VDC test kit slider
VDC-Banner-new_468
VDC test kit slider
sperti-banner
Hi If I´m taking 50,000 IU D3 once a week, but I´m not taking any supplemental cofactors (ie Magnesium, Zinc, Vitamin K, Boron, Vitamin A) what is the effective amount of Vitamin D3 that I´m getting ? Thanks very much

Asked by  ira.glazer34556900 on December 14, 2016

Answers
  •  ira.glazer34556900 on

    See title

    Answered by  ira.glazer34556900 on
  •  IAW on

    Vitamin D needs these co-factors so it can operate properly and use them to perform functions. If you have a healthy diet, then Vitamin D will get these co-factors from the food you eat. Most of them help to form bones or make reapirs correctly but they also do other things.

    Answered by  IAW on
  •  ira.glazer34556900 on

    Thanks for the reply. Is there any way to estimate the ´cofactor-less´ equivalent dosage of Vitamin D that I´m getting, if I´m not taking any cofactor supplements, and if my diet is not rich in any of the cofactors ? (Or is this not the right way to look at the situation ?) Once again, thanks for the reply.

    Answered by  ira.glazer34556900 on
  •  IAW on

    No, it’s not the correct way to look at the situation.
    If you do not take any co-factors, you will still absorb whatever amount of Vitamin D you take unless perhaps you have intestinal problems. Then sometimes people have trouble absorbing the Vitamin D in pill or capsule form and need oral sprays. After that, for “example”,if there is absolutely no calcium in your diet it is Vitamin D that helps calcium absorb from your intestines and then the calcium can be sent to your bones. If there is no calcium none can be sent. If there is not enough Vitamin D, then you will not absorb the calcium like you should and again then none will reach your bones.
    So really we are hoping that your diet contains the nutrients so you do not have to take co-factors in supplement form.
    The one mineral that can be harder to get in your diet is magnesium. Just taking magnesium alone can solve a lot of health issues. If there is not enough in your diet, then sometimes taking Vitamin D will give you for example a headache. It is not the Vitamin D that is the problem, it is the lack of magnesium. Vitamin K also directs calcium to your bones and away from soft tissues where you do not want it. So if you take Vitamin D, which then absorbs calcium and there is no Vitamin K, your body will not know what to do with the calcium and it could go to the wrong place.
    Now if someone said but I cannot afford to buy any supplements except for the Vitamin D, I would tell them to buy the Vitamin D and take it. Better with it, then without it!
    I hope this helps and if you have further questions, just ask!

    Answered by  IAW on
  •  ira.glazer34556900 on

    @IAW

    Thanks so much for your replies — I really appreciate them. If you don´t mind, I have another question:

    With regard to the studies that showed large decreases in cancer incidences as being associated with higher Vitamin D3 levels, did these studies a)either measure the levels of Vitamin D3 co-factors in the subjects, b)assume that the subjects were getting adequate levels of Vitamin D3 co-factors, or c)not take the levels of Vitamin D3 co-factors into account at all ?

    i.e Is the decreased cancer incidence as a result of an increased Vitamin D3 level irrespective of the levels of the Vitamin D3 co-factors ?

    Thanks so much for your attention to my questions.

    Answered by  ira.glazer34556900 on
  •  IAW on

    Your welcome!
    The answer is “c)not take the levels of Vitamin D3 co-factors into account at all.” They only look at D3 levels.

    Answered by  IAW on
  •  ira.glazer34556900 on

    @IAW

    Once again, thank you so much for your reply. One more question if you don´t mind, and please forgive my simple mindedness: can one say categorically, as per the professional literature, that taking higher levels of Vitamin D3 — without any Vitamin D3 co-factor ingestion via pills or diet — will translate into lower incidences of various types of cancers ? (With the caveat, that I understand, that there might be other confounding factors which the studies might have taken into account, such as smoking status, weight, etc)

    Am I correct in stating this: take lots of Vitamin D3, (ie 50,000 IU/once a week), and regardless whether you ingest any co-factors of Vitamin D3 (via food or pills), the chances of getting a wide variety of cancers will go down pretty significantly ?

    Thank you so much for your replies.

    Be well.

    Answered by  ira.glazer34556900 on
  •  ira.glazer34556900 on

    @IAW

    Thanks so much for your reply. So I take it, I can assume that the increased Vitamin D3 level, BY ITSELF, is responsible for the decreased cancer incidences. Correct ?

    One more thing: from the way you´ve explained it, wouldn´t it be more accurate to describe VITAMIN D3 as a co-factor for magnesium, zinc, boron, Vitamin K, etc, rather than the other way around ?

    Thank you so much for everything.

    Be well,

    Answered by  ira.glazer34556900 on
  •  IAW on

    When they do studies they are not taking into account the co-factors. They only problem with that is if a study is done and they say that Vitamin D had no affect, then is it the D or is it because they were missing a co-factor that gave the results a poor outcome?
    On the VDC page they do not list calcium as a “co-factor”. If you do not ingest any calcium then one of Vitamin D’s jobs is to absorb the calcium from your intestines. So it is pretty important to have both of them.
    No, it is not better to describe Vitamin D as the co factor. There are receptor sites all over the human body for Vitamin D. It also turns “genes on and off” (regulates). So it has many, many important jobs!

    Answered by  IAW on

Recent Discussion

Popular Questions