VIT D CONFUSED and other lab issues

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by quanked, Jul 27, 2010.

  1. quanked

    quanked Member

    I posted a bit ago seeking guidance about thryroid testing. I just read a copy of my results (I had asked for a copy of ALL blood test results but only got this blurb)--TSH 0.450-4.500 1.790, 7/22/2010.

    Do not have a clue what this means.

    Meanwhile, I have more blood work (fasting) the following week. A day or 2 later I get a call telling me that I need to go on cholesterol lowering drugs (I refused--I need to figure out how to do this without another wretched drug) and that my VIT D levels are very low and need to take 2,000 iu's of VIT D. I immediately stopped taking VIT D 3 after I had the high calcium result. But then I began the VIT D 3 after I was told that I had low VIT D. With 1,000 iu's in my multi and the extra 2,000 I addede by capsule I am now taking 3,000 iu's of VIT D 3.

    BUT--Is D 3 the same as VIT D without a number on the end?

    Another number I got was 17.2 for Cortisol. The nurse said this is normal.

    Anyhow, all of this is done hurriedly on the phone--no lab orders and no lab results on paper except the thyroid test. I will be sending a fax to my dr's office requesting everything on paper. I just cannot manage my thoughts on these things when relying on memory.

    I am feeling frustrated, confused, overwhelmed and disheartened. I cannot figure out how I am ever going to gain just a bit of control over my healthcare when the providers do such a poor job of helping and already low functioning human being.

    I asked for the various tests Jaminhealth suggested in regard to thyroid. It is clear that, while the dr. said she was requesting all of these tests, only one test was done. The same test they have done for years and years.

    So, anyone know about the difference between VIT D and VIT D-3? One more thing, my pharmacy does not carry the VIT D.

    Thanks in advance to all who respond.

  2. Tizz

    Tizz New Member

    If I'm reading it correctly (if the test result is 1.790 and the normal range is 0.450-4.500), then your thyroid stimulating hormone result is normal. That's a good thing.

    I also have low vitamin D but I"m not taking D3; it is more difficult for the body to absorb. I'm taking a long-lasting prescription form of vitamin D called "ergocalcifer".

    Low vitamin D prevents your bones and other cells from absorbing calcium normally, so the calcium circulates in your bloodstream instead. You DO need vitamin D supplements when your blood calcium is HIGH.

    I was a hospital nurse before I had to "retire," by the way.

  3. quanked

    quanked Member

    Thanks for your reply--it helps. I just got off the phone with a local pharmacy. I was told that there is no difference between VIT D and VIT D-3. She said the 2,000 iu's is not a perscription level.

    Somehow, this answer does not satisfy me. Why would one be called D-3 and then one called plain D I wonder. Maybe my writing classes from college are getting in the way here.

    I just got off the phone with the nurse from my dr's office. She does not know if there is a difference between the 2 D's and is not sure about perscription levels either.

    This fiasco is not inspiring confidence in me.

    Again, thanks Tizz.
  4. quanked

    quanked Member

    You are so right about the ignorance among the professionals!. The pharmacy people made that very comment--something about this new D vitamin thing--yikes! And the nurse at my dr's office said something that made me realize they are new to the "VIT D" thing too--she said well the other person that needed help on VIT D...

    I have Swanson's Premium Brand, High-Potency Dry Viamin D-3, 250 capsules, 1,000 iu's, Cholecalciferol. I have seen VIT D-2 for sale at Swanson's. I have tried to purchase items on Prohealth but the transaction never goes through so I finally gave up.

    So, if I am hearing correctly--there is no such thing as plain VITAMIN D?

    It is going to be interesting to see what happens when the dr. gets back in her office tomorrow.

    I will be pursuing the more thorough testing for thyroid.

    Anyone know about the cortisol number?

    Thanks jaminhealth. I always value your input.

  5. TigerLilea

    TigerLilea Active Member

    You want to be sure that the Vitamin D is in the form of D3. It is much better absorbed by the body than D2. ETA that studies are showing that seniors who have low levels of Vitamin D are more prone to memory problems as they age.

    More and more research is showing that cholesterol lowering drugs only work for people who have already had a heart attack. They do not work for people who have not had a previous heart attack. In fact, people who take cholesterol lowering drugs have a higher rate of death than people who do not take cholesterol lowering drugs (except after a heart attack). All the drug does is lower your test number - it does NOT prevent heart attacks. Unfortunately, most doctors have been brain washed by the pharmacutical companies and still write up prescriptions. There was a story in the news yesterday about cholesterol drugs. I'll try and find it on the internet and post a link here.

    Cholesterol drugs don't help the healthy

    Canadians spend $2 billion a year on them, but recent studies show many of us are wasting our money

    Read more:

    [This Message was Edited on 07/27/2010]
  6. quanked

    quanked Member

    I have lots of issues with sleep. In fact, I think if I could get some consistent, quality sleep my general functioning would improve even if nothing else did. Looks like I will need to get more info on cortisol.

    As for VIT D--here is some more stuff from the vitamin d council--

    Technically not a "vitamin," vitamin D is in a class by itself. Its metabolic product, calcitriol, is actually a secosteroid hormone that targets over 2000 genes (about 10% of the human genome) in the human body. Current research has implicated vitamin D deficiency as a major factor in the pathology of at least 17 varieties of cancer as well as heart disease, stroke, hypertension, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, depression, chronic pain, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, muscle weakness, muscle wasting, birth defects, periodontal disease, and more.

    This cite also talks about the confusion about d3 and d2 but makes it very clear that they are different substances and the 3 ocurrs naturally and the the 2 does not.

    Somehow, I just do not see my dr. knowing most of this.

  7. quanked

    quanked Member

    Thanks for your response. I like your use of primary sources. It must be the librarian in you.

    Here is another source of information--the study was done in 2006.

    The case against ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) as a vitamin supplement1,2
    Lisa A Houghton and Reinhold Vieth

    Supplemental vitamin D is available in 2 distinct forms: ergocalciferol (vitamin D2) and cholecalciferol (vitamin D3). Pharmacopoeias have officially regarded these 2 forms as equivalent and interchangeable, yet this presumption of equivalence is based on studies of rickets prevention in infants conducted 70 y ago. The emergence of 25-hydroxyvitamin D as a measure of vitamin D status provides an objective, quantitative measure of the biological response to vitamin D administration. As a result, vitamin D3 has proven to be the more potent form of vitamin D in all primate species, including humans. Despite an emerging body of evidence suggesting several plausible explanations for the greater bioefficacy of vitamin D3, the form of vitamin D used in major preparations of prescriptions in North America is vitamin D2. The case that vitamin D2 should no longer be considered equivalent to vitamin D3 is based on differences in their efficacy at raising serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, diminished binding of vitamin D2 metabolites to vitamin D binding protein in plasma, and a nonphysiologic metabolism and shorter shelf life of vitamin D2. Vitamin D2, or ergocalciferol, should not be regarded as a nutrient suitable for supplementation or fortification.

    So far, my research has taught me that I am not the only one confused about 2 and 3, there is a distinct difference between the 2, one ocurrs naturally and the other does not, it sounded like D-2 could be more toxic than 3 but do not quote me on that and 3 is better at raising the VIT D levels in the blood.

    I think that then maybe there is no such thing as just "Vitamin D".

    Thanks again. Just the act of conversing on this message board and looking up a few cites/sites (? jeez, I cannot manage lauguage very well anymore) has brought me some understanding to my questions. A lot of work though. The trick will be to hang on to what I have learned today : ) !

  8. quanked

    quanked Member

    Thanks so much for your info. I am not sure that I am willing to get a heart attack to make sure that the cholesterol lowering drugs can be effective ; )

    I will go check out your link. I will probably take this article in with me when I go see the doc.
  9. greatgran

    greatgran Member

    Know what you mean.. I am still so confused and haven't been able to get back to the doctor.

    My vit. D2 was high and D3 was low..I can't find my labs on this to post exactly what they were or how it was worded.. This was done when I went for allergy testing..

    I take D3 but still can't get answers how or why they are different..

    God bless,
  10. Tizz

    Tizz New Member

    Is the D2 you take a prescription med?

    I don't doubt that absorption for D3 is better than for D2. But I've never seen or heard of a high dose, long-lasting (slow absorption) form of D3. I asked my doc why ergocalcipher was any better than the D3 I'd been taking regularly. (I also take fish oil and a multivitamin.) I was worried, because my vitamin D had gone down to the "deficient" level even though I'd BEEN taking a daily dose of 1,000 D3, and she said I needed a higher dose that could be absorbed slowly.

    Perhaps I have unusual absorption issues...

    [This Message was Edited on 07/28/2010]

[ advertisement ]