This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The second sentence is incorrect according to Reinhold Vieth's article "Why Vitamin D is not a hormone" Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 89-80 (2004): 571-573.
The SMILES Notation that is on the page now does not match the picture, so I'm going to change it to match (the picture is right, I checked on the EPA website).
Here is what it is now:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CC[C@H]2/C(CCC[C@]12C)=C/C=C3/C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C
And here's what it actually is:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CCC2C(\CCCC12C)=C\C=C3\C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C
Sbrools ( talk . contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't the time now, but this article desperately needs some clinical relevance. Cholecalciferol's clinical implications are very significant, with relation to Calcium absorption in the gut and renal osteodystrophy. 81.179.117.49 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, I thought that the following would be relevant;
The ratio of total 25OHD3 and 1,25(OH)2D3 to plasma DBP, rather than total circulating vitamin D metabolites, may provide a more useful index of biological activity. Further studies are required to substantiate this hypothesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339300?ordinalpos=33&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I haven't been able to find any controlled studies that shows D3 supplementation counteracts bone loss in 25 D3 deficient individuals superior to calcium alone. Likewise, it's anti-cancer effects only appear in short term trials and are consistant with other immunosuppressives such as prednisone in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS: Kidney-transplant recipients receiving modern immunosuppressive regimens with low doses of corticosteroids experience only minimal loss of BMD during the first posttransplant year. Cholecalciferol supplementation did not prevent posttransplant bone loss http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15714177?ordinalpos=45&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
CONCLUSIONS: In this carefully controlled study calcium plus vitamin D3 supplements only had minor influences of uncertain significance on the calcium balance in healthy, calcium and vitamin D sufficient early postmenopausal women.
More succinctly,
http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
http://trevormarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.166.226.83 (
talk)
18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Ryan Wise ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While the main Vitamin D article notes the potential for oversupplementation, a single sentence in this article is probably merited as well, just to be on the safe side. ( 24.147.80.106 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
|---
Hi. I like to point that in the "Dose" subsection the same sentence is repeated twice with different information. See around citation 4 and 5 about current suggested value too low & max acceptable limit, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.42.153 ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what is it good for?
TIA,
--
Jerome Potts
08:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Supplementation doesn't seem to increase bone density
In healthy individuals it activates the Vitamin D receptor, which serves an immune function. It is also immunosuppressive. (presumably, after you're out in the sun, your body needs some time to repair itself.)
For more info; http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
http://trevormarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf -- Ryan Wise ( talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
VEGAN D3...Hi there. If my comments are not appropriate please forgive. I've never posted on Widipedia until now.
I've been searching for D3 that does NOT come from fish oil. While not technically vegan, I have found D3 made from lanolin. The vitamin shelves are VERY confusing because most all products say their D3 comes from cholecalciferol. Vitamin consultants say all D3 is from fish oil. However, I contacted the maker of the D3 I'm taking and they assure me the cholecalciferolin their product comes from lanolin.
if they can verified that claim on paper and that the product is purely made from it, but i doubt they can guarantee it (as company's cut corners to reduce costs, and are allowed to say whatever they want as long as it's not presented as fact ) Markthemac ( talk) 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Vegan D3 (from lichens) is now being commercially produced for use in vitamin supplements. I've added it to the article, see here. - kotra ( talk) 03:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Does any one know about D3 coming from pig brains? Is lanolin the only source? 24.152.217.54 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
using brain/spine for food supplement is not allowed in most of the western world after the BSE scare, not from any animal. Markthemac ( talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
and lanolin is mostly acquired from sheep's wool Markthemac ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that cholecalciferol is mentioned more often without the h as colecalciferol, and what could the reason for this be? I know it sounds a very trivial question, but I'm intrigued if an interesting answer exists. Perhaps it's a way to differentiate supplements from skin produced D3? But why change now? Mo79 ( talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a move to internationalise drug names. As part of this the new name for cholecalciferol is colecalciferol. However I am only aware this is the case for its use as a drug/ medication/ supplement. This may not have any bearing on scientific nomenclature and it seems reasonable to continue to use cholecalciferol outside any mention as a medication, such as in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.155.67 ( talk) 09:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It is probably spelt with an "h" in it as vitamin D is a (7-dehydro)cholesterol derivative, denoting its relation to bile (greek: bile = chole). -- 85.218.152.255 ( talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Trevor Marshall is an electrical engineer. He should not be featured on this information page. His "approach" is considered quack science by EVERY REAL scientist in the field. Any reference to him should be taken off this site. Wikipedia is a place for information that is accepted by the medical community and he is NOT a member of the medical community at large. Many real doctors have a profound dislike of this dangerous suggestions. Furthermore the only thing Trevor Marshall has ever had published was not peer reviewed, and was not an actual study but merely a stated theory. Judderwocky ( talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
While most of what you've said is true (Marshall's PhD is in electrical Engineering, for instance and he's certainly not mainstream), some of Trevor Marshall's criticisms (and those associated with him) are valid and well supported by published research. Vitamin K + calcium puts calcium into bones. There aren't any studies showing that D3 + calcium increases bone mineral density over calcium alone. Upregulated TLR-4, which is associated with infection leads to upregulated CYP271B which leads to increased conversion from calcidiol to calcitriol (thus creating an apparently low level of calcidiol which is what tests rely on.) Care to post any studies which address low calcidiol due to increased conversion to calcitriol as compared to insufficient levels of cholecalciferol? It's a genuine black hole in published research.
And lack of vitamin D3 along with decreased Vitamin K does lead to calcification of soft tissue. This suggests that increased conversion of calcidiol, rather than insufficient cholecalciferol, is the actual source of problems in at least a few cases (those diseases where low calcidiol is associated with calcification of soft tissue.)
Now granted, the whole "Marshal Protocol" is entirely unsupported by peer reviewed research (nor is the protocol mentioned anywhere on this page that I can see. Has it been removed already?) Marshall seems to go astray with the unwarranted assumption that most chronic infections act like sarcoidosis. Some chronic infections could involve significantly different bacteria, viruses or fungi, which is not something that the Marshall protocol seems to take into account at all. However that doesn't invalidate idea that chronic inflammation is capable of causing lowered calcidiol, nor does it invalidate the popularity of his ideas among a significant minority.-- 97.115.253.90 ( talk) 06:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bit unclear as to whether or not cholecalciferol is poisonous, or if it simply used as part of the bait. Could someone please clarify? Also, what purpose does it serve in the bait? Why are possums attracted to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.12.253 ( talk) 05:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cholecalciferol in and of itself is an active product of the body, and not harmless in doses proportional to what a vertebrate organism can create in natural sunlight. It is a prohormone which regulates multiple functions in the cells of vertebrates, and it is used as a poison because of it's effects on calcium absorption in the small intestine. It is used as the active part of the bait to create the desired effect of hypercalcemia in the soft-tissue organs of the target animal's body.
The factor which defines a toxic level of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the level of calcidiol ( 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D3) in the blood of an organisim. Humans reach the toxicity level when their 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are at 200-250 ng/mL (500-750 nmol/L) or higher, but it is the effect of vitamin D3 on the absorption of calcium that results in organ damage and death. The absorption of calcium is proportional to the level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood; thus when an animal consumes a high level of vitamin D3 they overabsorb calcium. When levels of calcium in the blood are too high the animal enters a state of hypercalcemia, which causes arrhythmia of the heart and a subsequent death by heart attack.
Unsigned, possums would be attracted to the bait by the cholecalciferol and calcium being hidden in a food that the possum likes to eat. The vitamin is more or less taste-free and odorless, and it'd be a pretty easy way to knock off the animal. I hope this clarifies things a bit! My source for most of this information is the vitamin D council page on toxicity. [1] Sources on toxicity levels and studies are cited (four of them) at the bottom of the linked page. -- JHansen ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
I think that it'd be relevant to address the newest information on cholecalciferol from the vitamin D3 website in this article, in order to address the new fad of heavy vitamin D supplementation - at least to name them in linkages, alongside what roles they play in cooperation with cholecalciferol in the body.
Thoughts and feedback? Thanks, -- JHansen ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)). At the same time, I think they present a lot of circumstantial evidence that magnesium deficiency contributes to vitamin D insufficiency but they do not provide any direct evidence for this claim. This
PMID
16596461 primary source comes a lot closer. Ideally we would like a secondary source (i.e., a review article or meta clinical study) to support this claim. At the same time, the introduction of this article that reviews the evidence for this linkage can be considered a secondary source. Hence I think it would be OK to mention magnesium deficiency as a contributing factor to vitamin D insufficiency and cite
PMID
16596461. The claims for vitamin K, boron, and zinc would have to be looked at in a similar way.
Boghog (
talk)
09:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)I found these links interesting: ASCO 2009and Chemotherapy is linked to severe vitamin D deficiency in patients with colorectal cancer-- Stageivsupporter ( talk) 08:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I found it very hard to find a description of Vitamin D3 industrial production technques. Today, I found a good description which I think can be used as a reference and quoted or paraphrased:
http://www.agdnutrition.com/d3-story.html
This is in the sub-section previously "As a food fortification", now renamed "Industrial production".
This description seems to match that given via email from another manufacturer, which I think is not a primary reference and can't be quoted:
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/02/08/what-do-sheep-have-to-do-with-vitamin-d-supplements-quite-a-bit-actually-mates/
This second description is from DSM Nutritional Products, but the best information they I can find on their websites is much less detailed:
http://www.vitamin-basics.com/index.php?id=3
Robin Whittle ( talk) 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Can it be said that we photosynthesize Cholecalciferol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.93.49 ( talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this :
Is there any study backing that ? Yug (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This section is badly written and I'm going to try to make sense of it. Nicmart ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It's very odd that the article doesn't touch on dietary sources! Someone really ought to fix that. -- 92.28.98.184 ( talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegetarians and vegans."
Why would sheep's wool objectionable to vegetarians? I've seen many sheep shorn, and in the hands of an experienced shearer, the sheep is usually relaxed during the process. I also know many vegetarians who are not offended by the use of wool or the process of shearing, and are happy to use wool and wool by-products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism "Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat – red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism "Veganism /ˈviːɡənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan."
So I will change this to: "Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.36 ( talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This article currently says "There are conflicting reports concerning the absorption of cholecalciferol (D3) versus ergocalciferol (D2), with some studies suggesting less efficacy of D2,[12] and others showing no difference.[13]"
There is nothing conflicting about the two studies cited. The first study shows less efficacy in D2 vs D3 when administered in a large monthly dose. This study showed similar serum 25OHD levels between D2 and D3 immediately after the dosage but that these levels dropped off dramatically over the course of the month with D2 but stayed strong with D3.
The second study showed D2 and D3 to be equally effective with a daily dose. The first study's authors also suggested this would be case.
-- Ericjs ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cholecalciferol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This ref specifically says not by injection. [1] It is a different vitamin D given by injection. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is specific to my edits which have been reverted by @ Doc James:, but I thought I'd explain my position here in case anybody else wants to chip in.
Whilst price is indeed important, which is why I included a subsection titled 'Cost' on the page, the 2015 cost of vitamin D3 treatment in the US doesn't seem notable enough to include in the lead summary. Imagine if the summary included the cost of treatment or wholesale procurement in every nation? That would seems excessively detailed for an opening summary to me. So better not to have country-specific price points in the summary, and save it for the subsection.
Furthermore, the reference to the cost in the developing world is misleading, as the source cited as far as I can ascertain provides one single supplier price-point specific to Costa Rica. The price point in Costa Rica is not equivalent to the price point across other economically equivalent nations, so it's false to interpret it so. Think of it this way: you wouldn't use a reference specific only to one German supplier to state the price in the developing world as a whole, would you? Developing world is itself a questionably broad term, anyway.
My proposals are: Keep country-specific prices in the Cost subsection, and remove the reference to cost in the "developing world" as the citation only pertains to Costa Rica. Thoughts? 80.192.27.175 ( talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the INN is 'Colecalciferol', not 'Cholecalciferol' (-h-). Per WP:PHARM then, shouldn't the article content be in Colecalciferol? That's a move over redirect, so nothing will be broken. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Mechanism of action, biosynthesis, and industrial production are not "physiologcial effects". Therefore reverted to how it was. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
References
I think I have failed to make you understand my reasoning for this particular compound which is the precursor of calcitriol. This is a fundamental property of the compound and is of much greater importance to an encyclopedia then the current price of one formulation in one central American country for instance. But I asked for a consensus. I will move the information from there. Jrfw51 ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The wholesale cost in the Costa Rica is about 2.15 USD per 30 ml bottle of 10,000 IU/ml.[11] In the United States treatment costs less than 25 USD per month.[4]
This references a citation in which 2015 is the most current data. Since prices vary, and historical pricing information is of minimal value, should these statements be updated, amended, or withdrawn? Gprobins ( talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll remove based on dated information. If others consider it appropriate, they can restore with current data and provide a more relevant context. Gprobins ( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
There are generally three price ranges for medications globally (the US, the rest of the developed world, and LMIC). So yes having price info from the US/developed world and developing world is useful. Do prices randomly vary by large amounts? No they do not. Prices are typically stable for long periods of time. There may be a significant decrease when drugs go generic and there may be price variation is certain locations when companies manage to create a monopoly but others not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to cover the big idea of how this human vitamin (in low doses) is also used as a rodenticide in high doses, with sources etc.
I did just run into another veterinary type source that seems to indicate the LD50 levels for toxicity might, in fact, be rather much lower than whatever is listed in the article from an existing source (~10 to 17 mg/kg), whereas this is talking lethal doses of 5x to 10x lower than that. Here is the link at vspn.org if anyone thinks it might be of use. I don't really know what sort of veridicality we might expect from this source--I generally try to use papers and journal articles--but perhaps others have an opinion. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I've just learned quite a bit about D3 from several medical lectures available on youtube - from, e.g., the University of California or Boston College. One thing the speakers emphasized was that the dangers of D3 overdose/toxicity are greatly overblown. Doses of 50,000-1,000,000 IU seem to cause such toxicity. Most of the speakers recommend daily does of 3000-5000 IU a day, rather than the 600 IU presently recommended ("USDA"). With that, I noted that there is a substantial paragraph in the lede on the dangers of too much, and it strikes me as an undue weight to the issue. Examples of overdoses in the lectures I saw involve suppliers behaving very badly - shipping pure Cholecalciferol as a dietary supplement, or a dairy in the Boston area erroneously and grotesquely supplementing their milk with vastly too much vitamin D. (such examples may well be useful for the article). So tone down the warnings in the lede? Or perhaps cite values for toxicity as against "normal" values? Bdushaw ( talk) 12:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I speak of lectures on youtube by Michael Holick of Boston University, for example. Bdushaw ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
tre 158.51.113.56 ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
While pondering about an out of range value I confirmed an error in the Pesticide section and will make the correction, I will leave this explanation here to try and avoid hasty reverts.
Toxicity has been reported across a wide range of cholecalciferol dosages, with LD50 as high as 88 mg/kg or as low as 2 mcg/kg reported for dogs.
This quote comes from the abstract of the paper which is wrong. Sadly the Science Direct and EuropePMC aggregators only show the incorrect abstract and the snippet visible of the main body cuts of right before it displays the correct value.
The 2 microgram (mcg, ug, µg) dose is very close to a physiological dose while a 2 milligram (mg) dose is an overdose. When compared to the 88mg/kg LD50 the ratio to LDLo of 2mg/kg is 44:1 which is high but when compared to the LDLo of 2ug/kg it is 44'000:1 and this is clearly too high.
From the Abstract
Although the reported lethal dose 50% for cholecalciferol is 88mg/kg, deaths have been seen with an individual exposure of 2mcg/kg in dogs.
From the second section Toxic Dose
The oral lethal dose 50% has been reported to be 88 mg/kg in dogs, however lethal outcomes have occurred at exposures as low as 2 mg/kg.1,4,5
Michael E.Peterson & Kerstin Fluegeman, Cholecalciferol (Topic Review), Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 24-27. DOI: 10.1053/j.tcam.2013.03.006 , PMID: 23796485
Elsevier ScienceDirect [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1938973613000287
ELIXIR EuropePMC
[6]
https://europepmc.org/article/med/23796485
85.131.100.60 (
talk)
15:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The second sentence is incorrect according to Reinhold Vieth's article "Why Vitamin D is not a hormone" Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 89-80 (2004): 571-573.
The SMILES Notation that is on the page now does not match the picture, so I'm going to change it to match (the picture is right, I checked on the EPA website).
Here is what it is now:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CC[C@H]2/C(CCC[C@]12C)=C/C=C3/C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C
And here's what it actually is:
CC(C)CCC[C@@H](C)[C@H]1CCC2C(\CCCC12C)=C\C=C3\C[C@@H](O)CCC3=C
Sbrools ( talk . contribs) 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't the time now, but this article desperately needs some clinical relevance. Cholecalciferol's clinical implications are very significant, with relation to Calcium absorption in the gut and renal osteodystrophy. 81.179.117.49 10:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
On a similar note, I thought that the following would be relevant;
The ratio of total 25OHD3 and 1,25(OH)2D3 to plasma DBP, rather than total circulating vitamin D metabolites, may provide a more useful index of biological activity. Further studies are required to substantiate this hypothesis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16339300?ordinalpos=33&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I haven't been able to find any controlled studies that shows D3 supplementation counteracts bone loss in 25 D3 deficient individuals superior to calcium alone. Likewise, it's anti-cancer effects only appear in short term trials and are consistant with other immunosuppressives such as prednisone in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS: Kidney-transplant recipients receiving modern immunosuppressive regimens with low doses of corticosteroids experience only minimal loss of BMD during the first posttransplant year. Cholecalciferol supplementation did not prevent posttransplant bone loss http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15714177?ordinalpos=45&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
CONCLUSIONS: In this carefully controlled study calcium plus vitamin D3 supplements only had minor influences of uncertain significance on the calcium balance in healthy, calcium and vitamin D sufficient early postmenopausal women.
More succinctly,
http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
http://trevormarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
63.166.226.83 (
talk)
18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 ( talk • contribs) 04:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Ryan Wise ( talk) 04:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
While the main Vitamin D article notes the potential for oversupplementation, a single sentence in this article is probably merited as well, just to be on the safe side. ( 24.147.80.106 15:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
|---
Hi. I like to point that in the "Dose" subsection the same sentence is repeated twice with different information. See around citation 4 and 5 about current suggested value too low & max acceptable limit, Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.42.153 ( talk) 16:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, what is it good for?
TIA,
--
Jerome Potts
08:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Supplementation doesn't seem to increase bone density
In healthy individuals it activates the Vitamin D receptor, which serves an immune function. It is also immunosuppressive. (presumably, after you're out in the sun, your body needs some time to repair itself.)
For more info; http://bacteriality.com/2007/09/15/vitamind/
http://trevormarshall.com/BioEssays-Feb08-Marshall-Preprint.pdf -- Ryan Wise ( talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
VEGAN D3...Hi there. If my comments are not appropriate please forgive. I've never posted on Widipedia until now.
I've been searching for D3 that does NOT come from fish oil. While not technically vegan, I have found D3 made from lanolin. The vitamin shelves are VERY confusing because most all products say their D3 comes from cholecalciferol. Vitamin consultants say all D3 is from fish oil. However, I contacted the maker of the D3 I'm taking and they assure me the cholecalciferolin their product comes from lanolin.
if they can verified that claim on paper and that the product is purely made from it, but i doubt they can guarantee it (as company's cut corners to reduce costs, and are allowed to say whatever they want as long as it's not presented as fact ) Markthemac ( talk) 04:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Vegan D3 (from lichens) is now being commercially produced for use in vitamin supplements. I've added it to the article, see here. - kotra ( talk) 03:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Does any one know about D3 coming from pig brains? Is lanolin the only source? 24.152.217.54 ( talk) 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
using brain/spine for food supplement is not allowed in most of the western world after the BSE scare, not from any animal. Markthemac ( talk) 04:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
and lanolin is mostly acquired from sheep's wool Markthemac ( talk) 13:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Has anyone else noticed that cholecalciferol is mentioned more often without the h as colecalciferol, and what could the reason for this be? I know it sounds a very trivial question, but I'm intrigued if an interesting answer exists. Perhaps it's a way to differentiate supplements from skin produced D3? But why change now? Mo79 ( talk) 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a move to internationalise drug names. As part of this the new name for cholecalciferol is colecalciferol. However I am only aware this is the case for its use as a drug/ medication/ supplement. This may not have any bearing on scientific nomenclature and it seems reasonable to continue to use cholecalciferol outside any mention as a medication, such as in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.155.67 ( talk) 09:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
It is probably spelt with an "h" in it as vitamin D is a (7-dehydro)cholesterol derivative, denoting its relation to bile (greek: bile = chole). -- 85.218.152.255 ( talk) 15:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Trevor Marshall is an electrical engineer. He should not be featured on this information page. His "approach" is considered quack science by EVERY REAL scientist in the field. Any reference to him should be taken off this site. Wikipedia is a place for information that is accepted by the medical community and he is NOT a member of the medical community at large. Many real doctors have a profound dislike of this dangerous suggestions. Furthermore the only thing Trevor Marshall has ever had published was not peer reviewed, and was not an actual study but merely a stated theory. Judderwocky ( talk) 18:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
While most of what you've said is true (Marshall's PhD is in electrical Engineering, for instance and he's certainly not mainstream), some of Trevor Marshall's criticisms (and those associated with him) are valid and well supported by published research. Vitamin K + calcium puts calcium into bones. There aren't any studies showing that D3 + calcium increases bone mineral density over calcium alone. Upregulated TLR-4, which is associated with infection leads to upregulated CYP271B which leads to increased conversion from calcidiol to calcitriol (thus creating an apparently low level of calcidiol which is what tests rely on.) Care to post any studies which address low calcidiol due to increased conversion to calcitriol as compared to insufficient levels of cholecalciferol? It's a genuine black hole in published research.
And lack of vitamin D3 along with decreased Vitamin K does lead to calcification of soft tissue. This suggests that increased conversion of calcidiol, rather than insufficient cholecalciferol, is the actual source of problems in at least a few cases (those diseases where low calcidiol is associated with calcification of soft tissue.)
Now granted, the whole "Marshal Protocol" is entirely unsupported by peer reviewed research (nor is the protocol mentioned anywhere on this page that I can see. Has it been removed already?) Marshall seems to go astray with the unwarranted assumption that most chronic infections act like sarcoidosis. Some chronic infections could involve significantly different bacteria, viruses or fungi, which is not something that the Marshall protocol seems to take into account at all. However that doesn't invalidate idea that chronic inflammation is capable of causing lowered calcidiol, nor does it invalidate the popularity of his ideas among a significant minority.-- 97.115.253.90 ( talk) 06:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a bit unclear as to whether or not cholecalciferol is poisonous, or if it simply used as part of the bait. Could someone please clarify? Also, what purpose does it serve in the bait? Why are possums attracted to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.73.12.253 ( talk) 05:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cholecalciferol in and of itself is an active product of the body, and not harmless in doses proportional to what a vertebrate organism can create in natural sunlight. It is a prohormone which regulates multiple functions in the cells of vertebrates, and it is used as a poison because of it's effects on calcium absorption in the small intestine. It is used as the active part of the bait to create the desired effect of hypercalcemia in the soft-tissue organs of the target animal's body.
The factor which defines a toxic level of vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) is the level of calcidiol ( 25-hydroxyvitamin D or 25(OH)D3) in the blood of an organisim. Humans reach the toxicity level when their 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels are at 200-250 ng/mL (500-750 nmol/L) or higher, but it is the effect of vitamin D3 on the absorption of calcium that results in organ damage and death. The absorption of calcium is proportional to the level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in the blood; thus when an animal consumes a high level of vitamin D3 they overabsorb calcium. When levels of calcium in the blood are too high the animal enters a state of hypercalcemia, which causes arrhythmia of the heart and a subsequent death by heart attack.
Unsigned, possums would be attracted to the bait by the cholecalciferol and calcium being hidden in a food that the possum likes to eat. The vitamin is more or less taste-free and odorless, and it'd be a pretty easy way to knock off the animal. I hope this clarifies things a bit! My source for most of this information is the vitamin D council page on toxicity. [1] Sources on toxicity levels and studies are cited (four of them) at the bottom of the linked page. -- JHansen ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
I think that it'd be relevant to address the newest information on cholecalciferol from the vitamin D3 website in this article, in order to address the new fad of heavy vitamin D supplementation - at least to name them in linkages, alongside what roles they play in cooperation with cholecalciferol in the body.
Thoughts and feedback? Thanks, -- JHansen ( talk) 21:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)). At the same time, I think they present a lot of circumstantial evidence that magnesium deficiency contributes to vitamin D insufficiency but they do not provide any direct evidence for this claim. This
PMID
16596461 primary source comes a lot closer. Ideally we would like a secondary source (i.e., a review article or meta clinical study) to support this claim. At the same time, the introduction of this article that reviews the evidence for this linkage can be considered a secondary source. Hence I think it would be OK to mention magnesium deficiency as a contributing factor to vitamin D insufficiency and cite
PMID
16596461. The claims for vitamin K, boron, and zinc would have to be looked at in a similar way.
Boghog (
talk)
09:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)I found these links interesting: ASCO 2009and Chemotherapy is linked to severe vitamin D deficiency in patients with colorectal cancer-- Stageivsupporter ( talk) 08:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I found it very hard to find a description of Vitamin D3 industrial production technques. Today, I found a good description which I think can be used as a reference and quoted or paraphrased:
http://www.agdnutrition.com/d3-story.html
This is in the sub-section previously "As a food fortification", now renamed "Industrial production".
This description seems to match that given via email from another manufacturer, which I think is not a primary reference and can't be quoted:
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2011/02/08/what-do-sheep-have-to-do-with-vitamin-d-supplements-quite-a-bit-actually-mates/
This second description is from DSM Nutritional Products, but the best information they I can find on their websites is much less detailed:
http://www.vitamin-basics.com/index.php?id=3
Robin Whittle ( talk) 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Can it be said that we photosynthesize Cholecalciferol? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.93.49 ( talk) 20:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I found this :
Is there any study backing that ? Yug (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This section is badly written and I'm going to try to make sense of it. Nicmart ( talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It's very odd that the article doesn't touch on dietary sources! Someone really ought to fix that. -- 92.28.98.184 ( talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegetarians and vegans."
Why would sheep's wool objectionable to vegetarians? I've seen many sheep shorn, and in the hands of an experienced shearer, the sheep is usually relaxed during the process. I also know many vegetarians who are not offended by the use of wool or the process of shearing, and are happy to use wool and wool by-products.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism "Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat – red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal; it may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism "Veganism /ˈviːɡənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan."
So I will change this to: "Cholecalciferol is also produced industrially for use in vitamin supplements from lichens, which is suitable for vegans." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.105.36 ( talk) 17:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This article currently says "There are conflicting reports concerning the absorption of cholecalciferol (D3) versus ergocalciferol (D2), with some studies suggesting less efficacy of D2,[12] and others showing no difference.[13]"
There is nothing conflicting about the two studies cited. The first study shows less efficacy in D2 vs D3 when administered in a large monthly dose. This study showed similar serum 25OHD levels between D2 and D3 immediately after the dosage but that these levels dropped off dramatically over the course of the month with D2 but stayed strong with D3.
The second study showed D2 and D3 to be equally effective with a daily dose. The first study's authors also suggested this would be case.
-- Ericjs ( talk) 22:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cholecalciferol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
This ref specifically says not by injection. [1] It is a different vitamin D given by injection. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is specific to my edits which have been reverted by @ Doc James:, but I thought I'd explain my position here in case anybody else wants to chip in.
Whilst price is indeed important, which is why I included a subsection titled 'Cost' on the page, the 2015 cost of vitamin D3 treatment in the US doesn't seem notable enough to include in the lead summary. Imagine if the summary included the cost of treatment or wholesale procurement in every nation? That would seems excessively detailed for an opening summary to me. So better not to have country-specific price points in the summary, and save it for the subsection.
Furthermore, the reference to the cost in the developing world is misleading, as the source cited as far as I can ascertain provides one single supplier price-point specific to Costa Rica. The price point in Costa Rica is not equivalent to the price point across other economically equivalent nations, so it's false to interpret it so. Think of it this way: you wouldn't use a reference specific only to one German supplier to state the price in the developing world as a whole, would you? Developing world is itself a questionably broad term, anyway.
My proposals are: Keep country-specific prices in the Cost subsection, and remove the reference to cost in the "developing world" as the citation only pertains to Costa Rica. Thoughts? 80.192.27.175 ( talk) 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the INN is 'Colecalciferol', not 'Cholecalciferol' (-h-). Per WP:PHARM then, shouldn't the article content be in Colecalciferol? That's a move over redirect, so nothing will be broken. - DePiep ( talk) 21:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Mechanism of action, biosynthesis, and industrial production are not "physiologcial effects". Therefore reverted to how it was. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
References
I think I have failed to make you understand my reasoning for this particular compound which is the precursor of calcitriol. This is a fundamental property of the compound and is of much greater importance to an encyclopedia then the current price of one formulation in one central American country for instance. But I asked for a consensus. I will move the information from there. Jrfw51 ( talk) 12:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The wholesale cost in the Costa Rica is about 2.15 USD per 30 ml bottle of 10,000 IU/ml.[11] In the United States treatment costs less than 25 USD per month.[4]
This references a citation in which 2015 is the most current data. Since prices vary, and historical pricing information is of minimal value, should these statements be updated, amended, or withdrawn? Gprobins ( talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll remove based on dated information. If others consider it appropriate, they can restore with current data and provide a more relevant context. Gprobins ( talk) 15:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
There are generally three price ranges for medications globally (the US, the rest of the developed world, and LMIC). So yes having price info from the US/developed world and developing world is useful. Do prices randomly vary by large amounts? No they do not. Prices are typically stable for long periods of time. There may be a significant decrease when drugs go generic and there may be price variation is certain locations when companies manage to create a monopoly but others not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
The article seems to cover the big idea of how this human vitamin (in low doses) is also used as a rodenticide in high doses, with sources etc.
I did just run into another veterinary type source that seems to indicate the LD50 levels for toxicity might, in fact, be rather much lower than whatever is listed in the article from an existing source (~10 to 17 mg/kg), whereas this is talking lethal doses of 5x to 10x lower than that. Here is the link at vspn.org if anyone thinks it might be of use. I don't really know what sort of veridicality we might expect from this source--I generally try to use papers and journal articles--but perhaps others have an opinion. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I've just learned quite a bit about D3 from several medical lectures available on youtube - from, e.g., the University of California or Boston College. One thing the speakers emphasized was that the dangers of D3 overdose/toxicity are greatly overblown. Doses of 50,000-1,000,000 IU seem to cause such toxicity. Most of the speakers recommend daily does of 3000-5000 IU a day, rather than the 600 IU presently recommended ("USDA"). With that, I noted that there is a substantial paragraph in the lede on the dangers of too much, and it strikes me as an undue weight to the issue. Examples of overdoses in the lectures I saw involve suppliers behaving very badly - shipping pure Cholecalciferol as a dietary supplement, or a dairy in the Boston area erroneously and grotesquely supplementing their milk with vastly too much vitamin D. (such examples may well be useful for the article). So tone down the warnings in the lede? Or perhaps cite values for toxicity as against "normal" values? Bdushaw ( talk) 12:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC) I speak of lectures on youtube by Michael Holick of Boston University, for example. Bdushaw ( talk) 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
tre 158.51.113.56 ( talk) 03:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
While pondering about an out of range value I confirmed an error in the Pesticide section and will make the correction, I will leave this explanation here to try and avoid hasty reverts.
Toxicity has been reported across a wide range of cholecalciferol dosages, with LD50 as high as 88 mg/kg or as low as 2 mcg/kg reported for dogs.
This quote comes from the abstract of the paper which is wrong. Sadly the Science Direct and EuropePMC aggregators only show the incorrect abstract and the snippet visible of the main body cuts of right before it displays the correct value.
The 2 microgram (mcg, ug, µg) dose is very close to a physiological dose while a 2 milligram (mg) dose is an overdose. When compared to the 88mg/kg LD50 the ratio to LDLo of 2mg/kg is 44:1 which is high but when compared to the LDLo of 2ug/kg it is 44'000:1 and this is clearly too high.
From the Abstract
Although the reported lethal dose 50% for cholecalciferol is 88mg/kg, deaths have been seen with an individual exposure of 2mcg/kg in dogs.
From the second section Toxic Dose
The oral lethal dose 50% has been reported to be 88 mg/kg in dogs, however lethal outcomes have occurred at exposures as low as 2 mg/kg.1,4,5
Michael E.Peterson & Kerstin Fluegeman, Cholecalciferol (Topic Review), Topics in Companion Animal Medicine, Volume 28, Issue 1, February 2013, Pages 24-27. DOI: 10.1053/j.tcam.2013.03.006 , PMID: 23796485
Elsevier ScienceDirect [5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1938973613000287
ELIXIR EuropePMC
[6]
https://europepmc.org/article/med/23796485
85.131.100.60 (
talk)
15:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)