The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-25-2012, 05:52 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,531
Should I not take vitamin D and calcium at the same time?

My doctor had me take a blood test for my vitamin D levels, and found them low -- so he recommends that I take vitamin D supplements. According to several sources, Vitamin D is supposed to be important in maintaining adequate calcium levels in my bones, so low Vitamin D may also indicate low calcium levels.

However, Mrs. Tracer -- who also has low vitamin D levels -- just told me that you're NOT SUPPOSED TO take Vitamin D at the same time that you take Calcium. Calcium supposedly interferes with your ability to absorb vitamin D, so you need to take them at least 4 hours apart.

Is there any truth to this?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-25-2012, 06:15 PM
OldGuy OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 2,734
I've been told to take them together. And in fact they market supplements that are specifically labeled Calcium and Vitamin D like Caltrate D-plus so it must be reasonably common to take them together.

http://www.caltrate.com/OurProducts/caltrate-600Dplus

Last edited by OldGuy; 08-25-2012 at 06:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:53 PM
Khadaji Khadaji is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Southern Pennsylvania
Posts: 21,601
There was a recent study released regarding men who have prostate cancer that suggested Calcium and Vitimin D may pose risks for them.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-25-2012, 07:53 PM
Speaker for the Dead Speaker for the Dead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
IAAD, and it's fine.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:16 PM
Michael63129 Michael63129 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khadaji View Post
There was a recent study released regarding men who have prostate cancer that suggested Calcium and Vitimin D may pose risks for them.
Not just men with prostate cancer; there isn't really any benefit seen from Vitamin D/calcium supplements, at least at typical levels.

Also, the best way to get Vitamin D is a few minutes in the sun; you can produce 10,000 IU in 10 minutes (which exceeds tolerable upper intake levels, although your body stops producing it before it reaches toxic levels). For comparison, recommendations are for 400-800 IU from the diet, depending on age; tolerable upper intake is 4,000 IU for ages 9+ (source).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:21 PM
PandaBear77 PandaBear77 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
From what I remember from my weight loss surgery class, you DO want to take Vit D and calcium together.

You do NOT want to take calcium within 2 hours of taking iron, though.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-25-2012, 10:30 PM
Michael63129 Michael63129 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Khadaji View Post
There was a recent study released regarding men who have prostate cancer that suggested Calcium and Vitimin D may pose risks for them.
I just came across this just-released study that claims the opposite and contradicts some of my previous reply (well, as usual, you can always find studies that contradict each other):

Quote:
Saturday Aug 25, 2012 (foodconsumer.org) -- It's breakthrough news! David Feldman of Stanford University School of Medicine and colleagues conducted a study that suggests taking vitamin D3 supplements may effectively prevent or treat both breast cancer and prostate cancer.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:00 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,181
Calcium should be taken an hour or more apart from fiber supplements and from iron (as already mentioned), but I don't know of any common recommendation that it be separated from Vit D. My calcium chew package claims that Vit D increases the absorption of Calcium, but it makes no claims about what Calcium does to the absorption of Vit D.

A small subset (like 20%) of people have low acid production in the stomach, and those people will get better absorption of calcium if they take calcium citrate, as opposed to the more popular, cheaper, calcium carbonate. If you take drugs to reduce stomach acid, like Prevacid, omeprazole, Zantac, Prilosec, etc., then you should likewise choose calcium citrate. Calcium carbonate should be taken after a meal or with food*; calcium citrate can be taken any time.

Like most supplements, studies consistently show that you're better off increasing dietary sources, rather than taking supplement pills, unless otherwise directed by your doctor (that is, unless you're really, clinically, super low in something.)

Dietary sources of Vitamin D: http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/fe...d-food-sources
Dietary sources of Calcium: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/002412.htm


*Confession time: I cut up my caramel flavored calcium chew and put it on a half cup of lowfat frozen yogurt with a spoonful of hot fudge topping. It's the tastiest supplement I've ever taken!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:18 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,531
Interesting.

Mrs. Tracer is also low in Vitamin D, and may have been told not to take it within 4 hours of taking calcium by her own doctor, or by her allergist or something. I'll have to ask her, as it seems that this advice may be (and from what y'all tell me, probably is) wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:30 PM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 10,452
You both have low Vitamin D levels?

Do you have the same doctor? Is it possible that your doctor is a quack?

Alternatively, are you always inside during daylight hours?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-25-2012, 11:56 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by foolsguinea View Post
You both have low Vitamin D levels?

Do you have the same doctor? Is it possible that your doctor is a quack?

Alternatively, are you always inside during daylight hours?
Vitamin D deficiency is turning out to be far more common than we previously thought. It's possibly because we've been so good at getting out the message to use sunscreen, as well as (as you point out) greater time spent indoors, out of sunlight. Obesity also has a direct link with Vit D deficiency, because fat cells alter the metabolism of Vit D; as obesity rises in our population, so does Vit D deficiency. Smoking increases Vit D deficiency. IBS, Crohn's Disease, Celiac and other diseases of the bowel can lead to Vit D deficiency, as can kidney function which declines with age. Dark skin can make it very hard to get enough Vit D from the sun, and African Americans have higher than average rates of lactose intolerance, so often don't get Vit. D from fortified milk or milk products.

Vitamin D insufficiency is highest among people who are elderly, institutionalized, or hospitalized. In the United States, 60% of nursing home residents[10] and 57% of hospitalized patients[11] were found to be vitamin D deficient.

However, vitamin D insufficiency is not restricted to the elderly and hospitalized population; several studies have found a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency among healthy, young adults. A study determined that nearly two thirds of healthy, young adults in Boston were vitamin D insufficient at the end of winter.[12]
<snip>
The decreased efficacy of vitamin D production by darker-pigmented skin explains the higher prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency among darker-skinned adults. Dawson-Hughes and colleagues demonstrated that in Boston, 73% of elderly black subjects were vitamin D insufficient, compared with 35% of elderly non-Hispanic whites.[20]

In a large survey of 1500 healthy black women younger than 50 years, 40% were vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D < 16ng/mL), compared with 4% of 1400 white women in that study.[21]


New research presented at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) found that 77 percent of trauma patients had deficient or insufficient levels of vitamin D.


Two separate studies have shown that vitamin D deficiency is common in patients with a range of rheumatic diseases, with over half of all patients having below the 'normal' healthy levels of vitamin D (48-145 nmol/L) in their bodies.

In a study of 313 patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery, orthopaedic surgeons at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis found that more than half had inadequate levels of vitamin D, including one-fourth who were more severely deficient.


I wouldn't call the doctor a quack for diagnosing two partners with Vit D deficiency, if their blood levels meet generally accepted guidelines. In fact, since so many of the things that create Vit D deficiencies are related to diet and lifestyle, I'd expect there to be a rather strong correlation between married couples' Vitamin D status (but I don't know if anyone's done a study on that.)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:12 AM
Kamrusepas Kamrusepas is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Here they add vitamin D to milk to help the calcium absorb. So I've always assumed they're best taken together.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-26-2012, 10:12 AM
Digital is the new Analog Digital is the new Analog is offline
Quick as a paperclip!
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mount Crumpit
Posts: 3,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael63129 View Post
Also, the best way to get Vitamin D is a few minutes in the sun; you can produce 10,000 IU in 10 minutes (which exceeds tolerable upper intake levels, although your body stops producing it before it reaches toxic levels). For comparison, recommendations are for 400-800 IU from the diet, depending on age; tolerable upper intake is 4,000 IU for ages 9+ (source).
FWIW, I live in South Florida, and drive a convertible. I don't use sun screen daily - just when I'm going to be out for extended periods of time. After testing my levels, my doctor has me on 2000IU/day Vitamin D.


-D/a
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-26-2012, 11:25 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamrusepas View Post
Here they add vitamin D to milk to help the calcium absorb. So I've always assumed they're best taken together.
In many countries, what happens is that the definition of "milk" includes levels of nutrients including liposoluble Vitamins A and D, thus low-fat milk (which loses too much of those two when fat is taken out) gets A and D re-added to go back to original levels; they do not get added to regular milk.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-26-2012, 01:51 PM
Michael63129 Michael63129 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital is the new Analog View Post
FWIW, I live in South Florida, and drive a convertible. I don't use sun screen daily - just when I'm going to be out for extended periods of time. After testing my levels, my doctor has me on 2000IU/day Vitamin D.

-D/a
If that is the case, and I did find this article saying that sun exposure doesn't prevent Vitamin D deficiency, then it would seems as if recommended blood Vitamin D levels are too high; in other words, why is there a global epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency, by some estimates over 75% of the world population (I have no idea what my levels are and don't see any reason to get it tested; that said, I do get daily sun exposure and drink enough milk to get 100% of the RDA from that alone, much less other foods and a daily (regular, 100% RDA) multivitamin). Presumably, it has to do something with modern lifestyles and diets because nobody was worried about Vitamin D deficiency when people were hunter-gatherers, or even more recently.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-26-2012, 02:07 PM
WhyNot WhyNot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweet Home Chicago
Posts: 30,181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael63129 View Post
If that is the case, and I did find this article saying that sun exposure doesn't prevent Vitamin D deficiency, then it would seems as if recommended blood Vitamin D levels are too high; in other words, why is there a global epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency, by some estimates over 75% of the world population (I have no idea what my levels are and don't see any reason to get it tested; that said, I do get daily sun exposure and drink enough milk to get 100% of the RDA from that alone, much less other foods and a daily (regular, 100% RDA) multivitamin). Presumably, it has to do something with modern lifestyles and diets because nobody was worried about Vitamin D deficiency when people were hunter-gatherers, or even more recently.
But remember that evolution isn't concerned with optimal health. It's concerned (to anthropomorphize) about "good enough to reproduce". Aside from rickets, which takes a very deficient deficiency that's been recognized for years, Vit D deficiency related health problems tend to happen after reproductive age. So as far as hunter-gatherers were concerned, you had babies, you got old and you fell and broke bones and died. That's just how things happened sometimes. They didn't have a blood test and spreadsheet to tell them why this old guy broke bones and that old guy didn't. Maybe it was because his spirit was weak, maybe it was a curse, maybe god was punishing him because he was a bastard in a previous life...who knows?

Now, we'd prefer most people live into their 90s and we'd prefer they didn't break hips along the way. Plus, we've identified a host of other medical issues which seem to be linked to Vit D deficiences, some of them at numbers much higher than we used to think of as "deficient".

So, you're right - the current recommendations may be "too high" for prehistoric peoples. They may not be "normal" for the human animal. But they're numbers where we see fewer illnesses and broken bones, so they're the goal now.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-26-2012, 05:31 PM
Speaker for the Dead Speaker for the Dead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael63129 View Post
Not just men with prostate cancer; there isn't really any benefit seen from Vitamin D/calcium supplements, at least at typical levels.

Also, the best way to get Vitamin D is a few minutes in the sun; you can produce 10,000 IU in 10 minutes (which exceeds tolerable upper intake levels, although your body stops producing it before it reaches toxic levels). For comparison, recommendations are for 400-800 IU from the diet, depending on age; tolerable upper intake is 4,000 IU for ages 9+ (source).
This is true in the summer in temperate climates, but it's much more difficult to achieve in the winter here in Canada. We can't get the kind of skin exposure needed, but moreover, even if we could, the sunlight isn't as intense enough to do as much good.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:48 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
In many countries, what happens is that the definition of "milk" includes levels of nutrients including liposoluble Vitamins A and D, thus low-fat milk (which loses too much of those two when fat is taken out) gets A and D re-added to go back to original levels; they do not get added to regular milk.
In the U.S. -- at least in California, where I live -- vitamin D is usually added to WHOLE milk as well as to lowfat milk. Lowfat milk also gets vitamin A added to it, though, which doesn't get added to whole milk.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-26-2012, 09:51 PM
tracer tracer is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Silicon Valley, Cal., USA
Posts: 15,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Speaker for the Dead View Post
This is true in the summer in temperate climates, but it's much more difficult to achieve in the winter here in Canada. We can't get the kind of skin exposure needed, but moreover, even if we could, the sunlight isn't as intense enough to do as much good.
A Nurse Practitioner told me that vitamin D production was the most pronounced in the eyes, not the skin, and recommended that I go out early in the morning and look around at the sunlit landscape (but not directly at the sun).

I'm convinced she's off her rocker, because this flies in the face of everything we know about how the skin actually produces vitamin D. In the early morning shortly after sunrise, most of the Ultraviolet B coming from the sun is blocked, because the sunlight has to pass through too much air, and it's UV-B that's needed to synthesize vitamin D!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.