need to purchase smaller farms.23

In 2006 the Congressional Budget Office reviewed major studies that examined the repeal of U.S. and foreign agricultural subsidies and trade barriers.24 The CBO found that all the studies they reviewed showed that both the U.S. and global economies would gain from the repeal of subsidies and trade barriers.  

3. Farm Programs Are Prone to Scandal. Like most federal subsidy programs, farm programs are subject to bureaucratic inefficiencies, recipient fraud, and congressional pork-barrel politics. The Government Accountability Office found that as much as half a billion dollars in farm subsidies are paid improperly or fraudulently each year.25 Farmers create complex legal structures to get around legal subsidy limits.26 And many farmers decide not to pay back their USDA loans: in 2001 the GAO found that more than $2 billion in farm loans were delinquent.27

Congress and the USDA distribute payments for farm emergencies carelessly. Disaster payments often go to farmers who have no need for them, and in many cases have not even asked for them.28 To receive benefits, some farmers claim to have experienced damage even when they haven’t.

A powdered milk scandal in 2003 illustrates the USDA’s bureaucratic ineptitude. That year, the government decided to give some of its massive stockpile of powdered milk to cattle ranchers for feed after a drought. But much of the milk ended up being illegally diverted to other uses, which allowed speculators to earn large profits at taxpayers’ expense.29

Perhaps the biggest scandal with regard to farm subsidies is that congressional agriculture committees are loaded with members who are active farmers and farmland owners. Those members have a direct financial stake whenever Congress votes to increase subsidies, which is an obvious conflict of interest.

4. Farm Subsidies Damage U.S. Trade Relations. Global stability and U.S. security are enhanced when less developed countries achieve stronger economic growth. America can further that end by encouraging the reduction of trade barriers. However, U.S. and European farm subsidies and agricultural import barriers are a serious hurdle to making progress in global trade agreements. U.S. sugar protections, for example, benefit only a very small group of U.S. growers but are blocking broader free trade within the Americas.

The World Trade Organization estimates that even a one-third drop in all tariffs around the world would boost global output by $686 billion, including $164 billion for the United States.30  Trade liberalization would boost the exports of U.S. goods that are competitive on world markets, including many agricultural products, but U.S. farm subsidies and protections stand in the way of that goal.

5. Farm Programs Damage the Environment. Federal farm policies are thought to damage the natural environmental in numerous ways. Subsidy programs can cause overproduction, which draws marginal farmland into active production. Similarly, trade barriers induce agriculture production on land that is less naturally productive. As a result, marginal lands that might otherwise be used for parks or forests are locked into farm use because farm subsidy payments get capitalized into higher prices for land.

Subsidies are also thought to induce excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides. Producers in regions that have better soils and climates tend to use less fertilizers and pesticides than do producers in less favorable climates, who can only afford to farm in the poor locations because of subsidies. An excessive use of chemicals can contaminate lakes, rivers, and other water systems.

Florida sugar provides a good example. Large areas of wetlands have been converted to cane sugar production because of artificially high domestic sugar prices. Unfortunately, the phosphorous in fertilizers used by sugar farmers has caused substantial damage to the Everglades. Farming, like any industry, can cause negative environmental effects, but it is misguided for federal policies to exacerbate those problems.

Federal subsidies for irrigation have also been a cause of environmental concerns. The Bureau of Reclamation runs a vast water empire in the western United States, which sells water to farmers at a fraction of the market cost. The resulting overuse could lead to a water crisis as the West’s population continues to rise.31 The solution is to move water into the free market and allow prices to rise to efficient and environmentally sound levels.

6. Agriculture Would Thrive without Subsidies. It is normal for people to fear economic change, but many industries have been radically reformed in recent decades with positive results, including the airline, trucking, telecommunications, and energy industries. If farm subsidies were ended, and agriculture markets deregulated and open to entrepreneurs, farming would change—different crops would be planted, land usage would change, and some farms would go bankrupt. But a stronger and more innovative industry would likely emerge having greater resilience to shocks and downturns.

Interestingly, producers of most U.S. agricultural commodities do not receive regular subsidies from the federal government. In fact, commodities that are eligible for federal subsidies account for 36 percent of U.S. farm production, while commodities that generally survive without subsidies, including meats, poultry, fruits, and vegetables, account for 64 percent of production.32 And, of course, most other U.S. industries prosper without the sort of government coddling that farmers receive.

Another point to consider is that farm households are much more diversified today and better able to deal with market fluctuations. Many farm households these days earn the bulk of their income from nonfarm sources, which creates financial stability. USDA figures show that only 38 percent of farm households consider farming their primary occupation.33

Some USDA programs provide useful commercial services such as insurance. The USDA says that its insurance services are “market-based,” but if that were true, there would be no need for subsidies and the services ought to be privatized. After all, most U.S. industries pay for their own commercial services. Also, financial markets offer a wide range of tools, such as hedging and forward contracting, which can help farmers survive cycles in markets without government subsidies.

An interesting example of farmers prospering without subsidies is in New Zealand.34 That nation ended its farm subsidies in 1984, which was a bold stroke because the country is four times more dependent on farming than is the United States. The changes were initially met with fierce resistance, but New Zealand farm productivity, profitability, and output have soared since the reforms.35  New Zealand’s farmers have cut costs, diversified their land use, sought nonfarm income, and developed niche markets such as kiwifruit.

Today, data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that farm subsidies in New Zealand represent just 1 percent of the value of farm production, which compares to 11 percent in the United States.36 New Zealand’s main farm organization argues that the nation’s experience “thoroughly debunked the myth that the farming sector cannot prosper without government subsidies.”37 That myth needs to be debunked in the United States as well.

Realfacts2000 is no doubt a special interest and/or the mouth piece of the wheat lobby.  I you follow the money trail it will always lead one to the truth and what is behind the scenes.  This taken from North American Millers Association website http://www.namamillers.org/NewsArchives10/Mar10News.html .  Billions of your tax dollars go to subsidize wheat growers every year.

NAMA urges government funding of cereal crops research
NAMA and the National Oat Improvement Committee submitted a joint letter to Representative Tammy Baldwin expressing support for the National Barley Improvement Committee's appropriations request for the USDA-ARS Cereal Crops Research Unit (CCRU) at Madison, WI. CCRU was established in April 2007 with the goal of studying and identifying antioxidant chemicals in oats and barley that may play a role in protecting humans from degenerative diseases such as cancers and heart disease. "However, current funding is insufficient to meet a substantial increase in operating costs for the new building and maintain programs for seven CCRU scientists (currently only five positions are filled and two are vacant due to inadequate funding.)" Government funding is essential as oat research receives no private investment.

Industry supports Obama's pledge to double U.S. exports
A coalition of food/feed and agricultural industry organizations are in support of President Obama's pledge to double U.S. exports within five years as a way to create millions of new export-related jobs in this country. The coalition, of which NAMA is a member, sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Republican Leader John Boehner, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell urging them to take the necessary actions to support this goal—including passing the pending free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. These agreements would allow U.S. exports to be on par with other countries and compete effectively in the export market.

The letter also noted concern over recent legislation (H.R. 3012 and S. 2821) that would "require the Administration to demand the re-negotiation of all current pending trade agreements to modify provisions to permit inclusion of certain requirements." This legislation has the potential to drastically damage export relations and U.S. agriculture. To view the letter, please visit NAMA’s web site at http://www.namamillers.org/NewsArchives10/Ltr_FTA_Mar2010.html.

All pioneers wear Arrow shirts.

I just finished the book and posted a review on my blog for anyone who is interested in a more in depth analysis than IT ROCKED! The strong sales and largely positive reviews are a good sign, which is probably why the wheat industry hacks are posting negative reviews.

http://aminoaciddiet.com/2011/09/30/book-review-wheat-belly/

Yep, I must admit I am working to bring people to this "cult." I am probably a bit annoying or I like to call it persisitent in my FB posts. Oh well, the proof is in the pudding. The change in my body and outlook has been so dramatic, it is hard not to share. I'll take my chances.

I have watched a friend lose 94 pounds on medifast. She works out like a crazy woman. Now, she is getting burned out and starting to gain weight. She has seen me lose 37 pounds over the last year or so. Admittedly I still have about 37 to go. I got into the gf replacements for a while. Now that I am off of them the weight is going away again. At any rate, I wish she would listen to what has helped me. She claims it is only because I have celiac. It doesn't apply to those who don't. I can't get her to read the book, but maybe, just maybe she will read the blog. I hope she doesn't listen to the critics.

Don't fret, Debbie. Your friend will come around when she witnesses your profound and effortless weight loss--no extreme exercise, no colon cleanse . . . just no wheat.

Yup, you got it, Dave.

Very nicely written review, by the way. "A giant among dwarves"? That's great!

Hi, John--

No doubt. Note that, at the left on the Millers Association website and listed as a "partner," is the USDA Food Plate. How revealing! Imagine a chemical manufacturer calling the EPA a "partner."

This wheat-free message is, indeed, potentially economically disruptive. None of us, of course, are demanding legislative reform to ban wheat; we are simply trying to raise awareness to allow better-informed individual choice. This issue has come up repeatedly in my interviews on Canadian media, since they are such large wheat exporters.

Thanks, John. Fascinating reading!

We are confronting head-on with vertically-integrated agribusiness and Big Food, all of whom stand to lose big-time by elimination of government subsidies. I, too, find it incredible that this still goes on.

Thank you, Lindas!

Your clear-minded wheat-free logic shines through!

The USDA and HHS need to get off their high horse, blaming our sloth and gluttony. They are to blame.

Thanks, STG!

I'm shocked that there are PR people out there who do this just for a paycheck.

Wow, thanks, Dr. Ostric!

The John Stossel idea is terrific. He is a champion among whistleblowers; adding his voice would be priceless!

And thanks for the feedback on the recipes.

I noticed that, too, Chuck: The criticisms seem to be coming from 1) wheat trade group PR stooges, and 2) people who think they know what the book says but haven't read it.

It actually makes me laugh! Real criticisms would be one thing. But this stuff is just fluff.

Thanks, Jana!

Yeah, I have to treat this information like religion... People are THAT fanatical about their food. But, I have managed to get a few people to go lc. And thanks to the good DR. here, I got my mom started. I just said, "fine, but do me a favor. Go wheat free for a month. While you're doing that, buy full fat dairy. Then tell me what you think." I'd never thought to put it so simply.

You would think the fact that my husband has lost 80+ lbs and I've lost 45lbs in under 5 months would sound some bells. Our cholesterol has dropped 30+ points each (while raising HDL a bit.) and my Trigs are down more than 150 points. Yeah - you read that right. So of course people ask us... then get ANGRY about the answer. We stay the heck away from frankenfood. We eat full fat cheese, and leave the fat and skin on our chicken.

Put that on your "government regulated food plate" and eat it!

*Sorry for post hijacking, got carried away.

Yes, but it was a good hijacking, Jackie!

Very excellent results for you and your husband.

[...] are acting like it with some dubious claims and flat out attempts at character assassination with comments like this on the Amazon page for Dr. William Davis’ book Wheat Belly:  The author has no credentials, no credibility, just a small cult of terribly misinformed [...]

Ooooowwwww, I like this!  I'm looking forward to the TYP diet book - not only for myself as a diet plan to follow for heart health, but also for weight loss.  will it be possible to buy signed copies?  I'm thinking ahead to the holidays and gift giving season.

Hi, JT--

Actually, not a book, just a lengthy Special Report on the website. However, as our program gains a brand recognition, there may be such a book opportunity.

In all honesty, most of the concepts that are articulated in our program have already been well said by Art Agatston in South Beach and Loren Cordain in Paleo Diet. The Track Your Plaque approach adds the sophistication of lipoproteins, but the basic food practices are very similar.

Hi Dr. Davis,

Thanks for the honest reply.  I'm going to take a look at the South Beach and Paleo diet books mentioned.  I've heard of them, but always being relatively thin never took the time to learn what they have to teach.  

Talking with my father yesterday, I told him that I wrote about his "unexpected" weight loss while following the TYP diet/ supplement program.  He had a chuckle over it and told me he told my mother my thoughts that the weight loss came from following the TYP program.   Because of that she is now raiding his fish oil & vitamin D capsules    , adding that I better order him more.

Bravo!  

Thank you for sharing your personal experience, and reasons for now discouraging the ultra-low-fat dietary principles articulated by Dr. Ornish.  It's critically important that we abandon the myths and start to seriously talk about the facts and data so we can move forward and help people learn how to optimize their health.

Thank you for that.  My 36yo daughter has followed an utlra-low fat lifestyle(cites Ornish frequently). Eating entirely fruits, veggies, whole-grain high-fiber cereals and lots of water (for 10 years!), she has been proud of her "healthy eating".  Her “extra meal” of vitamins and supplements made up for anything she felt she was missing (she believed). However,  after years of excellent total cholesterol readings, VAP testing revealed her LDLs and triglycerides have been going up and HDL going down.  (HDL: 37; VLDL3:16; Tg:148!).  To top it off, her period stopped, skin got worse, and bone density test came back bad.  Thank you for raising the red flag on ultra low-fat diets from the perspective of heart health!

Dr. Davis, I think we need to make the distinction between Ornish and other low-fat diets, like Fuhrman, which might be vastly better. Joel Fuhrman claims his diet will lower triglycerides and improve all the other health markers rapidly.

Unlike Dean Ornish, Furhman limits grains. They are at the top of his food pyramid (0-20% of calories), and he stresses the importance of unbroken grains, not flours. Brown rice and oatmeal, for example. He would not allow any type of bread, except sprouted flour-less breads. Here's a photo of his food pyramid. Veggies are the base. Half-raw and half-cooked. Next level has fruits, beans, raw nuts, and raw seeds. At the top are unbroken whole grains.

http://www.nutritionforwellness.org/img/food_pyramid.gif

Here is an article pointing out how highly perishable whole grain flour is. It quickly become rancid and it loses vitamins. Animals fed a whole grain flour stored for 15 days were infertile after 3-5 generations. At the same time, the animals getting fresh-ground flour (or bread) were still fertile. Weston Price pointed this out in his book, too, but many people ignore

http://eap.mcgill.ca/Publications/EAP35.htm

Weston Price reversed dental decay in children by feeding fresh-ground whole wheat rolls (along with other things). Price: "The wheat for the rolls was ground fresh every day in a motor driven coffee mill." It is clear that most people nowadays are not eating flour of this quality or whole unbroken grains like Fuhrman suggests. Maybe this is a factor in why infertility and various chronic diseases are now so prevalent.

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/price16.html

Moreover, the Ornish Diet made Dean Ornish fat. Ornish's Diet is a poor diet, period. Dr. Fuhrman's is much better. Not that I endorse low-fat diets, but I think some people will do well on Fuhrman's plan. Few, if any, will do well on Ornish's Diet. Pretzels, bagels, and pasta are all highly processed foods, compared to brown rice, oatmeal, etc. Fuhrman's diet discourages grains, esp flour,  and Dean Ornish allows them.

http://www.nutritionforwellness.org/guidelines.html
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-lowfat-vegan-vs-eat-to-live.html

Here is a debate between Ornisn and Gary Taubes. Ornish looks pudgy and pasty. Taubes is lean and muscular. Who would you rather look like? Dr. Ornish's diet made him fat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyme62niYM

the Ornish diet is definitely not for me; I need my fat - BUT as far as being critical of Ornish's looks (you said pudgy,etc) Dr. Oz is a vegetarian and low fat; so looks cant really be counted here.

I'm thriving by eating using WAPF principles (3 years), and I cut all gluten-containing grains out of my diet (1 year).  I'm not overweight, and I have better color in my skin than I've ever had.  I feel wonderful.

http://www.westonaprice.org

If you read his books, you'd learn that Dr. Ornish used to be much more overweight than he is now. And severely depressed. His diet and other lifestyle changes cured both.

My husband and I were on the McDougall diet for 3 or 4 years.  Our most common meal was rice and beans with hot sauce for flavor and lots of bread.  McDougall(his diet is similar to Ornish's)said it
was impossible to have a heart attack on his diet because there was NO fat!  Guess what!  My husband had a massive heart attack
and lost half his heart.  I don't know whether to be angry with McDougall or with myself for my
extreme gullibility.  Hy husband has passed away now and I'm on the
Weston Price diet (without the grains) and am thriving.

sorry about your husband. if memory serves me correct dr mcdougall does not recommend bread or flour unless you are interested in gaining weight.

So should go the misadventures of the ultra low-fat diet, as articulated by Dr. Ornish. His day came and went. We learned from our mistakes. Now let's do something better.

This post is (most likely) a great example of lying on the internet for personal gain or ideological reasons. Don't believe everything you read people!

The original poster is probably leaving off some key information.

He or she probably did not actually follow the recommendations.

It is difficult for many people to stick to the Ornish diet. Those who do stick to it usually get overwhelmingly good results.

If you stick to it, it is really hard to get too many calories, since fat contains more than double that of protein and carbs per gram.

If the poster actually did what they said they did, especially with the running, they would have withered away to nothing. Unless, of course, he or she ate wheelbarrows full of food.

If you eat less calories than you are burning, you will lose weight. On an Ornish plan, it is very hard to eat more calories than you burn.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

Whoever wrote this article simply wasn't following the Ornish plan. They said that they required large quantities of coffee to function. Coffee isn't on the Ornish menu because it's a stimulant. Therefore, if you were consuming coffee, you weren't on the ornish diet.

I get the pharma grade fish oil pill called Lavasa.


These are really expensive and can one buy similar good fish oil pills over the counter.  I take 4 per day?

Thanks

So to get a level of 6.8%, how many mg must you consume in a day?

Great info!

Is there a lab blood test (low cost) to have one's own DHA/EPA level tested to confirm the level is optimal?

A couple of observations.

One is that trans fats do not appear to be associated with sudden cardiac arrest. This does not say that they aren't associated with heart disease or that they are healthy.

The other is that the Cordain et. al estimate of 21% of calories from fat (from primitive man) has been challenged by various sources as being too low based on observations of various recent primitive native cultures, especially based on observations that the parts of the animal that contained the most saturated fat were preferentially consumed. I've included a few references. Other can be found on the net. The point is that this is not established fact, but a guess or a scientific hypothesis.


from Michael Eades Protein Power Blog  January 30, 2008

....Loren Cordain’s seminal paper (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/682) on the plant/animal subsistence ratios of hunter/gatherers, ......
... Loren emailed me when I sent him this paper

Nowhere in that paper do we give the numbers he quoted. We provided these ranges of macronutrient estimations are being most likely (protein 19-35% energy, carb 22-40% energy, and fat (28-58% energy).

Other references

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/caveman_cuisine.

https://westonaprice.org/traditional_diets/native_americans.html

Interesting topic. A couple of years ago a Dr. Leaf of Harvard Medical School made a statement that for those of us with angina fish oil could be deadly.
I wonder if this idea has been disproven or is it still valid ?

Scientists have shown that zero percent of cave men ate food from factories and feed lots.

Of course, this is just one study, though an important one. It is also not a study based on any intervention, just an observational effort. But it does add to our understanding.

Thanks for the excellent post! Bookmarked! Will come back again…

Do you take the 8,000 units *daily*?  I started out with a serum vitamin D level of 12 ng/ml and was prescribed 50,000 units per *week*.  That got me up to 27 ng/ml (which the doctor considered acceptable).  At that point, a different doctor advised me to take 1,000 units a day, but I started taking 2,000 units and have now reached 60 ng/ml.  I was concerned that 2,000 might be excessive, and now that I have reached a good level of serum D, I thought maybe I should cut back to 1,000.  But you take 8,000 daily?

D.S. 8000 daily x 7 days = 56000 weekly, not all that different from 50000 weekly.

Love the post Dr. Davis.
I have NOT been sick in 2+ years... seriously.  I tell people, I don't know if it's the 'low carb primal' meal plan ... or the almost daily exercise ... or the daily D3.  Most likely a combination of all 3.    I take 4-8k daily depending on the season and 'sunlight' exposure.

Thriving!... not just surviving.

Steve

This may be another case of everyone being different. Over the course of three years on 2,000, then 4,000 units a day I got to 48 then 63 ng/ml. When I upped it to 6,000 units I hit exactly 100 ng/ml. When I was at the lower levels I felt fantastic, at 100 I did not.  I recommend frequent testing to see what amount brings you to the ideal level and keeps you there.

Would it be beneficial to take K2 along with D3 just in case ?
Vitamin D boosts calcium availability and I wouldn't want it to finish on wrong places.

Yes, K2, magnesium and zinc should also be taken if you  suspect that your diet might be low in these. I discovered that I do not absorb supplements very well unless they are in liquid form.

DS and Johan--

Be careful: You're confusing cholecalciferol (D3), the human form of vitamin D, with ergocalciferol (D2), the non-human plant or mushroom form.

Vitamin D is a (pro)hormone. Humans should ONLY take the human form, never the plant form. For one thing, 50,000 units of D2 is apprximately equivalent to 15,000 units D3, because it's different. It is inferior.

If a doctor prescribes D2, it's because he has no idea what he/she is doing. There is absolutely NO reason to favor D2 over D3.

Great, Steve!

I've personally been enjoying the same experience.

Absolutely. Checking every 6 months has worked out very well for us.

There are reports that high intake of D3 will cause calcification of arteries and heart valves. The reported levels are over 50-60 ng in the serum D3. So there seems to be s diminishing effect of high D3 intake. Also it seems that taking K2 will mitigate or offset this effect. There are conflicting reports on this though. Any thoughts?
Renfrew

That's true of the plant forms of all the fat-soluble vitamins.  We have been badly misled.

The statistics and study summaries I've read seem to indicate that somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of the population cannot convert beta carotene to vitamin A in large enough amounts for BC to be useful as an A source.  If the respondents in those studies were only healthy people, the total percentage is far higher;  diabetics and hypothyroid people can't make the conversion.  And that's only adults.  Infants and young children can't make the conversion either, which pushes the percentage even higher.  Vitamin A has many tasks it performs in the growing fetus; helping the urinary tract develop is one of those tasks.  The Mayo Clinic tells us on its website that urinary tract defects are the most common class of defects in the United States.  Vitamin A is also important in eye and tooth enamel development, among the many, many other functions it performs.  How many people are walking around with eyeglasses, and how many young children are getting cavities now?

The Rotterdam study showed that vitamin K1 in plants does nothing to mitigate heart disease risk, whereas K2 from animal organs and dairy does.  I have heard from other sources that the K2 in natto (mk-7) does not cross the placenta, telling me it's less important to our health than the K2 from organs and dairy (mk-4 or menatetrenone).  K2/mk-4 is important in insulin sensitivity as well as heart health and bone and tooth strength.  But most experts focus on K1 or on the K2 in natto, to our detriment.

A, D, and K are so vitally important to good physical development and avoiding chronic disease.  The information is out there, in study after study.  If the experts won't admit to it, we need to educate ourselves.

100 ng/ml is too high for anybody.  Dr. Davis probably hits the high end of acceptable.  No wonder you felt bad.

I insist on supplementing three of the four fat-soluble vitamins because I've found out the hard way that the plant precursors of those vitamins DO NOT work well for me.  I suspect my experience is more in the majority than the minority, too.  Here's my regimen:

Vitamin A from fish liver oil (read the label):  8000 IU
Vitamin D3: 5000 IU
Vitamin K2, analog mk-4 (menatetrenone): 1-5 drops of a liquid supplement in MCT oil.  This company suggests taking 15 drops a day, which is over 10,000 of the recommended daily intake, and I see no point in going that high.

If I could afford no other supplements, I always take these.  I suffered from a subclinical (at least according to mainstream medical practice) vitamin A deficiency from 2004 on up to 2007 or 2008 that manifested as reproductive health problems and also birth defects in my daughter.  No one suspected an A shortage as the problem.  I figured it out by happy accident.  I am apparently not a good converter of beta carotene and my daughter paid the price.  I don't like liver, and dairy and eggs are not high enough in the vitamin, so this is what I do.  And this way the vitamins all work together synergistically  and I don't have to worry about toxicity.

Yeah, I know, but I was taking 50,000 units weekly to rectify a profound *deficiency*, not as a maintenance dose.

I don't know if it was D2 or D3 when I was taking 50,000 units per week (by prescription; this was over a year ago), but the 2,000 units (OTC) I now take daily are D3.  If this dose has me maintained at 60 ng/ml, it's amazing how the 8,000 units you (Dr. Davis) take isn't too much.  I guess this goes to show that monitoring is crucial, and there's no one-size-fits-all in supplements.

vit D and sleep apnea
http://www.musclechatroom.com/forum/showthread.php?18736-quot-Vitamin-quot-D-is-a-Hormone.-It-Cures-Sleep-disorders-amp-many-ailments

Long time followers of this blog will recall that Dr Davis has discussed vitamin D and K2-related issues many times here. You can find many answers to your questions by following the search links http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/category/vitamin-d and http://www.trackyourplaque.com/blog/category/vitamin-k2. Not all posts will be directly related to this discussion, but you will know what is related and what is not.

I guess Vit D can also be gained freely from the nature.

To Jack K. ... posted here since Server blocked this where belongs.
Hi Jack K.,
You once mentioned being ApoE4 (I think), thus are specially interested; and are in your "prime" dedicated to physical culture. Frankly I have no insight into how modified fasting or limiting snack fuel would let a body builder achieve their goals. (Doc recently stated how hard it was for athletes to restrict quick energy foods, like carbs.)

HDL heritability  in the Dutch ERASMUS study was put at 43% and the study of isolated Italian's from Linosa put HDL heritability at 54% (and for those Italians having both high triglycerides and low HDL that dual heritability was 31%). When one considers the ApoA2 percentage in HDL in relation to the amount of ApoA1 in HDL then that detail is going to involve the copy number of ApoA2 genes the individual has; and what is eaten, but not the type of protein one chooses, because it is more lipids (as fatty acid derivatives) that are involved in key signaling roles.

Doc & others ( ex: WholeHealthSource) tell us saturated fat intake boosts total cholesterol, but more so HDL than LDL; conversely when restrict saturated fat HDL level falls . For those with ApoE4 however Doc repeatedly has mentioned that for them it may be best to decidedly limit fat. In which case triglyceride levels are seemingly something one must work around.

Restricting saturated fat intake sees a decrease in  ApoA1 because without those fatty acid derivatives (lipid signalers) ApoA1 undergoes more breakdown, and in addition there is less ApoA1 secretion (not only does ApoA1 degrade faster than ApoA2 but the kidneys apparently don't excrete ApoA2, like the kidneys do to ApoA1). This is how statistically low HDL is associated with a higher percentage of ApoA2  in it's make up. Yet genetics can conceivably tweak this dynamic because fatty acid derivatives (lipid signalers) have to up-regulate PPAR alpha (subject to genetic variation), which then acts on the ApoA2 gene regulatory  element "J" (subject to genetic variation) before ApoA2 gets made in the liver (& a bit in intestine).

Experimentally when PUFA  made up 40% of total dietary fat intake there was less measurable ApoA1 mRNA & less liver secretion of ApoA1; while if 30% of total dietary fat is mono-saturated & PUFA there is usually no change in amount of ApoA1 mRNA, nor less liver secretion of ApoA1. When diet is classified as low fat and fat only 9% of total calorie intake ApoA1 levels usually decrease; I don't know if this is the fat level Doc advises his ApoE4 patients to try. I am not aware of any relevance of dietary protein to ApoA1 levels; however there is some recent indication that iso-flavone plant phyto-sterols (ex: genisten & daidzein from soy) may alter ApoA1 & ApoA2 levels (in contrast to older studies showing no benefit). I garnish food with a dry palmfull of Japanese black soy  fermented 1 year in Koji, called "Tochi", specially imported from Japan for Japanese restaurants by Miyako Foods  626-962-9633 (no financial interest for me); they also make this into a nice specialty miso - but I do not know how it compares in iso-flavone content to other soy forms.

2011:  Male rhesus monkey's  ApoA1 g/l went up from 2.34 when fed soy stripped of iso-flavones to 2.75 when their soy had iso-flavones; and their ApoA2 g/l went up from 0.20 when fed  iso-flavone free soy to 0.22 when their soy had iso-flavones....Female rhesus monkey's ApoA1 g/l went from 2.19 when fed iso-flavone free soy to 2.75 when fed soy with iso-flavones; and their ApoA2 g/l went up from 0.16 on iso-flavone free soy to 0.19 on soy containing iso-flavones. (As for Lipo-a : that also went down with iso-flavones.) The female 15% boost in HDL (90% of HDL = ApoA1 + ApoA2) being greater than the males is attributed to the fact that some of the males went from pre-puberty to puberty during experiment and there are often sex related variations in HDL; and to be precise the authors stipulate that iso-flavones may not work the same when the subject has either familial hyper-cholesterol or those with ApoE4.

Doc has given those with ApoE4 and low HDL a little appreciated strategy when he exhorts them not to eat oats, potatoes and wheat bread; these are common foods that increase levels of an asymmetrical lipid called lyso-phosphatidyl-choline (lysoPC). Remember that HDL also contains glycero-phospho-lipids; well, inside a cell the enzyme cPLA2 (cytosolic phospholipase A2) spins off phospho-lipids (another fatty acid derivative). And unfortunately it is usually individuals with low HDL tend to have more lysoPC than normal; which is considered pro-atherogenic when the lysoPC is configured in a "bad" molecular form (and yet other "good" lysoPC  configurations carry desirable DHA across the brain blood barrier).

It was shown that eating fatty fish 4-5 times a week decreases the total level of lysoPC, and both lowers the amount of  "bad" lysoPC, while raising the "good" configurations of lysoPC; which is another reason to follow Doc's high fish oil suggestion (inter-daily fatty fish might be a lot of mercury intake). I believe Doc is allowing fish oil and  maybe some fish for his ApoE4 patients. This experiment ruled out saturated fat beneficially influencing those lysoPC  molecular variations because subjects avoided all dairy fat, cream or butter.

The lysoPC that is carried in oxidized LDL molecules negatively affects one's tricky macrophages and also the smooth muscle cells of the artery; lyso-lipids not only invoke signals but can themselves be transformed. Certain lysoPC  yield a lot of  the platelet activating factor (alkyl-acetyphosphatidyl-choline) which contributes to sustaining inflammation, and so sets stage for atherosclerotic plaque. High levels of HDL usually conveniently equates with reduced levels of TNF alpha, a condition resulting in fewer undesirable adhesion proteins on the blood vessel's endothelium;  so, conversely those individuals with ApoE4 related low HDL are statistically prone to more endothelial adhesion proteins, and thus should try to do what they can to keep as much "bad" lysoPC controlled with diet.

Precisely, DS. I've got people who require 20,000 units to achieve this blood level, I've got a rare person who needs none.

The individual variation in need is quite wide. That's why the concept of an RDA for this hormone is, in a word, absurd.

I find that even low doses of vitamin D leave me feeling terrible. I get these weird chest pains and lower back pain as well. It also causes pretty bad breakouts for me. I've tried different preparations and brands but it all ends up leading to the same symptoms. This usually happens after I've accumulated a couple of weeks of supplement usage. I haven't experimented with different dosing strategies yet(weekly, bi-weekly or even monthly). I made sure to supplement with magnesium and K2 as well. It sucks because I really like all of the preventative benefits that D3 has to offer but it just doesn't seem to agree with me.
Mike

Dr. Davis:

Any chance that you'll be writing more about the positive results you're seeing in your clinic from increased doses of vitamin D on aortic insufficiency?

Joe

Since D activates immune function a lot, could it be that you have some chronic infection and effects you are experiencing are because of bacterial endotoxins which are released when bacteria dies ?

Have you done the D test ?

If so, perhaps taking some detox supplement would help like huge doses of Vitamin C, clay, NAC etc...

Sure, good idea. However, the majority of experiences have been in aortic stenosis, not insufficiency, only because I've got about 10 people with stenosis for every 1 with insufficiency--just too uncommon.

Hi, Mike--
Sorry about your struggles. I've seen this once or twice, but I'm not sure about why. You might ask your doctor to at least investigate parathyroid and adrenal status, e.g., PTH, calcium, and salivary cortisols. These might booby trap a vitamin D effort. After all, taking vitamin D should be no more dangerous than getting a nice tan.

Are you suggesting that my reaction could be from some sort of bacterial "die off?"

Interesting. I never really thought about it. I did get my levels checked during the few months I was supplementing and it was only 52ng/ml.

Mike, are you getting enough quality Vitamin A? Vitamin A and D work together. Chris Masterjohn had a post about it on the Weston A. Price website, they have a lot of info there about A and D levels and how they work together. Other people have had reactions to D also and found that they deficient in A, mostly, I think, by evaluating their diet and seeing there were few good sources of A there. Also, older people and some just not so lucky folks don't process beta carotene into vitamin A, it's age and genetics.

It was recommended that I take additional magnesium and vitamin k2 to see if it would make a difference. I've never taken additional vitamin A though because according to the  vitamin d council, additional vitamin A can be toxic.

I have read that Masterjohn article before though.

I just wanted to add my experience on Vit. D3 supplementation.

Two years ago in July I started supplementing 5,000 i.u. Vit. D3 a day.  My sister had been found low, I live relatively the same lifestyle, and thought, "what the heck, I'll start and get my blood tested in late winter next year".  

That next March I had a blood test and found my blood levels to be at a whopping  32 ng/ml.  My doctor said "fine, you're within range" and I thought, "no, that's not fine" and started to take 15,000 i.u. a day.  In March again this year I had a blood draw, and expected to see a very high ng/ml of Vit. D.  My actual result?  It had raised to 45 ng/ml.  I was floored that with that amount, my levels had only raised such a small amount.  

I will add that I am obese.   I just wanted to give you my experience with D3 supplementation in case it helps someone else.  I have now upped my supplementation once more to 20,000 i.u. a day, and if my next blood test is appreciably better, will hold at that level or drop back some.  I will add that I haven't had many if any colds this past year, so even if I have not attained a more optimal level (perhaps I can't due to obesity)  it's still doing me a lot of good.

Oh, I forgot to mention. A friend of mine suggested I try applying liquid vitamin D on my skin and then checking to see if that raises/maintains my blood levels.

I'm thinking about applying 5 to 8k per day to the skin AFTER I shower so that it gets plenty of time to absorb in the skin. Then re-test my levels after a few months to see if it works.

Please let me know what becomes of your experience! We've not tried this specific strategy.

Hi, Jennifer--

Yes, indeed: The individual experiences with vitamin D can vary widely. You may also note that, 3 or so years into the experience, your needs will diminish, sometimes dramatically, with less vit D required to generate the same blood level.

I began experiencing tightness and soreness in my hips and lower back this year. Have been low carbing for over three years, and, except for a short period of stupidity earlier this year, have not consumed any flour products. My multi-vitamin contains only 500 IU of D3, so I am adding this to my daily supplementing. Should I start slowly, 1000 IU a day for a month, and slowly increase? Is D3 toxic? BTW I am in my late 60's, and I do exercise 5-6 days a week as well.

I have read that 20-25ng/ml is optimal.
"Although numerous studies have not
observed any adverse effects of higher
vitamin D status, a few have. Historically,
the main health risks associated with
excessive vitamin D are linked with
abnormal plasma calcium concentrations.
Excessive vitamin D is recognized to
cause hypercalcemia by increasing intestinal
calcium absorption or by increasing
mobilization of bone calcium. Although
hypercalcemia is uncommon with intakes
less than 10 000 IU/d,3 knowledge of
non-calcium-related adverse events is
limited. At least some evidence suggests
that high vitamin D status may be associated
with increased risk of some cancers.
In a large case control study of prostate
cancer in Finland and Norway, both
low (32 ng/mL)
25(OH)D concentrations were reported
to be associated with an increased incidence
of prostate cancer (50% and 70%,
respectively) compared with individuals
with serum 25(OH)D concentrations
between 16 and 24 ng/mL.4 A direct relationship
between higher vitamin D status
and the development of esophageal
carcinoma also has been observed in
Chinese men.5 Interestingly, all the participants,
including those in the highest
quintile, were vitamin D deficient (26.2
ng/mL) with a 3-fold increased risk of
pancreatic cancer compared to individuals
with the lowest baseline status (<12.8
ng/mL). Overall, these studies suggest
there may be an optimum status and that
values below or above may increase risk
of certain types of cancer.
Adverse events associated with high vitamin
D status other than cancer also have
been observed. Recent data from large
epidemiologic studies, including the Third
National Health and Nutrition Examination
Survey (NHANES III) and the Framingham
Heart Study, suggest that a “U-shaped
curve” relationship exists with all-cause
mortality and the incidence of cardiovascular
disease because both low and high
25(OH)D concentrations elevated risk.7,8
In the NHANES III study, higher mortality
risk was observed in participants
with 25(OH)D above 49 ng/mL. In the
Framingham study, the lowest cardiovascular
disease risks were found in
participants with baseline 25(OH)D levels
of 20 to 25 ng/mL but increased with both
lower and higher values,8 thus suggesting
that increased cardiovascular risk occurred
at levels below 30 ng/mL. Furthermore,
the optimal 25(OH)D levels for protection
against cardiovascular disease and certain
types of cancer may differ from those
for bone metabolism or normal parathyroid
hormone physiology."
from 'too much.pdf' in http://is.gd/vT4Ogh Studies from DrGreger collection.

DrGreger has since changed his recommendation from 4000IU to 2000IU/day:
http://www.facebook.com/NutritionFacts.org/posts/193068787424836 yesterday's update

As knowledge marches forward, there will always be differing observations made, some good, some bad, some indifferent.

However, if we weigh the totality of evidence (and I throw in my experience that now amounts to several thousand patients), there has never been any strategy as powerful as vitamin D--except for elimination of wheat in the human diet, the two most spectacular new health strategies I have encountered in my career.

what happened to my post?

I posted 30Aug11 about a concern I have concerning D3 toxicity, but the message disappeared. I have been following for some two years a daily D3 regimen (4000-8000mg) without incident. I recently experienced unusual chest pains over a week and ended up getting a thorough checkup which found no apparent heart problems. However upon disclosing my protracted D3 intake (considered “very high!") it was suggested I suspend D3 for awhile on the off chance D3 toxicity may be the source of my symptoms. I was wondering if anyone else here has had this experience. As I look into this more, I have learned that D3 toxicity is more subtle and prevalent than I had thought, and is not something to be taken lightly. Clearly as Dr Davis has cautioned, adjusting to the right dosage varies from person to person, and given the latent build up of D3 in fat tissue over time, it is not as straight forward getting it right as one might think. In my case the jury is still out.

re previous message: 4000-8000 mg = 4000-8000iu's

I swear by vitamin D3. It helps me avoid asthma flare ups and kick bugs before they can make me wheeze. In the warm months, I make sure to get outside as much as possible as there are other things produced by the sun in addition to Vitamin D, some of which may be important. Then in the winter, I supplement 2-5k ius a day, increasing to 20k ius when sick.

M

Is taking a high dose of Vitamin D3 during pregnancy safe? I know most of the "recommendations" are to take 200 IU, but I have some 5000 IU pills in my cabinet, and am wondering if those would be safe or not. Or should I find a lower dosage pill?

Hi, Melinda--

Sadly, there are next to no data for how to best manage vitamin D and pregnancy. However, common sense would suggest that achieving a desirable blood vitamin D level should not be harmful, else getting a tan while pregnancy would be harmful, too.

A dose of 5000 units typically yields a healthy blood vitamin D level in the majority of females.

Hi Mike & Dr. Davis!

Can you please tell me, has anything worked for you yet? I too do not like the feeling I get on Vit D3 but I am only at 31 and need  to start taking 8,000 a day as well.

Also Doctor Davis can you please please elaborate on these: "parathyroid and adrenal status, e.g., PTH, calcium, and salivary cortisols". and why they would booby trap the Vit D3 efforts? How does someone work around this ang take Vit D3?? I found out yesterday I happen to have a high Reverse T3 and need to go on thyroid meds and also have adrenal issues. As well as low insulin levels. So I might be the one who is getting booby trapped.

Any help appreciated

Thank you!

Hi Mike & Dr. Davis!

Doctor Davis can you please please elaborate on these: "parathyroid and adrenal status, e.g., PTH, calcium, and salivary cortisols". and why they would booby trap the Vit D3 efforts? How does someone work around this ang take Vit D3?? I found out yesterday I happen to have a high Reverse T3 and need to go on thyroid meds and also have adrenal issues. As well as low insulin levels. So I might be the one who is getting booby trapped.
My Vit D3 is only at 31 and have been prescribed 10,000  a day. I really want to start but I have not liked how I have felt in the past on Vit D3.
Any help appreciated

Thank you!

Hi, Rose--

The key here is to find someone who can guide you along while monitoring and interpreting these factors. The greatest difficulty: finding a healthcare practitioner with the knowledge, experience, and interest in doing so.

As crude as it is, you are still best with word of mouth: asking friends and family who has been a helpful advocate with health problems, especially those involving vitamin D.

See below.

Hi Dr. D,
I posted a question on another thread about vitamin D and calcium levels and now I think this thread is more current and probably relevant .
I am being worked up at the moment for a possible parathyroid adenoma. My serum calcium has been trending up for the past few years and is now 10.3 (x2).
  Way back in 2005 I started reading about the benefits of supplementing with D and used 1000iu/day, as well as 400-800 magnesium and Life Extension's K2. Fast forward to 2009 and imagine my surprise at my D levels being 26!  Increased it to 5-6k per day and went to 43.
Dr. James Norman is considered to be the foremost expert on all things parathyroid here in the US , and his website : parathyroid.com.  was very informative for me, but concerned me regarding blanket supplementation of vitamin D.
I respect your opinions greatly and would like your thoughts as to his information.

Thanks!
Reikime (RN)

Hi, Reikime--

I am obviously no authority on parathyroid tumors. Dr. Norman's website is very interesting and makes great sense. I, too, in looking at vitamin D, calcium, and PTH levels have uncovered several parathyroid tumors. It appears to be a lot more common than previously thought.

The only issue I would disagree strongly with is the statement that the ONLY purpose of vitamin D is to increase intestinal absorption of calcium. In fact, among the most exciting areas of research with vitamin D are a new appreciation for the widespread, multi-faceted effects vit D has in multiple, perhaps all, organ systems.

Hi Dr Davis,
It seems that a finnish University is doing a major study on Vitamin D, check this out!

"The FIND will be a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 5-y supplementation study of the benefits and risks of vitamin D in the primary prevention of CVD and cancer among 18000 men ≥60 y and women ≥65 y. The participants will be randomized to 3 groups with 6000 in each, with daily supplementation of either: 1) 40 µg/d (1600 IU) of vitamin D3, 2) 80 µg/d (3200 IU) of vitamin D3, or 3) placebo. Compliance, use of non-study drugs or supplements, diet, development of endpoints, and CVD and cancer risk factors will be assessed by questionnaires. Blood samples will be collected for assessment of effect modification by baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D, as well as for future ancillary studies of genetic/biochemical hypotheses."

https://www.uef.fi/nutritionepidemiologists/find2

Looks awesome to me. What do you think? Highest dose arm 80 µg a day for 5 years is more than VITAL.

Hi, Johnny--

Excellent!

In the meantime, the effects I continue to witness are so powerful that I still advocate correcting vitamin D to 60-70 ng/ml.

Hi Doc,

A quick question on vitamin D:
I recently tested at 17 ng/ml for vit d.  (had been supplementing w/ 2000 iu of D3 for 2 weeks previous to that).
The doc is recommending I take 40,000 IU once a week for several months until it stabilizes, and then switching to lower supplementation.

A few questions:
(1)  Obviously this will be D2 not D3 since it's prescribed - just go with it?  I believe I read a study somewhere that showed D2 ended up being as effective as D3 despite being slower.
(2)  Thoughts on taking these large "catchup" doses rather than a more consistent 10,000 IU/day regimen?

My other stats:  Age 31, 160lbs, Total Cholesterol = 204, HDL = 60, Triglycerides around 100.

You are closer to the truth, N, than your doctor. Clearly your doctor is fairly ignorant of the emerging issues with vitamin D.

While dosing can vary, depending on body size, race, genetics, etc., 10,000 units per day of D3 would be a typical effective dose.

I had read that about 20-30 minutes of sunlight daily were required for Vitamin D absorption.    Having already gone through Mohs surgery for a tiny basal cell carcinoma on my nose - and being "melanin challenged" - I have always tried to cover up or stay out of direct sun.  Sun blocks apparently have some questionable compounds in them.  I jog 2 miles every day if its not raining or snowing.  So on a sunny day that's 20-30 minutes of exposure.  Should Vitamin D dosage be varied according to daily sun exposure ?   Self-prescribing dosage of supplements is a real headache for me.  I don't have a clue.   It would sure help if there were affordable food sources of sufficient Vitamin D.   What about dairy ?