My Vitamin D3 Story

[Auburn]

As far as we know, the reactions that happen with D3 indicate that it's doing what you want it to do, which is help your body fight off infection.

Why then I have no "reactions" when I get my vitamin D directly from sun exposure?

Some people are more sensitive to it than others, or maybe have more infection to fight, and so have a worse reaction

When I started supplementing with D3 my skin was calm and clear. Why did the synthetic form of D3 made my skin red and warm and cause me to flush very often. Why none of this happened with vitamin D from sun exposure?

Like I mentioned in another post, it seems to be a trend that the people who have the worst reaction to it end up eventually getting the most benefit.

Why do people have to "react" so badly to something that's supposed to help? And again, why does natural D from sun exposure not cause side effects as D3 does?

I think there haven't been many success stories because 1) it takes so long

Why does it take so long for D3?

2) the reactions are discouraging

Probably because, instinctively, we know that something that's supposed to be good for you should not make you feel sick.

I think what happened in your case, and in many others, is that you took too much too fast, did some damage, and now just have to wait for recovery. Those who take a bunch, experience a bad reaction, then get better after stopping, obviously are going to translate that as "D3 is bad for me."

20,000 IU of natural vitamin D, from half an hour of sun exposure is a lot, isn't it? And yet the body does not react to it like it does to even 1,000 IU of the synthetic stuff.

[Driven]

When I started supplementing with D3 my skin was calm and clear. Why did the synthetic form of D3 made my skin red and warm and cause me to flush very often. Why none of this happened with vitamin D from sun exposure?

Your guess is as good as mine! Who knows, maybe the ingested form is actually more effective at fighting infection than the kind derived from sunlight. I doubt it, but I really have no idea.

During my first 2 weeks of 1,000 IU, I was more red and flushy than normal. I couldn't tolerate 2,000 IU at all. After 3 weeks at 1,000, other than a brief period of remission from oregano oil, my skin had not been better in literally 20 years. I'm approaching that point now with 3,000, getting better every day, keeping in mind that just 2 months ago I could not take even 2,000 without an extremely bad reaction. At every stage, I get worse before I get better. The reactions at each dose have also taken longer to get over than the previous dose, and I'm sure if I had started at 5,000 a few months ago, I would still be in very bad shape now. I plan to stay at 3,000 for several more months - I think I moved too quickly from 2 to 3.

Why does it take so long for D3?

I don't have an answer for this either. My guess is because infection is entrenched and just takes a long time for your body to defeat through natural processes.

Probably because, instinctively, we know that something that's supposed to be good for you should not make you feel sick.

Read the long D3 thread with iDan's posts - there are a lot of useful links that explain the process. Getting worse before getting better is common when fighting cpn infections. Also, not that it's the same process, but something else to think about - the worst symptoms from cold and flu are not from the virus itself, they're from your body fighting the virus. Sometimes you have to feel sicker before you feel better.

Four possible reasons why this is working for me: 1) my rosacea is caused by internal infection (proven to me by the effectiveness of antibiotics in my case), 2) I'm avoiding all other supplements except ones that I am CERTAIN have a positive effect AND that do not have a possible negative effect on the D3 process, 3) I'm very patient, and 4) I'm taking it very slowly so I don't cause too much damage via the reactions.

Remember we're dealing with two different effects here - the infection die-off (reactions), and the skin actually healing. It's a fine line, because apparently you can't kill the infection and not experience reactions, but you need to avoid too much damage to give your skin a chance to heal. Maybe taking high doses for several months would kill the infection, but you might continue to flush for months afterward because of all those blown out blood vessels. Meanwhile you've stopped taking the D3 because it "made me worse", so the infection comes back.

[teachingking]

Driven,

Can you describe how your skin is "looking better than it has in 20 years"? Are we talking reduction in redness?

Thanks,
Aaron

[Auburn]

but I really have no idea.

I thought so.

I don't have an answer for this either.

I thought so, as well.

Read the long D3 thread with iDan's posts

I have, as I mentioned in a previous post.

[Michael_V]

I thought so.



I thought so, as well.



I have, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Wow, you go, Auburn! I love to see a healthy skepticism! To shamelessly quote Jerry Mcguire, "show me the money!"

[Melissa W]

Hi Auburn,
What vit D3 pill did you take?

As Driven wrote getting worse before you get better is not uncommon with many of the rosacea treatments and definitely true for fighting off something like cpn (as an example). However, as we know, there is no treatment that works for all and you just might not be able to take vit D3.

Be careful with the sun exposure because any type of unprotected sun exposure could cause problems in the long run.

Best,
Melissa

[Melissa W]

Frankly, if this approach were truly effective, I would think we should see far more remissions by now

Unfortunately treatments take a very long time to work with certain diseases. Look at how difficult it is to eradicate cpn from the body. There are few quick fixes regarding rosacea as well. And we go back to the question what is causing one's disease and symptoms. Rosacea is probably multifactorial in cause and therefore all treatments are not successful for all affected individuals. But even if everyone's rosacea was caused by (just an example for illustrative purposes) cpn the treatment would take years to be effective. Remission just isn't that quick.

[Driven]

Driven,

Can you describe how your skin is "looking better than it has in 20 years"? Are we talking reduction in redness?

Reduction in redness that comes from reduced flushing. I have some outdoor family pictures from last Saturday, and if you didn't know what I looked like, you wouldn't be able to pick the rosacean out of the crowd. And I'd had rather a lot to drink by that point

Not that I'm cured - the flushing is reduced, so certain mild triggers no longer are (talking to a stranger in an elevator, for example), but certain foods still affect me. And when I go up another 1,000, I'll have to deal with another month or two of reactions.

[Driven]

I have, as I mentioned in a previous post.

Then you would know that no one has an answer to those questions. What we do have is a lot of evidence that D3 fights infection, a little anecdotal evidence that it helps with some cases of rosacea (mine happens to be an infection, which I don't think is coincidence), and some idea of what it takes to get through the treatment, which few people seem to have followed. Many of the experiences I've read here involve suddenly taking large doses, doing a lot of damage in the process, and then stopping when the reactions became unbearable.

I was tempted to try high doses and tough it out myself, until I realized that it's the reactions themselves that can delay achieving the goal, which is healing.

[Michael_V]

I can see that this is a contentious issue with some very dedicated adherents, and I will admit I find intriguing the as yet poorly understood role vitamin D plays not only in immunity but keratinocyte differentiation.

I also consider myself openminded and fairly impartial in this, having no vested interest either for or against high dose vitamin D. Hell, if it worked I would jump in with both feet. But it seems to me that enough people have tried this approach long enough that we should have seen at least a handful of unequivocal successes by now. But so far as I can tell, we really only have confirrmed remission in two genetically related individuals.

Am I missing something?