Article on vitamin D

what do you all make of this? Now I'm confused. 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8137364?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Sorry, I can't make this a link on my phone. 

Too much of most things is not good. 

Having too high vit D is not good, too low not good. Some people who were saying we need D in 80-100 levels had no real medical training, nor real knowledge how Vit D works in the body. 

Vit D is more like a hormone, than a vitamin. Not enough is an issue - too much is an issue. Based on my personal research, my own body, my age, and how my body react to things and my vitamin levels, I like to keep my at middle - 50-70.. And not higher than that.. 

Here's the link for the article you posted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tod-cooperman-md/vitamin-d_b_8 137364.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Here is an exhaustive link on vitamin D from the Linus Pauling Institute:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-D

There are two issues -- daily dose for vitamin D, and blood level.

I ignore what everyone who is not a bariatric expert says about how much vitamin D we should take. For RNYers and DSers, the amounts all the "experts" say to take, and even most of our doctors, are just way too low, due to malabsorption. When a nutritionist or PCP says to take 400 units a day, I just smile and nod. It really just won't move the needle for us.

Blood levels are another issue. There are very smart researchers who debate what the correct levels are. I don't know who is right. But the range that seems to have the most consensus is 50-80 nmol/L. Because of malabsorption, our levels can drop faster than others, so I prefer to keep mine closer to 80.

WARNING ABOUT LAB VALUES! Labs use TWO DIFFERENT units of measurement, ng/mL, and nmol/L. Most US labs use the nmol/L, but many use ng/L. 50-80 nmol/L is the same as 20-32 ng/mL. So if your lab uses ng/mL, and your number is 80, it is way, way high. There is a handy calculator to convert between the two here: http://www.endmemo.com/medical/unitconvert/Vitamin__D.php

How much you need to keep your labs in the range you want varies widely. And whatever you are taking this year is going to be different next year, and certainly five or ten years from now. We always have to stay on top of our labs, keep records, track trends, and make adjustments.

I was just concerned because my level has been 38, so I've been taking a little extra to raise it and then I saw this article and wondered if I was doing the right thing.  My surgeon basically said as long as it's in range it doesn't matter.  But he isn't too vigilant about vitamins, so I track them myself.

Yeah, you absolutely have to track them yourself. I keep a spreadsheet, and keep an eye on the trends. If it's steady increase or decrease over 3 labs, it's time to make an adjustment.

It's good that you're paying close attention.

thanks, buddy.

Vit D and iron are the two things that we, in general (but not everyone, of course), have the most trouble with post-op.  It takes a much higher dose to raise (and maintain) our levels on these than someone with an intact digestive system.

Grim gave excellent info. Yes, anything in the range is probably ok, but the problem we run into is that if we get sick or somethign interrupts our supplement routine, our levels can plummet very quickly, so anything that is in a low normal range may drop much too low in a short period of time.  Keeping our labs at a higher level (but still in the normal range) gives us some cushioning against deficiency.

For about 5 years I have bashed my head against a brick wall trying to stop self appointed vitamin gurus giving out dangerous information regarding vitamin D levels and supplementation.

We all have to do our own research and make our individual decisions based on THAT knowledge.   Blindly following anyone's advice (including medical professionals) is a recipe for disaster.