Black Friday Price + 10% off subscribe & save + additional 5% off coupon (subscribe & save only).
Makes it the cheapest deal post for this item since $6.30 in 2021.
Order Summary
Items: $7.60
Delivery: $0.00
Total: $7.60
Promotion(s) Applied: -$1.14
Order Total: $6.46
Qualifying offers:
Subscribe & Save
Your Coupon Saving
CamelCamelCamel.
Bet you're the type to died down on twinkies and whey… taking the 'scientific approach' and ignoring common sense.
believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date, and Someday soon, life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go…empty.
Explain what common sense is about a specialised understanding of medical science?
If one uses intuition to guide a decision on something as complex as the human body…isnt that doing exactly what you claim they are doing.
Fact check him. I have and there is a growing body of scientific literature that supports the extension of the max daily.
Doctors wouldn't give babies general anesthesia as late as the 90's (in part due to the medical CULTURE).
The experts understanding changes. So should ours.
It's obviously better to take 1000 IU of vitamin D a day, then 7000 IU once a week.
It's like how it's better to eat 3-4 meals a day for sustained energy and amino acid supply, than once a day or once every two days..
I thought Vitamin D was fat soluble so possible to overdose on. Probably don't get medical advice from Ozbargain.
Debunked… Do some recent research before spreading misinformation. Or I'll set albo on to you.
Considering the human body is very much capable of generating 20,000iu from sun exposure, or more accurately - UVB exposure, then a measly 1,000iu is insignificant.
You could swallow 3 of those bottles 600,000iu in a day and not die: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13312-014-0399-7
There are have been other mega dose trials and usages. Stop believing the general medical 'practice' of BS misinformation.
Stop believing randoms on the internet without any medical background. You certainly can do harm to yourself by taking too much vitamin D.
Not dieing =/= no harm
Better to buy heading into winter, it's hard to be deficient in summer.
slip slop slap….
n take D3
Even small amounts of sun exposure in summer give a lot of Vitamin D. Good to take precautions but you're probably fine in summer
True for many but not all. I have super pale skin and struggle getting my levels up naturally. Safe sun exposure is the best but supplements are a must for some.
I really didn't like these. The gel caps of other brands are much easier to swallow. Personal preference.
gel cap gets sticky
Thanks OP. Got one.
Wagner Vitamin D3 1000IU 500 capusles from Chemist Warehouse even at their standard price ($15.59 for 500 capsules) is a better deal. And when they have a 1/2 price sale, then it's significantly cheaper.
Just wait for CW half price sale and buy then.
Damn. Wish I read this before I ordered 2 bottles.
Do Wagner also use high quality ingrediants?
just in time. finished our stock last week
i saved so much money, i give my girlfriends the D
There's been studies to show that taking more Vit D than your 'RDI' results in improvement in many health areas. Not a doctor, but I would recommend a daily intake of 5-7000IU + K2 (for absorption).
Check these studies articles/studies out and do your own research:
https://longevity.stanford.edu/lifestyle/2024/03/11/vitamin-…
https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-021-00593-z
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3427198/
Agreed, i spent a lot of time reading the medical literature, listening to trusted sources, and I now take 4000ui with k2 included.
Safe sun exposure couldnt shift my levels enough. Plus now I work day light ours inside, so i need them more than ever.
I looked at two of your links (the Nature article and Stanford one). The abstract of the Nature article says vitamin D pills have no demonstrable health benefits if you already have sufficient levels
The Stanford page said that you can get sufficient intake from 30 minutes of sunlight and eating the right foods. It also said -
Because vitamin D is stored in fat cells, excessive doses can build up to toxic levels, therefore taking high doses of vitamin D (i.e. more than 4,000 IU per day) can be dangerous and should be avoided. Symptoms of vitamin D toxicity include weight loss, irregular heart beat, hardening of blood vessels and tissues due to increased blood levels of calcium, potentially leading to damage of the heart and kidneys.
Not telling you or @Goremans what to do, but that sentence ended my line of research and made me uncomfortable following your advice of 5,000-7,000 IU. Whilst I'm not a doctor or telling you what to do, I would encourage you to reassess your daily supplementation levels and perhaps consider that you may be getting too much if you have a diet where you consume lots of mushrooms, fish and/or eggs
The reason others are also suggesting to take vitamin K2 is to address the concern in the quoted part.
Vitamin K2 prevents vitamin D levels building up to toxic levels? I got the impression it helps the body absorb more vitamin D which I'd expect to have the opposite effect
Lol they don't want you to actually read the articles. You're only meant to regurgitate the links for the next fool.
As a doctor who reads research on supplements, my general observation is that it's very difficult to tease out significant differences in outcomes when we attempt to standardise for micronutrient supplementation. A deficiency is often rare to find in individuals exposed to a diet in a developed country, even those on restrictive diets. Whether there is any benefit from attempting to "optimise" with higher micronutritient supplementation is unlikely given the difficulty to produce and replicate any statistical significance in studies.
My pattern of research into micronutrient supplementing (as it happens I most recently updated my readings on vit D / Ca2+ / vit K2) looks like this - I follow a major source on a topic like osteoporosis, like therapeutic guidelines, into it's referenced articles which are usually more seminal articles that have larger or more rigorous methods, and then I'm hours and hours deep into all sorts of different articles analysing slightly different aspects. When you come up for air you realise you've been teasing out these small differences of questional statistical significance, sometimes contradictory, and you're looking at something (supplementation) that almost certainly is having no benefit, or very very little benefit balanced out by potential risk (and small risk). It's usually just a wash.
Then you step back and look at nutrition by way of food and diet, and it's the obvious thing that is the answer. Stick with the macros and homeostasis usually sees to the micros.
But on vit D, specifically, I think it may be one of the only ones where supplementing may be beneficial. If you want to avoid UV and reduce your skin cancer risk, which we should all but for a very careful dose of sun exposure (we have nice guidelines for this to define a safety profile for each of us based on geography and skin tone), then some winter dosing might be appropriate. Our RDI is 600-800 units, maybe 1000 units for the elderly when absorption is reduced, and we will get a variable amount of this from diet, I sometimes supplement with somewhere between 300-500 units, depending on my vit D level (anything above 30 is replete that is sufficient, preferably above 50 for a buffer, there's no evidence aiming any higher than this). Higher doses will be likely not to add to vit D levels due to various homeostatic mechanisms, such as parathyroid hormone actions on the kidney to influence production of vit D.
There's also some evidence about potential risks of calcium primarily, and secondarily vit D. There's some studies demonstrating calcium deposits, including in endothelium (blood vessel linings) which could be contributing to arteriosclerosis and therefore vascular diseases like heart disease and stroke. Most doctors are a lot more cautious with calcium supplements now, usually reserved for osteoporosis and then weighed up against the patient's vascular risk, and as a corollary to that also vit D supplementation. Although doctors rarely get a chance to deal with the issue in a younger patient, the idea of someone taking supratherapeutic doses of vit D over a multi-decade timeline could have a significant effect on risk. This is where the discussion of vit K2 enters the fold as it may be sequestering calcium toward bone matrix preferentially, but like most things supplements the data is lacking.
Its for that reason I've toned down my expectations, including for myself, with vit D levels. When I started I thought why not optimise for >75, or why not even >100. Knowing there's almost certainly no benefit above 30, I look to 50 as a happy medium. I just recently got back my post winter level and was shocked to see it above 80, I've put the supplements at the back of the cupboard until I test again next winter.
Consultant Physician, medical researcher and author, Dr David Grimes conducted much original research on the essential to life Vitamin D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hO7fniCbmw&t=16s
Definitive Evidence from Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis
Vitamin D plays a crucial role in immune function and inflammation.
Recent data suggest a protective role of vitamin D against bad outcomes
Nutraceutical approach
Promote the immune response and reduce the inflammatory response
Anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory properties of vitamin D
Immune optimisation and immune boosting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5sc7G4s4CY
New Vitamin D paper
Vitamin D: A key player in COVID‐19 immunity and lessons from the pandemic to combat immune‐evasive variants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENuGXJB06o0&t=485s
A single dose of 7,000 iu weekly is easier for compliance. Overdose is never an issue: check the literature.