From Dr. Sears Jan 25, 2011 House Call

Would you use a drug that gives you the problem it’s supposed to prevent?

Well, that’s exactly what’s going on with the new osteoporosis drugs.

Fosomax, Boniva, Reclast, Actonel... these medications are supposed to help stop you from getting bone fractures as you get older. But we now have evidence that they cause bone breaks.

Researchers studied women taking these medications – called bisphosphonates – who experienced some sort of fracture. Over 65 percent had the same rare fracture in the same area of their thigh bones. And these were the women who had been on the drugs for the longest periods.1

Plus they’ve also found that if you’re on the drugs for a long time and you do get a bone break, you’ll heal very slowly. Sometimes it can take two years!

It’s another example of how modern medicine doesn’t learn from its mistakes. They refuse to take a whole-body approach to healing. Instead they opt to treat individual symptoms with drugs designed only for those symptoms.

And bone density drugs are a perfect example of this. I’ll tell you how they work in a moment, but first I want to tell you a little bit about how your body makes bone…

Your bones have cells called osteoclasts. Their job is to remove old bone tissue. This allows the bone to grow strong because other cells called osteoblasts then rebuild the bone.

With osteoporosis and other bone diseases, there is an imbalance … either your osteoblasts aren’t making new cells fast enough, or osteoclasts are removing too much tissue.

So drug companies came up with a way to stop osteoclasts from removing the old tissue, which also artificially increases your bone density: bisphosphonate drugs.

There are two problems with this.

1. By keeping your old bone tissue, you increase bone mass but make bones act older.

2. The drugs do the job by poisoning your osteoclast cells.

What happens is that you take the medicine, the osteoclasts absorb it, and it poisons the osteoclast cells by cutting off their blood supply. The cells then either work very slowly or die.

Because they don’t take away the old tissue, your bones become denser. But they’re dense with old tissue. And the osteoblasts can’t make new tissue if the old tissue is still there.

After a while, the old-bone tissue becomes brittle and fragile, like glass, because it’s not as strong as the newer bone that would have formed without the drugs.

You end up with technically “dense” but weak bones that can fracture.

The other thing that can happen that most people don’t know about is osteonecrosis. This is what happens when your bones are too dense with old tissue. There’s not enough space in the inner bone for your bone marrow, which keeps your bones alive. Your bones then start to die. This often happens in the jaw.

Look, poisoning your body is hardly ever a good idea. This is why in my practice, I never use these drugs. I’ve helped thousands of patients – both men and women – increase their bone mineral density naturally. Here’s what I tell them:

1. Vitamin D3 (calcifediol) is your number-one bone nutrient. Your body uses it in the process of making osteoclast and osteoblast cells. I always recommend sunshine as the best source of vitamin D. But because it’s winter and you might not be able to get that much sun on your skin, you can:

• Eat some mushrooms: They’re the only vegetable that has vitamin D.
• Eat seafood: Everyone knows by now that cold-water fish have lots of vitamin D. But did you know that oysters have as much vitamin D as salmon? You get about 350 IU for every 3.5 ounces.
• Eat liver: Pork and beef liver are good sources. Braunschweiger pork sausage has 27 IU for every 2 slices, and beef liver has 42 IU for every 3 oz.
• Supplement: I recommend 3,000-5,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day.

2. Vitamin K is also important when it comes to maintaining strong bones. Vitamin K comes in two forms: K1 is found in leafy green vegetables and helps with blood clotting. K2 on the other hand aids with your bones’ absorption of calcium to help make them stronger. You can find K2 in a variety of different foods including egg yolks, organ meat, and organic milk. I recommend 90 mcg a day.

3. Sex hormones are building blocks for strong bones.

• Estrogen and testosterone control the amount of calcium absorbed into your bones. And by maintaining proper levels in your body, the less likely your bones are to weaken and fracture.
  
  
• Progesterone also plays a role. Studies show that the cycle of ovulation is also a cycle of bone formation. Progesterone levels drop after giving birth, and after menopause, so returning your levels to normal can be, according to one study, “extraordinarily effective in reversing osteoporosis.”3

4. The more protein you eat, the easier it is for your bones to absorb calcium and the stronger your bones will become.4 You want to eat as many different kinds of protein as you can. When choosing animal protein, be sure to opt for natural, hormone-free meat and eggs. Grass-fed beef, free-range chicken, and cage-free eggs are good choices.

5. Weight-bearing exercise is one of the most effective ways to increase your bone strength and help prevent fractures. These include walking, bicycling, sprints, swimming or weight training. Focus on increasing intensity in all of these exercises.

Another benefit for your bones is that if you focus on increasing intensity, instead of increasing duration, you’ll lose weight and shed fat faster. This will reduce the amount of stress on your bones and joints, helping you prevent future injuries down the road.

To Your Good Health,

Dr. Waling

Dear Reader,

 How do you make your drug the best selling drug of all time? Well, it doesn't hurt to get creative. Unless you get caught... That's the dilemma facing Pfizer executives right now. Seems they may have gotten a little TOO creative in their sales tactics for their cholesterol-lowering juggernaut Lipitor. They're charged with misleading millions of doctors and patients, which just might include defrauding of the government. Now, I can't say whether they did or they didn't. But either way, they apparently benefited from a miscalculation of heart attack risks. It's like they drew a variation of that Community Chest card in Monopoly: "Bank error in your favor. Collect millions of extra dollars." ----------------------------------------------------------- Hard to figure ----------------------------------------------------------- To get the full scope of what Pfizer may have been up to, we need to think back on a time when computers and multi- function cell phones didn't dominate the way we went about our daily routines. (I know, it's hard for me, too. But there was a time...). Back in those days, doctors used a complex equation to judge a patient's 10-year risk of heart attack. They had to sharpen a pencil, get out a calculator, and cross reference your blood test results with sets of tables. It was actually kind of difficult to figure out if your risk made you a candidate for drug therapy. A few years ago this equation was reworked into a much simpler point system by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). Then it became easy for your doctor to figure your drug needs. But now, with new computer programs, that original equation is easily calculated. So some researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College wondered what would happen if they compared the old equation with the newer point system. Which kind of makes you wonder why someone didn't think of making the comparison a long time ago! You can see where this is going. Using data for more than 2,500 people, the Weill Cornell team calculated once with the old equation and once with the point system. And they found significant differences in the outcomes. Most importantly, they discovered that millions of patients at low risk have been wrongly classified in a higher risk group--a group that is routinely recommended drug therapy. That's a pretty sweet gift for any company that happens to make cholesterol drugs! ----------------------------------------------------------- Stretching the points ----------------------------------------------------------- One of the Weill Cornell study authors is Jesse Polansky, who also happens to be a former Pfizer executive. He claims that this point system gift still was not quite sweet enough to satisfy the all-out marketing blitz behind Lipitor. In a lawsuit filed earlier this year, Polansky says that the company exploited the point system by intentionally distorting the guidelines. The distortions were then highlighted when making "educational" presentations-- whether for individual doctors or hundreds of doctors attending health conferences. Polansky notes that these efforts boosted the reclassification of many moderate risk patients into a high risk group. Of course, this made them perfect candidates for a lifetime membership in the Lipitor club. And beyond the obvious health concerns, there's yet another kicker: "Millions of those improper prescriptions were ultimately paid for by various government healthcare plans." Normally federal lawmakers don't look too kindly on getting bilked out of millions of dollars. It will be interesting to see if they make an exception for a government-cozy drug giant like Pfizer. I'll keep an eye on this one to see how it goes. I can't wait to find out if a judge or jury agrees that Pfizer execs were caught with their hand in a really large cookie jar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The 7 most dangerous lies your doctor's telling you (even if he doesn't know it)... In the next 22 minutes, 100 Americans will die under the care of sincere conventional MDs. Discover what could have saved 95 of them...And one of them might be YOU. Save yourself a lot of pain, money - and maybe even your own life. Get the real story here, right now... http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/AAKkSQ/AAKtQA/AAJ7+Q/AQ/AZF6KQ/k5Ih -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...and another thing You've got to hand it to the Corn Refiners Association-- they're not going down without a fight. Consumption of high fructose corn syrup is at a 20-year- low. And this is AFTER a high profile campaign of television ads that must have cost them millions. But before CRA executives fill the lifeboats, they're making one last ditch attempt to keep HFCS afloat. They've asked the FDA to allow them to change the name of high fructose corn syrup to corn sugar. All along they've made the claim that there's really hardly any chemical difference at all between table sugar and HFCS. So their thinking obviously goes something like this: If they just call it corn sugar, everyone will forget about HFCS and start consuming corn sugar products. Well...that might have worked 10 years ago before HFCS use was linked with possible mercury contamination and a higher risk of obesity. But at this point they could call it "sexy money sugar" and I don't think it would make much difference. But that doesn't mean we should go down without a fight either. It's obvious to me that the CRA is hoping they can trick people into continuing to use their unhealthy product with a makeover of sorts. So we need to let the FDA know that they shouldn't let this pig put on any lipstick. You can e-mail your comments to consumer@fda.gov. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- See More Clearly Without Annoying Reading Glasses! Are you or a loved one suffering from vision problems? How would you feel if you could do the following? Keep your eyes strong and healthy for a lifetime Combat causes of vision-related headaches Promote visual clarity Improve your near vision You could do all this, and more -- safely and effectively -- but first you must click HERE! http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/AAKkSQ/AAKtQA/AAJ7+g/AQ/AZF6KQ/p_gy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To start receiving your own copy of the HSI e-Alert, visit: http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/AAKkSQ/AAKtQA/C4U/Ag/AZF6KQ/M8gs Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the HSI e-Alert. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sources: "Coronary Risk Assessment by Point-Based vs. Equation-Based Framingham Models: Significant Implications for Clinical Care" Journal of General Internal Medicine, Published online ahead of print, 9/8/10, springerlink.com "Former Pfizer Exec Sues Over Lipitor Marketing" Ed Silverman, Pharmalot, 2/11/10, pharmalot.com "Change 'High Fructose Corn Syrup' Name To 'Corn Sugar' Industry Asks Regulators" Christian Nordqvist, Medical News Today, 9/14/10, medicalnewstoday.com The information in this e-mail is offered as a general guideline, not one-size-fits-all medical advice. Talk to your doctor before making any changes in your personal health care regimen. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c)2010 by Healthier News, LLC. Thank you for your interest in the Health Sciences Institute of Baltimore. We do not allow republication of our full newsletters and articles. However, you can post a portion (no more than 90 words, 1-2 paragraphs) of our content with a live link back to our homepage (www.hsionline.com), or a link to the specific article you are quoting from. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Before you hit reply to send us a question or request, please visit here http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/AAKkSQ/AAKtQA/C4c/AQ/AZF6KQ/eN-O -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Got 60 seconds? Learn how you can receive our complete encyclopedia "HSI's 100 Greatest Underground Cures" absolutely FREE. http://clicks.hsibaltimore.com//t/AQ/AAKkSQ/AAKtQA/AAEtYg/AQ/AZF6KQ/O9Wj -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you want to end your HSI e-Alert subscription or you need to change your e-mail address, please follow the instructions below. Your changes will be effective immediately. However, if you do not follow the instructions below and simply hit reply instead, we may not receive your request and cannot assure you that it will be completed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- e-Alert Exclusive! Get insider-only deals on the best health products. Save 40%, 50% or more! Full details here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please note: We sent this e-mail to: the_walings@comcast.net because you subscribed to this service. Manage your subscription: To end your HSI e-Alert subscription...click below: Unsubscribe Here To manage your subscription by mail or for any other subscription issues, write us at: Order Processing Center Attn: Customer Service P.O. Box 925 Frederick, MD 21705 USA

A sweet problem: Princeton researchers find that high-fructose corn syrup prompts considerably more weight gain

Posted March 22, 2010; 10:00 a.m.

by Hilary Parker

A Princeton University research team has demonstrated that all sweeteners are not equal when it comes to weight gain: Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same. 

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

"Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn't true, at least under the conditions of our tests," said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. "When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."

In results published online Feb. 26 by the journal Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, the researchers from the Department of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute reported on two experiments investigating the link between the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup and obesity.

The first study showed that male rats given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, in conjunction with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas.

The second experiment -- the first long-term study of the effects of high-fructose corn syrup consumption on obesity in lab animals -- monitored weight gain, body fat and triglyceride levels in rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup over a period of six months. Compared to animals eating only rat chow, rats on a diet rich in high-fructose corn syrup showed characteristic signs of a dangerous condition known in humans as the metabolic syndrome, including abnormal weight gain, significant increases in circulating triglycerides and augmented fat deposition, especially visceral fat around the belly. Male rats in particular ballooned in size: Animals with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained 48 percent more weight than those eating a normal diet.

"These rats aren't just getting fat; they're demonstrating characteristics of obesity, including substantial increases in abdominal fat and circulating triglycerides," said Princeton graduate student Miriam Bocarsly. "In humans, these same characteristics are known risk factors for high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, cancer and diabetes." In addition to Hoebel and Bocarsly, the research team included Princeton undergraduate Elyse Powell and visiting research associate Nicole Avena, who was affiliated with Rockefeller University during the study and is now on the faculty at the University of Florida. The Princeton researchers note that they do not know yet why high-fructose corn syrup fed to rats in their study generated more triglycerides, and more body fat that resulted in obesity. 

When male rats were given water sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup in addition to a standard diet of rat chow, the animals gained much more weight than male rats that received water sweetened with table sugar, or sucrose, along with the standard diet. The concentration of sugar in the sucrose solution was the same as is found in some commercial soft drinks, while the high-fructose corn syrup solution was half as concentrated as most sodas, including the orange soft drink shown here. (Photo: Denise Applewhite)

High-fructose corn syrup and sucrose are both compounds that contain the simple sugars fructose and glucose, but there at least two clear differences between them. First, sucrose is composed of equal amounts of the two simple sugars -- it is 50 percent fructose and 50 percent glucose -- but the typical high-fructose corn syrup used in this study features a slightly imbalanced ratio, containing 55 percent fructose and 42 percent glucose. Larger sugar molecules called higher saccharides make up the remaining 3 percent of the sweetener. Second, as a result of the manufacturing process for high-fructose corn syrup, the fructose molecules in the sweetener are free and unbound, ready for absorption and utilization. In contrast, every fructose molecule in sucrose that comes from cane sugar or beet sugar is bound to a corresponding glucose molecule and must go through an extra metabolic step before it can be utilized.

This creates a fascinating puzzle. The rats in the Princeton study became obese by drinking high-fructose corn syrup, but not by drinking sucrose. The critical differences in appetite, metabolism and gene expression that underlie this phenomenon are yet to be discovered, but may relate to the fact that excess fructose is being metabolized to produce fat, while glucose is largely being processed for energy or stored as a carbohydrate, called glycogen, in the liver and muscles.

In the 40 years since the introduction of high-fructose corn syrup as a cost-effective sweetener in the American diet, rates of obesity in the U.S. have skyrocketed, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 1970, around 15 percent of the U.S. population met the definition for obesity; today, roughly one-third of the American adults are considered obese, the CDC reported. High-fructose corn syrup is found in a wide range of foods and beverages, including fruit juice, soda, cereal, bread, yogurt, ketchup and mayonnaise. On average, Americans consume 60 pounds of the sweetener per person every year.

"Our findings lend support to the theory that the excessive consumption of high-fructose corn syrup found in many beverages may be an important factor in the obesity epidemic," Avena said.

The new research complements previous work led by Hoebel and Avena demonstrating that sucrose can be addictive, having effects on the brain similar to some drugs of abuse. 

In the future, the team intends to explore how the animals respond to the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in conjunction with a high-fat diet -- the equivalent of a typical fast-food meal containing a hamburger, fries and soda -- and whether excessive high-fructose corn syrup consumption contributes to the diseases associated with obesity. Another step will be to study how fructose affects brain function in the control of appetite.

The research was supported by the U.S. Public Health Service.

Back To Top

Physician's First Watch for August 18, 2009
David G. Fairchild, MD, MPH, Editor-in-ChiefPhysician's First Watch for August 18, 2009

Chinese Herb Appears Better Than Standard Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis 

U.S. researchers randomized some 120 adults with active rheumatoid arthritis to receive the extract (180 mg) or sulfasalazine (2 g) daily for 24 weeks. Participants were allowed to use stable prednisone dosing (up to 7.5 mg/day) but not disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

In intent-to-treat analyses, significantly more patients assigned to TwHF versus sulfasalazine achieved at least a 20% improvement in arthritis symptoms (65% vs. 33%). In analyses limited to the roughly 50% of patients who completed the study, results were similar. Adverse events did not differ between the two groups.

The authors write that three of TwHF's metabolites — triptolide, tripdiolide, and triptonide — may account for its anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects.

To test or not to test — the ABC’s of vitamin D testing and treatment

Recommendations for people who choose to get vitamin D testing — and some guidance for those who don’t

How do I know if I need testing?

Today we know the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is widespread, and for this reason feel testing is easily justifiable for all people. Everyone stands to benefit from knowing what their levels are and, if not optimal, supplementing their vitamin D3 intake. But we also recognize that for whatever reason, not everyone will choose to get tested.

Still, at the very minimum, people who have or are at higher risk of the following health concerns should seriously consider getting their vitamin D levels tested:

• family history or personal history of cancer
• hypertension (high blood pressure)
• schizophrenia
• depression
• migraines
• epilepsy
• osteoarthritis
• autoimmune conditions (such as lupus, ankylosing spondylitis, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis)
• PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome)
• diabetes mellitus (both types 1 and 2)
• fibromyalgia
• osteoporosis/osteopenia

In addition, anyone who experiences symptoms of:

• musculoskeletal pain, including joint pain and low back pain
• muscle weakness
• poor balance
• systemic inflammation

What if I decide not to get tested?

There is a wealth of health benefits to be enjoyed when we are vitamin D replete. One way to get there knowingly is through periodic testing and vitamin D supplementation. But if you choose not to get tested, all the benefits of the sunshine vitamin are still available to you. You have two options:

Natural vitamin D production. The freest, most natural way is nature’s own: through limited exposure of your skin to the sun. Without sunblock, your skin can manufacture on average 10,000–15,000 IU vitamin D in a single “pinking” exposure. But this route has its limitations, too. Most obviously, if your skin is very, very light, or if you are at risk of or have a history of melanoma, or if you’re fearful of sun exposure for any reason, this is not a workable option for you. (Note that sunblock with an SPF of 15 or higher will block 100% of vitamin D production.) In addition, sun exposure doesn’t work equally well for everyone. It’s a given that the darker your skin, the more melanin pigment it contains, and the more prolonged sunshine exposure you will need to produce adequate vitamin D. What’s more, our inborn ability to manufacture vitamin D from sun exposure tends to decrease as we age, too, and it’s been found that many elderly folks do not manufacture vitamin D at all well. This is because as we age, the thickness of our skin decreases linearly, along with the amount in the skin of the cholesterol-related precursor to the vitamin D molecule. Recently it has also been found that people who are obese do not as readily generate vitamin D in the skin.

Oral vitamin D supplements. Luckily, almost anyone in these groups can benefit from taking oral vitamin D3. If you are among those at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency and you decide not to have testing, we suggest you take 2000 IU oral vitamin D3 supplementation daily. If after 6 weeks you’re not feeling better, you may very well need more to achieve optimal levels. In this case you will need testing and follow-up with a qualified healthcare practitioner to safely achieve optimal levels.

Here is a list of certain populations who are at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency:

• Those who live above 35–40° latitude — you may only get enough radiation from the sun between May and October in the Northern Hemisphere, and between October and May in the Southern Hemisphere. (Visit the World Atlas website to check out your latitude!)
• Those who do not get out in the sun regularly, those who avoid it altogether, and those who use SPF 15 or higher sunblock
• Dark-skinned people
• Elderly people
• Overweight/obese people
• Teens

What specific test should I request from my healthcare provider?

You want to ask for the test that measures the circulating form of vitamin D:  this is referred to as 25[OH]D, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D.

Do I need to schedule my vitamin D test at a certain time, or together with other tests?

Vitamin D testing is best done:

• at any time when you have not been exposed to UVB light for ~6 weeks, as in late fall through late spring or summer
• after discontinuing vitamin D supplement use for at least 3 days
• when you are at least 4 hours fasting
• together with a test for serum calcium levels (an indicator for toxicity)

What levels are optimal when I get my vitamin D tested?

Most labs here in the US currently have a reference range of 20–100 ng/mL. As you can see from the table below, we use a much narrower range at Women to Women!

Many testing labs are currently reporting a twofold to threefold increase in the number of vitamin D tests being ordered. But even now that many physicians agree that everyone needs to get their levels checked, the risk here is that it you may become just another number, where as long as you fall within the conventional normal range, you’re told you’re just fine.

The reality is that you will not be deriving all the benefits of vitamin D unless your levels are quite a bit higher than the norm. You may want to explain to your practitioner, when talking about your blood test, that your goal is to reach into the higher end of the conventional reference range. The mean value in the US is between 25 and 30 ng/mL, so most people here have values that are well below optimal.

While the “normal” reference range is considered to be anywhere from 20–100 ng/mL, the latest scientific research shows the optimal range for health maintenance is 50–70 ng/mL. At these higher levels numerous health benefits can be gained — better bone strength, mood, energy, hormone performance, inflammation reduction, cancer prevention, and more! (Visit the Grassroots Health website to download a chart showing levels needed to provide preventive and healing benefits.)

For healing more serious medical conditions, some research is showing you may need to keep your vitamin D level up even higher. If you have a serious medical condition such as cancer, we urge you to work with a functional medicine practitioner to reach and maintain the levels most helpful for you as an individual.

How do I know how much vitamin D to take to get replete?

How much supplemental vitamin D3 to take depends on how much is in your blood. And how much your body needs to get your levels higher differs from person to person.

We recommend 1000–2000 IU/day unless you are working with a qualified functional medicine practitioner or nutritionist with regular testing in follow-up. If you are deficient, more than this will likely be necessary, but any supplementation above and beyond 2000 IU daily should only be done in conjunction with periodic testing and under the watchful guidance of a qualified healthcare professional.

Again, if you have a serious medical problem, testing and regular follow-up will be needed.

Should I be worried about vitamin D toxicity? How can I prevent vitamin D toxicity?

For most otherwise healthy people who choose not to test for vitamin D levels, it’s generally okay to supplement with 2000 IU vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) daily, at least between the fall through the spring months, and even in the summertime 2000 IU per day should be fine if you do not get unprotected sun exposure.

However, we do want you to be aware that there are some precautions regarding vitamin D supplementation. If you have any health condition that predisposes you to high calcium in the blood (hypercalcemia),you should not take vitamin D except under the watchful care of a healthcare provider. These conditions include but are not limited to:

• hyperparathyroidism
• granulomatous disease
• sarcoidosis
• Lyme disease
• lymphoma
• kidney disease

It also includes anyone taking the diuretic known as hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), a “water pill” drug used to treat high blood pressure and fluid retention caused by a range of conditions, including heart disease.

What are the symptoms of vitamin D toxicity? Can someone be just hypersensitive to vitamin D?

Rarely, an individual may ingest too much vitamin D, which puts them at risk for a reaction from vitamin D hypersensitivity or toxicity. But most people with vitamin D toxicity do not experience symptoms — which is why we do not at this time recommend using more than 2000 IU per day without regular testing and follow-up.

Symptoms of hypersensitivity may be dizziness, and signs of toxicity may include serious stomach upset, vomiting and excessive thirst. If a woman has any concerns or reactions suspected she should stop use immediately and contact the doctor.

The symptoms of too much vitamin D (hypervitaminosis D) are connected with the consequences of having too much calcium in the blood (hypercalcemia). This occurs once the kidneys’ ability to eliminate calcium is exceeded.

Note that this is not a common problem — thankfully, vitamin D toxicity is rare. Most healthy people would have to take a great deal of oral vitamin D before they would reach toxic levels. Here is a list of the clinical manifestations of vitamin D toxicity:

• anorexia
• weight loss
• weakness
• fatigue
• disorientation
• vomiting
• constipation

At our clinic, whenever we prescribe more than 2000 IU vitamin D daily for a patient, we also prescribe regular retesting, and typically request that their blood calcium levels be checked at the same time, just so there is no question of toxicity. See schedule below.

What about retesting? Do I need it?

This will depend on your medical or health condition, and how much vitamin D supplementation you are taking or if you are being prescribed vitamin D therapeutically. If you are found to be deficient and/or you are supplementing at doses higher than 2000 IU daily, we recommend retesting within 2 weeks to 2 months after initiating supplementation.

Once you attain vitamin D repletion, you can refer to the box below on how to keep your levels optimal.

How can I maintain my vitamin D levels once I get them up to where I want to be?

That’s a wonderful question! The answer will vary, according to your age, skin tone, where you live (latitude), the seasons, and your lifestyle (indoors or outdoors, sunscreen protection, and other aspects of the way you live). It will also depend on other risk factors for vitamin D deficiency, and you may want to modify accordingly. Again, the best way to know is to get tested periodically! Here’s what we do in Maine, where the UVB rays are only strong enough (290–315 nm) between May and September to convert the precursor molecule in the skin to provitamin D3.