Vitamin D -- convert your lab's units or you will overdose!
To convert from ng/mL to nmol/L, multiply by 2.5 (2.496 to be precise).
To convert from nmol/L to ng/mL, multiply by 0.4 (0.4006 to be precise).
Why is this so critically important? Because countless people on this forum and elsewhere quote what your Vitamin D level should be, or what their reading was, without giving the units. Many people say, "the optimum level is 75", for example. But that often-quoted 75 is in nmol/L, and many labs (e.g., LabCorp) now use ng/mL, so the 75 should actually be converted to 30 for LabCorp results!
So all the unfortunate people striving and succeeding at reaching this number 75 on their Vitamin D from LabCorp are actually ending up with 188 nmol/L -- which is WAY TOO HIGH. This might explain why some people taking 10,000 IU every day are still disappointed in their low vitamin D levels, when in fact if they converted their units properly, they might find their levels are actually too high.
Again, if your lab's units are in ng/mL (e.g., LabCorp), then don't go above 32 (which is 80 nmol/L) on your vitamin D. And anytime you just see someone say your vitamin D should ideally be a certain number, like say 75, assume they mean in nmol/L and convert your lab's units accordingly!
(FYI, I have to run out now, but will respond to any questions to this post later tonight.)
Kelly
Please note: I AM NOT A DOCTOR. If you want medical advice, talk to your doctor. Whatever I post, there is probably some surgeon or other health care provider somewhere that disagrees with me. If you want to know what your surgeon thinks, then ask him or her. Check out my blog.
But why were they saying it was too low at 30? and if the range is 30 to 80 ng/mL doesn't that mean they want your results to be 75 nmol/L to 200 nmol/L? I am so confused.
WLS 10/28/2002 Revision 7/23/2010
High Weight (2002) 240 Revision Weight (2010) 220 Current Weight 115.
(http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003569.htm)
which would be 75-185 nmol/L
I understand what you are saying about the conversions, but it doesn't seem like 188 is way too high, still in normal range.
Follow my vegan transition at www.bariatricvegan.com
HW:288 CW:146.4 GW: 140 RNY: 12/22/11
There is a lack of definitive evidence for any health benefit when serum 25(OH)D levels are much above 75 nmol/L. Various studies have found that that 25(OH)D levels tend to plateau at around 70-80 nmol/L in the absence of very large supplementation or extreme sun exposure. In fact, a Hawaiian study found that half of surfers had levels below 75 nmol/L despite extensive unprotected outdoor exposure and being very tanned. The question you have to ask is, do you really want to take your levels that much higher than your body seems to want them to go?
To reinforce this "nature knows best" wisdom, there is increasing evidence that serum levels above 125 nmol/L have adverse health effects. Not only did a meta-analysis find no benefit for exceeding 75 nmol/L when looking at half a dozen different kinds of cancer -- it also found that exceeding 100 nmol/L doubled the risk of developing pancreatic cancer, and that is not a cancer you want.
Balance is where things invariably seem to settle even after decades of extremist recommendations in the health arena.
And as to gov recommendations, here is what I found on the US Gov's NIH dietary website: "50 nmol/L (20 ng/mL) is the serum 25(OH)D level that covers the needs of 97.5% of the population. Serum concentrations >125 nmol/L (>50 ng/mL) are associated with potential adverse effects...Emerging evidence links potential adverse effects to such high levels, particularly >150 nmol/L (>60 ng/mL)," [ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind] And this is in keeping with the latest consensus recommendation of the following British orgs: Cancer Research UK, Diabetes UK, the National Heart Forum, the National Osteoporosis Society, British Association of Dermatologists, the Multiple Sclerosis Society, and others.
But I realize some may disagree and that is fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I won't belabor the arguments further here. For what it is worth, I personally am shooting for 90 nmol/L (36 ng/mL), so as to err just a tad on the higher side re calcium absorption post RNY, but not so high as to pose any other health risks.
But whatever your own personal goal is for your vitamin D blood test, the real point of my post is just to make sure you have your units consistent, as it makes a factor of 2.5x difference!
Jan
Half Marathons: Napa: 7/18/10 (4:11:21) 7/17/11 (3:30:58) 7/15/12 (3:13:11.5)
SJ Rock and Roll: 10/2/10 (3:58:22) Run Surf City: 2/6/11 (3:19:54)
Diva: 5/6/12 (3:35:00)
HW/SW/CW 349/326/176
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
