The first paper you link to simply says it is possible to have too much Vitamin D3
It didn’t simply say that it also says:
" A New Zealand study of 14 (12 unlicensed and two licensed) vitamin D3 formulations revealed that only eight were within 10% of the stated dose 24. Similarly, a US study 25 demonstrated that, of the 15 vitamin D3 preparations analysed, there was substantial variation compared with the stated dose, both in pills from the same bottle (52–136% of expected dose) and between separate preparations (9–140% of stated dose). Only one‐third of the pills analysed were within 10% of the stated dose. Of these, the licensed products revealed the greatest accuracy and least variation with the stated dose. Similarly, an Indian study revealed that, of 14 commonly used preparations, only four were found to be within the accepted 90–125% of stated dose, defined by the Indian Pharmacopeia 26. Furthermore, US studies on the fortification of foods with vitamin D have also revealed wide variations from the stated dose as nutritional products are not as well regulated as medicines."
It also says this mislabelling is causing real harm.
Neither of the papers you cite and none of the current evidence you have cited substantiate the thesis that synthetic D3 is any different health wise to that in cod liver oil.
This too is a misdirection as that was not my thesis. What I discovered from the Weston Price Foundation is that most codliver oil producers are adding synthetic vitamin D to their products and so you cannot assume the dosage problems highlighted above do not apply and that you would have to guzzle too much of it to be a problem.
The second paper also stated that a balance with vitamin A helps decrease risks of toxicity.
So irregardless of the safety of synthetic vitamin D (which is not proven by the the prevalence of it’s use) compared to the natural form it would also logically be safer to eat food that has not been fortified and provides A and D in the right balance and in levels unlikely to cause toxicity because of mislabelling. This cannot be assured with codliver oil where most brands do not state that they have been fortified even when they have.
This is why I would suggest that food sources of the two vitamins in balance would be a much safer option. Especially with people at any risk.
It is okay if you think I am wrong, but please try not to misrepresent the links I post, potentially making other members here feel they don’t need to read them. I have posted my concerns here in good faith and only want people to be aware that there are dangers.
I think it is generally accepted that supplements tend to vary as to their content. Regulated medicines also vary as to their content. (less than supplements).
It is actually quite hard to find out which are the better supplements and which the worse from this perspective.
The Title of this thread is “Cautions to Synthetic Vitamin D3”. Hence I have taken that as being your thesis. However, I think we have now resolved that there is no current evidence that indicates there is any issue with Synthetic as opposed to UV generated D3.
To be honest I would expect the levels of D3 to vary in cod liver oil, but I don’t intend to spend any time researching this.
I agree that people should label cod liver oil that has been fortified. I wish labelling was more precise, but often supplement manufacturers don’t know exactly what they are selling. I have been buying some substances directly from the chemical manufacturers so I know precisely what I am getting.
I think the prevalence of use of synthetic D3 and absence of evidence of negative outcomes of use at normal levels does prove its safety, but we can agree to disagree on that.
The quality of vitamin D as well as other supplements is a real problem indeed. I try to get third party certified ones when possible. For Vitamin D there is at least one which is NSF certified for sport here: Vitamin D-5,000 - NSF Certified for Sport
Thanks for validating my concerns and sharing that link. Until the sun comes back higher in the skies, when I get out in the middle of the day I am pretty happy with my decision to start making and eating pate regularly again to get my A and D vitamins. As I also have some concerns about the toxicity of some of the B vitamins, pate with some nutritional yeast added seems like a good option to cover quite a few important bases. I also try and get my vitamin C naturally now and currently take rosehips capsules but that might need a new thread
Wow Bob that sounds fascinating - I have seen a lot of comments about Borax being a good thing. Some from people into their nineties who swear by it. I have never got around to looking into it however and so this is a great lead, thanks!
As we know that synthetic vitamin D is lethal in large doses, absence of negative outcomes, when no one is looking for what toxicity issues might occur in a person before they need an emergency room, is not evidence of safety. Trans fats were also once generally considered as safe.
My concern specifically in opening this thread was that potential lower level toxicity issues might include premature ageing of a person, which is the exact opposite of what we are all trying to achieve here. I have seen no evidence so far of safety in this regard at any dosage. This does not prove synthetic vitamin D is not safe but with a substance already known to be toxic I don’t think the onus is on anyone to prove it dangerous but should be on regulators to provide evidence of what dosage is safe
Resolving whether or not there is any issue with Synthetic as opposed to UV generated D3 is a lot tougher than simply closing the book on it, again because of a lack of evidence. Even synthetic vitamin D is UV generated, what about Vitamin D sourced from food? That was the comparison I was making. There is in fact loads of evidence that food sourced vitamin D is safer, if only because, as often happens with vitamins, it occurs in most food sources in lower levels and in combination with other vitamins and nutrients that have been shown to mitigate risk.
In fact it is 25,1 diHydroxy Vitamin D3 that causes the high calcium levels. This molecule is made out of 25 Hydroxy Vitamin D3 which is how the body stores Vitamin D3. The original source is Cholecalciferol (whether from Cod Liver Oil, UVB or Synthetic Vitramin D3).
Chemically the different sources of D3 are the same. There is no difference. There is also no difference when converted to 25OHD (calcifediol). There is no difference when converted to 25,1 diHydroxyVitamin D (calcitriol) or 24,25 diHydroxyVitamin D.
There is no evidence for a difference. There is no scientific reason for a difference. Hence I conclude that there is no difference.
I don’t mind if you think there is a difference other than price and availability, but this forum should be evidence based. If there is no evidence for something then people should not promote it.
We know of one person who died because of erroneously over fortified milk and someone who died because of the medical treatment she was given because of an overdose of vitamin D. There are probably other people who have suffered.
There is evidence that too much Vitamin D is a bad idea. Exactly where the threshold lies is another issue.
Personally I don’t think you can say that if you take massive doses of Vitamin D that the risk can be eliminated with Vitamin A or other things. It is simply best not to overdose.
However, there is chemically No Difference between Synthetic Vitamin D and non synthetic.
No worries, the best Fb group I have found is called “borax for arthritis and health” lots of very positive stories there and people been using it for more than 20 years
I have never suggested taking mega doses of Vitamin D as being safe - quite the opposite. I have said that even when taking codliver oil one should be cautious as it usually fortified without that fact being stated on the label. I have provided research showing the dangers of trusting the stated dosage and suggested food sources known NOT to be fortified as the safest course of action.
I have only continued this argument with you because of your insistence that synthetic vitamin D is safe at regular doses despite the labelling issues the research paper I shared suggested. I have not said you are wrong about this, only that the lack of evidence does not serve as proof of safety. The labelling issue, that you have again misrepresented downplaying the risk - should be of concern if safety is your motivation.
As for your statement that there is no difference between the synthetic and natural forms; you have provided no sources for this claim. I have provided a source that there is a difference, which you discredited with no evidence besides an ad hominem slur based only on outbound links from that particular website.
Although this argument has become tiresome I will quote Google’s top reference re the production of synthetic vitamin D
“The synthesis of vitamin D is a multi-stage process, beginning with 7-dehydrocholesterol extracted from the lanolin found in greasy sheep’s wool. This is irradiated with high-intensity light to form preform vitamin D and then heated to form our final product vitamin D3”
If the irradiation process does not include UV please forgive my simple assumption in this regard. That D3 is made from UV radiation was not central to the point I was making anyway.
If you have nothing to move the conversation forward please stop interfering by making unsubstantiated claims and continuously misrepresenting the information in the links that I have provided and what I myself have said.
I accept the point that 7-dehydrocholesterol from lanolin is irradiated to produce Vitamin D. Apologies for this being wrong. I clearly had not done enough searching. On that point you were right and I was wrong. I have edited my post to remove this part.
However, you have not produced any actual evidence for a difference between cholecalciferol produced through this process, other chemical processes or irradiation in skin. The chemicals are the same.
There is no chemical difference. There is a difference in price.
It is just as safe as vitamin D in unfortified cod liver oil.
This is the chemical:
There is no separate entry for Cholecalciferol in Cod Liver Oil (unfortified) and that produced in a synthetic manner.
Yes, cholecalciferol is…cholecalciferol. There has to be a mechanism that is causing the harm. This thread is all over the place. Can we please keep it simple?
Thankyou AnUser, yes it has got confusing and I will try and keep this simple. I posted a link previously which said in part:
Natural vitamin D contains sulfate molecules. Traditionally vitamin D has been made from UVB rays from the sun interacting with cholesterol sulfate within the skin. Scientific study has found that sunlight and cod liver oil have protective effects against CVD. Synthetic vitamin D doesn’t have sulfate molecules, animal studies show the synthetic form can cause damage to arteries.
Evaluating scientific literature comparing the two forms as equals based on labels can been seen as a mistake since the molecular structure of natural vitamin D has sulfate molecules attached and synthetic versions do not, they have different molecular structures and synthetic forms should be more critically evaluated.
Sunlight is the main natural source for vitamin D which has been consistently shown to have cardio-protective effects, lower blood pressure, and help to reduce risk of heart attacks, stroke, and many forms of cancer such as breast cancer.
In a controlled study synthetic vitamin D given to swines showed pathological damage to thoracic aorta in swine consuming the equivalent of 11000 IU of vitamin D3 daily; and lower doses of 2200 IU of D3 daily worsened atherosclerosis in the animals on high fat diets."
John Hemming responded by questioning the credibility of the website but not evaluating the claims. I do not know if the claims are correct but am interested to know if the natural and synthetic forms are actually the same.
I was also concerned by the link I have posted a few times of research stating that a high percentage of vitamins and food fortified with Vitamin D have been found not to accurately state the dosage, and this has even resulted in deaths.
I then discovered that most codliver oil on the market is fortified with synthetic Vit D and so simply assuming the vitamin D in Codliver oil would be present in natural and safe quantities may not be safe.
Being winter where I live I have decided to stick to pate, tinned Codlivers and also take K2.
BobinUK also shared an interesting link about Boron - which I have started to take as well.
I get it that John Hemming assumes everything is okay with supplemental Vit D - but as it has been used to artificially age lab animals (my first post) and the stated dosage may not be accurate I have chosen to risk erring on the side of safety.
Synthetic vitamin D is exactly the same molecule as sunlight produces in the synthesis of active forms of vitamin D. You can see cholecalciferol in this picture.
If you have evidence that cod liver oil has vitamin D3 sulfate and that this is healthier, it would be interesting to see
When it comes to issues of scientific research it is worth being precise. Everyone gets some things wrong and sometimes the issues are in the detail.
and this has even resulted in deaths.
It is clearly misleading to say this. There were two deaths which were caused by fortified milk in the USA having massively more vitamin D3 (probably synthetic because otherwise it would have been quite expensive). One was directly caused by the D3 affecting calcium handling and the other was as a result of the medical treatment intended to help the person with an overdose of D3.
You have not cited any evidence of harm from standard synthetic D3 supplements which arose as a result of inaccuracy in terms of the stated dosage.
I have not checked, but I would expect that the level of D3 in natural cod liver oil would vary.
Pubchem is a website that gives details of chemicals here is the entry for D3
You will see that it has the chemical formula C27H44O
There are arguments in science where the science is not settled, but as far as the chemical formula for D3 goes there is only one answer.
Thanks or your input AnUser, so if synthetic vitamin D is the same as that which we form in our bodies this raises a few questions for me.
Can too much vitamin D from the sun therefor be toxic?
At what dose does vitamin D stop being beneficial and start being toxic? 2200iu daily for swine (I imagine they are large animals) does not sound like a huge dose.
Or do cofactors completely determine toxicity ie. Vitamin A, K2, Boron etc. and not dose?
Is the only ageing effect of vitamin D toxicity calcification of tissues or are there others?
I started out pro cod liver oil at the start of this thread but changed my mind when I discovered most brands have been fortified without that being stated on the label, which frankly does not build trust. I am eating cod livers now (quite delicious in a salad) but do not have hard evidence this is safer, beyond common sense, until the concerns I have regarding synthetic Vitamin D are settled. Thank you for helping move that enquiry forward.
