Posted by softheprairie on May 22, 2010, at 16:47:12
In reply to Re: Vitamin D3 and fatigue » softheprairie, posted by janejane on May 22, 2010, at 10:46:27
> I just re-read what I wrote above, and realized it might sound snarky. (I think it's the word "guru.") If so, I apologize as it wasn't meant that way. I do think that if he goes by ng/ml, 120 seems high for the upper end, compared to what most Vitamin D advocates recommend (I'm talking here about people who consider the current standards to be too conservative, e.g., the Vitamin D Council, which considers 50-80 to be optimal). I've seen 3 holistic docs in the past year and all seemed to feel 50 is adequate though a bit higher is probably even better. (They did all agree that 30 is too low, though that's the cut-off most labs seem to use for insufficiency. In nmol/L, that'd probably be 75 or 80.) There is a lot of disagreement, though, so it's really hard to know what to aim for as an optimal number.
I think my rates were all ng/ml, and the guru's also (lol). Maybe it's best that I try to keep mine in the 70s after all. I do respect groups like the Vitamin D Council, at least what little I know of them.
poster:softheprairie
thread:948201
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100514/msgs/948340.html