My doctor has prescribed 50,000 of ergocalciferol and I do not want to take it

Our Pacific children  seriously compromising their
health by sticking to misguided sun-
avoidance policies.

"My vitamin d level is 10.1 I am currently taking 2000 IU per day. I never go out in the sun. I am thinking about going out after 5 pm with my arms and face exposed to the sun for 10 mins. daily. What are your feelings on improving my count. My doctor has prescribed 50,000 of ergocalciferol and I do not want to take it. Kind regards", "D" 

_____________________________

Gary:

"D"

I do not recommend the mega-dosing with synthetic vitamin D.  I consider it unsafe and I have seen cases where it has caused harm.  You would never feed your tomato plants with water or fertiliser this way.  You would kill is.  So why would you do it to yourself or anybody else for that matter?

Refer here:

http://blog.garymoller.com/2011/06/is-monthly-administration-of-50000iu.html 

There is no scientific evidence that I know of anywhere that shows that exposing only the arms and face to sun has any measurable effect on vitamin D levels, especially late or early in the day.  This sort of has no scientific basis.  In my opinion, this advice only serves to perpetuate the current epidemic of vitamin D deficiency and the long list of associated diseases, including cancer.  Avoiding sun exposure may reduce the incidence of only skin cancer (the emphasis being on "may") while causing an increase in at least 30 others, including ovarian, breast prostate and bowel cancer.  Its medical madness!

Healthy sun exposure advice has
to be based on skin type - not what
suits the majority while
compromising the health
of the minority

Another mistake with advising people to get sun exposure when the sun is low is the beneficial UVB is refracted out more than the cancer-causing UVA, meaning a person who sunbathes at times other than around midday gets proportionately more cancer-causing UVA.  So, the better advice to get a light tan from full body exposure at midday, rather than trying to do the same by having to spend much longer out in the sun when it is lower on the horizon.  I hope that makes sense.

Another mistake with this misguided sun-avoidance advice is it is racially biased, in favour of white people and terribly to the detriment of all dark-skinned people, including our Polynesian populations (These include my four children and the Samoan half of my family).  Skin cancers from sun exposure are next to non-existent in Polynesians: at least 1/50th that of the general population.  In fact, there appear to be no records for skin cancer rates among Pacific Peoples.  Dark-skinned people are adapted for long periods of exposure to scorching sun, without which their health is seriously compromised.  Killer internal cancers, depression, diabetes, osteoporosis, heart failure, dementia and diabetes are all driven by lack if sunlight on the bare skin and these diseases are decimating our Pacific People.

I have fair skin so I must take great care when out in the sun.  In contrast my partner, Alofa, and our four half-caste children, can spend just about all day frolicking in the sun - Much to my envy!

2,000iu per day of natural vitamin D is safe and will do the job.  Even if levels are very low, such as they are in your case, there is no need to panic.  Think of yourself as a wilted tomato plant that is need of some tender, loving care.  Just a little bit daily is the way to nurture yourself back to vigorous health, rather than going for a succession of big hits every week or so.

Nurture your body - Don't napalm it!

About this website 

The advice in these articles is given freely without promise or obligation. Its all about giving you and your family the tools and information to take control of your health and fitness.

Annual Vitamin D Dose Linked to Increased Fall, Fracture Risk in Older Women

In the study, which is reproduced in full below, elderly women were randomly administered a 500,000 iu dose of vitamin D or a placebo.  To their surprise (Except me), there were more fractures in the women who received the  megadose of vitamin D than those who did not.  How could this be, since vitamin D is supposed to strengthen bones and improve strength and balance?

So, what's going on here?  I will do some educated speculating in an attempt to shed light on this mystery ....

There are several principles of nutrition that we need to be mindful of when giving supplements to people:

• Giving megadoses of a nutrient can trigger a protective response by the body to dump the excess.  In so doing, one or many other nutrients may be lost in the process. 
• In addition, the dumping process may go too far, further exacerbating the original deficiency. 
• An excess of one nutrient can cause a relative deficiency of one or more other nutrients. 
• The body may need large amounts of other nutrients in order to incorporate the megadose into the body.  If just one of these nutrients is in short supply, then the megadose may just sit wherever it ends  up, doing no real good and possibly a whole lot of harm.

It appears to me that this misguided study is violating all of these common sense principles of nutrition.