Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

9

Somebody currently has a question up about low VD levels despite supplementation, and everyone seems to think that the solution is to supplement more heavily given the various details of his or her situation. However, consider the following:

My friend who is a biochemistry PhD student recently told me that she saw a talk at a conference about how supplements can harm receptors by overloading them with high doses, which make them less receptive to the vitamin/mineral in question. Some of his data included a study of the effects of vit D supplements, and he reported that elderly patients who supplemented with 5,000 daily IU of vit D had weaker bones - according to post mortem analyses - than controls with no supplementation. He interpreted this to indicate that their receptors were rejecting the vit D in the supplements, an outcome which probably developed over time in response to the frequent high doses. Now, we are talking about a population of elderly patients who are close to death, and I'm afraid I don't have a link to this talk, but the overall idea makes sense, and seems worth looking into - hence my Q to all you Paleohackers.

Does anyone know anything about this? Opinions? Actual knowledge of it?

The researcher is David Agus and a talk of his can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRxgDMSp9Gs

flag	asked Jun 14 2011 at 4:08 Eric S 5,606●12●44

	Do we know for sure they were taking D3 in the study? Just a thought. I mean, lots of D supplements are, in fact, D2, which is worthless if not outright toxic. – Aughra Jun 14 2011 at 4:34
	We don't. I included all the info conveyed to me during a social gathering. I do know, however, that Agus was making a general point about supplementation qua unnaturally high, targeted dosing and the effects of this on our receptors, so he thinks the point generalizes to supplementation in the LT in general. Vitamin D just happened to be the type of data he used in his example, but the talk wasn't about vitamin D per se. – Eric S Jun 14 2011 at 5:54
	I have been wondering this exact same thing. I seem to have become "dependent" on magnesium supplements. – Michelle Jun 14 2011 at 14:49

Lily · Answer 1 · 2011-08-07 23:35:45Z UTC

Isn't taking cod liver oil essentially the same as just eating cod liver? Or maybe it is very much concentrated..i have no idea what are the relationships between supplements and the real deal. This topic makes me worried, cause i planned starting supllementing with it when the sunny weathers go away, but now don't know what to do..can't afford to eat fish every day aswell...

Arlokk · Answer 2 · 2011-07-08 01:19:43Z UTC

It may downregulate receptors, as fewer receptors are required to get the desired amount of the molecule in question when the medium is saturated with it. Subsequent lowering of the dose leads the body to starve for the nutrient temporarily, until the receptors are upregulated by the lack.

Karen · Answer 3 · 2011-06-14 17:53:25Z UTC

I think this a great topic to bring up. Mercola had something on his website about all the fillers that go into supplements too where Dr. Klinghardt was commenting on it.

I used to go to an applied kinisologist like ten years ago and he was very passionate about the dosages and the time you were on a supplement, hence the muscle testing. It did leave me with this imprint on my consciousness about not taking supplements blindly or endlessly. It seems the body responds to breaks here and there.

I was taking codliver oil for a while and then it just seems I lost my appetite for it and stopped taking it. Since I didn't feel or notice a difference either way in my body with or without it, it was an intuitive feel. Plus with non-whole food supplements, there's just no substitute for real food and variety. The processing to make the supplement can be a good or bad thing. It just depends, the moral seems to be: don't do anything blindly.

J. Stanton - gnolls.org · Answer 4 · 2011-06-14 06:45:16Z UTC

3

D3 is known to be ineffective/counterproductive in the presence of too much, or too little, vitamin A. It's also potentiated by vitamin K2 (specifically the MK4 form).

I doubt this has anything to do with receptor fatigue, as D3 is stored and released by the body as needed. Most likely it has to do with people studying nutrients in isolation and forgetting to research the possible interactions before drawing a conclusion.

JS

answered Jun 14 2011 at 6:45

J. Stanton - gnolls.org
3,332●4●15

	I think thats helpful. What do you think about the notion of receptor fatigue in general, outside of the context of D3? Or, in the context of D3, do you think that the only negative effect of mega-dosing D3 would be a VD3 surplus that reaches toxic levels, or might we do some other type of harm, i.e., induce receptor fatigue? – Eric S Jun 14 2011 at 7:02
	The problem with D3 megadosing AFAIK is that the body naturally limits its D3 levels when you get it from sun exposure...but there's no such mechanism when you take it orally. I can't make a judgment on the D3 case generally because don't know enough about the mechanisms being proposed for receptor fatigue, nor the specifics of whatever study is being referred to. – J. Stanton - gnolls.org Jun 15 2011 at 22:08
	Magnesium too, it's absolutely necessary for the metabolism, and vitamin d metabolism depletes it. Your bottom line is right. – Stabby Jul 8 2011 at 4:29

Do supplements harm our receptors?

4 Answers