polakuleczsiesam avatar

@polakuleczsiesam

in /health 1 day ago

Signup / Login

High-Dose Vitamin D: Miracle Hack or Just Bad Science?

If you scroll health content on social media, you’ve probably seen this claim:

“Doctors used to give 300,000 IU of vitamin D without fear. Today they tell you 2,000 IU is the max - because sick people are more profitable than healthy ones.”

It sounds powerful. It’s emotional.
And it completely ignores both history and modern data.

1. Yes, huge doses were used - but as drugs, not daily prevention

In the 1940s and 1950s, doctors really did use massive doses of vitamin D – 200,000–300,000 IU and more – to treat rickets, tuberculosis or severe deficiency. That was pharmacotherapy, not a “biohack” for healthy people.

The problem?


Some patients developed classic signs of toxicity: high calcium, kidney stones, calcification of soft tissues. That’s why the medical community backed off from mega‑doses long before today’s guidelines and pharma marketing existed.

A similar story happened in the UK with over‑fortified foods and infants who developed hypercalcemia and developmental problems. That’s what made regulators clamp down on vitamin D fortification - not a secret plan to keep everyone deficient.

2. Modern data: toxicity is rare, but “more = better” is still wrong

Once we got reliable blood tests for 25(OH)D, things got clearer:

  • True vitamin D toxicity is rare and usually appears only at very high blood levels (often well above 150-200 ng/mL).

  • At the same time, many people are deficient and probably need more than the classic 800-1,000 IU per day.

  • Observational and interventional studies suggest that, for many adults, risk curves for cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes often look best somewhere between about 40 and 70-80 ng/mL of 25(OH)D.

In post‑heart‑attack patients, trials using tailored dosing to keep vitamin D between roughly 40 and 80 ng/mL showed substantially fewer recurrent heart attacks compared with usual care.
In large pooled data on women, vitamin D levels around 60 ng/mL were associated with dramatically lower breast cancer risk, and colorectal cancer risk seemed lowest around 55 ng/mL.

That doesn’t prove vitamin D is a magic bullet - these are complex diseases - but it strongly suggests that “just don’t be below 20 ng/mL” is not good enough.

3. Why mega‑dosing “like the sun” is a flawed analogy

Another viral argument goes like this:


“The sun can make 50,000–100,000 IU of vitamin D in your skin, so taking that much in pills must be natural and safe.”

The key thing missing: your skin has a built‑in safety switch.

After a certain amount of UVB exposure, extra pre‑vitamin D made in the skin is converted into inactive compounds. Production plateaus. You don’t just keep pumping vitamin D forever.

Supplement capsules don’t have that safety switch. That’s why populations living outdoors in strong sun (like traditional East African groups) have average 25(OH)D levels around the mid‑40s ng/mL - higher than in the West, but nowhere near the extreme levels some influencers chase.

4. What actually makes sense in real life?

A few practical, non‑sexy takeaways:

  • Vitamin D is safer than we once thought - toxicity is genuinely rare – but it’s still a hormone‑like compound, not candy.

  • For many adults, especially with higher cardiometabolic or cancer risk, a reasonable target is something like 40-70 (maybe up to 80) ng/mL, instead of just “above 20”.

  • To get there, a lot of people realistically need several thousand IU per day (for example 5,000-10,000 IU), but the right dose depends on your baseline level, body weight, absorption and genetics.

  • The smart way is: test → supplement → re‑test → adjust. Not: copy a random mega‑dose from TikTok.

And about those old pharmacology textbooks that mention 200,000–300,000 IU?
If you read the whole paragraph, not just the one big number, they usually say the same thing modern experts do: huge doses can be useful as a short‑term therapeutic tool - but for long‑term prevention, regular smaller doses are safer and more effective.

If there is a “conspiracy” here, it’s not that medicine hides the benefits of vitamin D. It’s that algorithms reward outrage and oversimplified narratives over boring but nuanced physiology.

Key studies and resources (for anyone who wants to dig deeper):

Additional deep‑dive (in Polish, with more context on dosing and practical supplementation):
https://sklep.polakuleczsiesam.pl/witamina-d3-na-co-pomaga-jak-suplementowac/

49Score: 49

3 Comments