i honestly can't tell if it made any difference as there are far too many other confounding factors. i think getting vit-d levels in the medium to high end of the recommended range is a good idea but i don't know how much of an impact this has on symptoms or inflammatory markers but in theory it should help.

that's pretty much my sentiment as well.

When I started Vit D supplementation, my level was 8. After 2 weeks, I felt 'better', though I couldn't describe WHERE I was better. I was taking 50K IU weekly and 5000IU on the other days. Level climbed up to 30, then to 60. Last test was in the 90s, so rheumy told me to back off what I was taking. I stopped it for a month and restarted at 2000IU per day...most days. Will check again in a week or so, to see what it's at. After that first 2 weeks, I've felt NOTHING different that wasn't attributable to other changes I've made (Remicade to Enbrel, etc). It hasn't made any difference in my inflammatory markers, but mine don't correlate with my symptoms, anyway. Conventional wisdom is that we autoimmune folks should aim for the upper end of the scale for it to make a difference. I think our units are ng/mL, but that's a guess...don't have a lab sheet with me.

http://www.westonaprice.org/fat-soluble-activators/x-factor-is-vitamin-k2#fig2


Quote: "I made sure to take vit-A and K2 at the same time. there is evidence that they each protect against the toxicity of the other and synergistically suppress the development of Th17 cells which are increased in AS."

Jroc - Think you will find the above link interesting. Very good monograph.

This is the latest from France - and just collected my blood results (done for free as my bloods were done also for free in the UK) up from 9 to 32 : 25-OH Vitamin D (D2+D3) : 32 ng/ml - huzzah. Excellent. Anyway, at present, including today, much about D3 in the Fr. media, from radio to various media outlets (follows auto-translate from my fave Fr. mag - this is the on-line version, a freeby) :

http://www.lepoint.fr/chroniqueurs-du-po...-1454556_57.php

By ANNE JEANBLANC

There is no danger in delay, but should be amended certain lifestyle for its "healthy dose" of vitamin D. This is the meaning of the conclusion of a study that was conducted in France by the Monitoring Unit of Nutrition and Epidemiology Institute of Health. Posted Tuesday morning in the Weekly Epidemiological Bulletin , its objective was to assess the frequency of vitamin D deficiency and its associated factors among adults living in the metropolis. For this, the team of Michel Vernay analyzed the results of blood test in 25-hydroxyvitamin D of 1587 adults not taking medication with vitamin D and having participated in the study in 2006-2007 National Health and Nutrition .

Results: 80% of people surveyed (aged 18 to 74 years) had vitamin D deficiency, but the deficit is considered moderate to severe in 42.5% of the population and severe in 5%. Overall, the risk of deficiency is associated with being born outside of Europe, not to go on holiday, to live in an area of low sunlight, or even to have a low level of physical activity or be totally sedentary and live alone. It is also related to smoking and alcoholism. But obviously the results varied depending on the time at which the blood was taken (maximum concentration of vitamin D from June to September and lowest from February to May).

Protective role

Vitamin D plays a major role in skeletal mineralization and any shortfall resulting in bone abnormalities, increases the risk of osteoporosis and fractures, often synonymous with loss of autonomy in the elderly. But that's not all, as more and more work - whose findings are to be confirmed - indicate that this substance could also play a protective role with respect to hypertension, cardiovascular disease and certain cancers (mainly in the colon, breast and prostate). It could also be an important modulator of the immune system.

Vitamin D is primarily produced by the body under the action of ultraviolet radiation on the skin, the remainder from food and especially of oily sea fish and wild egg yolks. Therefore the risk of a deficit depends on the sunlight of the area of ​​residence (depending on latitude, season, air pollution ...), individual practices moderate but regular exposure to sunlight (outdoor activities air, more or less covering clothes, use of sunscreen ...), the skin pigmentation and food intake. Young children, pregnant women and the elderly are, because of increased needs and decreased exposure to sunlight, higher risk of deficiency.

Considering that 50-70% of vitamin D requirements are covered by production dependent on sunlight conditions, the recommendations call for an exposure to the sun's face and arms for 15 to 30 minutes a day. But be careful not to abuse because their exposures too prolonged, too frequent or too intense constitute a risk factor for skin cancer. Moreover, since 2001, an Order in France allows vitamin D fortification of milk and fresh dairy consumption. This should help limit deficits, especially in winter and early spring."

-------------##

Loved the 'wild egg yolks'and 'sun's face and arms'...smile. All good stuff.

excellent article, thanks molly

Yes, Molly, good articles. I especially like the article about K2. It prevents calcification of soft tissue and helps the calcium get deposited where it's supposed to be deposited. I think it's a greatly overlooked supplement. Soft tissue calcification is a major problem causer.

At 10 days of VIt D 4000 units daily, so far no significant change.Still early days i suppose .....

Would suggest early days. Why didn't they do a loading dose, then daily dose for say, three months, then check for the D levels?

http://www.inspire.com/groups/national-osteoporosis-foundation/discussion/vitamin-d-80/

Very good discussion on D - this from the Osteoporosis Foundation.