Topical Vitamin D

[BurghHardcore]

I'm assuming I'm not the only one who got the email today about the Super Human RX Primal-D?

I must say that I'm really intrigued by this, as I live in PA and can basically kiss the sun goodbye for the next few months. The .pdf worksheet on their website also says this product is superior to sunlight in terms of vitamin D production.

Basically, is this stuff legit? Is it really that much better than orally supplemented vitamin D? They sure do make a case for it, and the studies seem to back it up as well. I've been supplementing it orally on and off. It basically makes oral supplementation sound vastly inferior to the topical kind.

What are you guys thoughts on this? It's pretty expensive, even w/ the coupon code it's $50. But then in the writeup it also says this product can last close to a year when the dosing instructions are followed.

 

[triceptor]

I have to say that nothing is better than sunlight and if the science write-up implied that I apologize and will have ti take another look at it. Primal-D is definitely superior to oral D3 however.. and anyone taking Vitamin D would benefit from using Primal-D. As for the length of time a bottle will last... I am using 3 sprays a day to get me into what I consider optimal range of ~70ng/l so at that rate a bottle will last just around 5 months. Everyone is different in their conversion of D3 to 25-OH-D and the 1,25-OH-D.. some will use less than I... but thank you for making some of this info known here BurgHardcore - Carl

 

[BurghHardcore]

Thanks Carl. Since I can't find it on the website (sorry if I missed it), when is the best time to apply this? How long after application is it safe to shower w/o washing off all the product?

Also, do you have any reputable, cheap places or suggestions that I can get a quality D3 test done?

 

[triceptor]

first thing in the morning. Many people have reported a feeling of energy after applying Primal-D. Rob Regish said on my show that he took his first dose in the evening and couldn't get to sleep. this is not consistent with all user.. just some and not sure why that is.. but forget all that.. if melatonin is the nighttime hormone then D3 is the daytime hormone so it should be applied in the AM after a shower and allowed to dry completely prior to covering with clothing. As for D3 tests .. no I don't have any lead on a "cheap" one ..sorry...

 

[Blergs]

how much of your body do you have to cover with this stuff?

 

[BurghHardcore]

Thanks for the info. As far as the tests, maybe "cheap" was the wrong term to use. I'd just rather not have to go to the doctor and use that route w/ insurance and whatnot. I'll have to research and see if there's something I can do myself that is quality at a reasonable price.

 

[BurghHardcore]

One more question Carl, what is your recommended use for this product if I'm taking a test booster (Alphamax) that already has 2,000iu of Vitamin D3 in it? Maybe until I finish the booster, just use it every few days? Or simply wait until I'm finished with the Alphamax?

 

[fightbackhxc]

I've had some primal d for awhile, although I can't attest to its effectiveness it is easy to apply. Would be interesting to get blood work done to measure vitamin d levels.

 

[Synapsin]

That is a very expensive price for a very minimal difference over oral vitamin D (which already has pretty good bioavailability), not to mention you may not even be deficient. If I was going to be spending $50 on one bottle of a vitamin D product, I would get a blood test first.

 

[mr.cooper69]

Product makes no sense...

The medical therapy for vitamin D deficiency is high dosed D3 supplementation (as in, how people are actually treated by prescription meds using modern medical science). There is absolutely ZERO indication for avoiding first pass metabolism (i.e. IV, transdermal etc).

The writeup is also factually incorrect on multiple levels, even on a basic undergrad biochemistry level, but that's a different story

 

[BurghHardcore]

Care to elaborate Coop? I always enjoy reading your stuff. I didn't go an check out all the studies referenced, but the .pdf made some sort of sense. What did I miss? What is it you're not liking about it?

 

[fightbackhxc]

Product makes no sense...

The medical therapy for vitamin D deficiency is high dosed D3 supplementation (as in, how people are actually treated by prescription meds using modern medical science). There is absolutely ZERO indication for avoiding first pass metabolism (i.e. IV, transdermal etc).

The writeup is also factually incorrect on multiple levels, even on a basic undergrad biochemistry level, but that's a different story

If you are going to bad mouth the product and or write up at least explain what you don't agree with. Not all of us are medical students and general statements like this don't do anything to foster mutual learning.

It's like a to be continued episode of your favorite show...you drop a huge statement and then we have to wait for clarification lol.

 

[andrew732]

Product makes no sense...

The medical therapy for vitamin D deficiency is high dosed D3 supplementation (as in, how people are actually treated by prescription meds using modern medical science). There is absolutely ZERO indication for avoiding first pass metabolism (i.e. IV, transdermal etc).

The writeup is also factually incorrect on multiple levels, even on a basic undergrad biochemistry level, but that's a different story

Just because the medical field has not touched on something does not mean its not concrete, this method may not work but I am sure the delivery of vitamin d can become more sufficient in the near future, considering that people metabolize the percentage of vitamin d from d3 at different rates, and the elderly metabolize very little.

 

[BurghHardcore]

Andrew, you say here that the method of delivery may not work, but didn't you say in another thread that you were enjoying the product? Sure it could be placebo, but I'm just making sure.

Did something change? Has this delivery system been proven to be no good for D3?

 

[mr.cooper69]

Just because the medical field has not touched on something does not mean its not concrete, this method may not work but I am sure the delivery of vitamin d can become more sufficient in the near future, considering that people metabolize the percentage of vitamin d from d3 at different rates, and the elderly metabolize very little.

Normally, I'd agree, but you cannot sanely argue that the medical field just overlooked a transdermal vitamin. This isn't some obscure topic...we have micronutrient repletion down to a science and we are exceedingly good at it. Also, it looks like a lot of people here don't understand actual vitamin D metabolism, including the writer of the writeup. So everyone can start there:

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-vitamin-d
http://www.uptodate.com/contents/vitamin-d-deficiency-in-adults-definition-clinical-manifestations-and-treatment#H8

FYI, uptodate is the gold standard for all things medicine. It is literally an ultra-meta-analysis of all studies in existence on a given topic. This product is essentially confused. It thinks that topical vitamin D will mimic sunlight exposure and also avoid toxic effects. This is wrong.

Sunlight exposure -> 7-dehydrocholesterol -> D3

This step is feedback regulated to avoid toxicity:

"Prolonged exposure of the skin to sunlight does not produce toxic amounts of vitamin D3 because of photoconversion of previtamin D3 and vitamin D3 to inactive metabolites (lumisterol, tachysterol, 5,6-transvitamin D, and suprasterol 1 and 2) [8,9]. In addition, sunlight induces production of melanin, which reduces production of vitamin D3 in the skin."

When you apply topical vitamin D3, you bypass all this. Instead, you are actually at higher risk for toxicity than oral preparations since it bypasses portal vein hepatic regulation, all-the-while providing no absorption benefit. As you can see from the reading above, even people with malabsorptive disorders like crohn's disease are just given high dosed D3, because its fatty nature still allows a baseline level of enterocytic diffusion.

Hope that helps

 

[mr.cooper69]

The major study on topical vitamin D shows no absorption advantage but a medication compliance advantage. I'd hope compliance with supplements isn't an issue for you guys since you're electively using them lol

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3976443/

 

[Younglifter16]

vitamin D is absorbed just fine orally, no need to give it a fancy new delivery method just to charge more for a gimmick. Save your money

 

[Joshlm69]

Coop dropping some bombs

 

[iddqd]

FYI, uptodate is the gold standard for all things medicine. It is literally an ultra-meta-analysis of all studies in existence on a given topic.

not sure if its okay to post this here because its derailing as **** and more 'pm material', but i'd like to say this to everyone because someone who studies medicine is the least likely to be affected by what bugs me...

I initially wanted to thank you for making me aware of that site, but then i did a mini-benchmark and looked up their article for an illness where the medical field traditionally ****s up all the time (because you would need a real, deep and intelligent meta-analysis of the currently existing science and maybe clinician experience which in this case only exists in specialists, but they apparently didn't bother to read and understand the studies they cited, or at least not the ones i know are flawed beyond comprehension).
this is obviously intentional cherry-picking something where they were most likely to **** up the review, but you called it the gold standard, so they should not have a problem beating the odds, right?
io and behold, it is horribly wrong on two major points in the first 5 sentences (to the point where you will definitely damage and might - over time - kill the patient if you take their word for granted).
i don't want to derail this thread (...any further) and i can't check deeper into it without an subscription (maybe it is made more clear in the full article), but i hope there is some way to keep track of how much confidence should be placed in what they say on single topics. i would imagine they have vitamin d metabolism (where we probably have a lot of research and the topic is reasonably narrow) down a lot better than specific conditions with sparse research, but like i said, i sure as **** hope that clinicians who treat me are better than this 'gold standard' initally suggests.
it may just be an issue of the proverbial 'idiot in a hurry' making treatment mistakes due to only reading the abstracts, but my personal experience with doctors leads me to think that many of those i have seen are very vulnerable to being exactly that kind of idiot (i remember being treated stupidly - ie with adverse effects and no success - several times for different stuff and every single time the wikipedia article pretty much - once even very specifically - said to not take what the professional i just saw prescriped me. and we're talking wikipedia here, not even anything close to uptodate.com).

tl;dr: please ask true professionals for medical problems and don't think uptodate makes you an expert at whatever topic you just read up on.

 

[fightbackhxc]

Also a quick Google search shows that people are being prescribed topical vitamin D for the treatment of psoriasis. It seems that the medical field has found merit in that, perhaps it has other benefits that no one has bothered to study.

 

[mr.cooper69]

not sure if its okay to post this here because its derailing as **** and more 'pm material', but i'd like to say this to everyone because someone who studies medicine is the least likely to be affected by what bugs me...

I initially wanted to thank you for making me aware of that site, but then i did a mini-benchmark and looked up their article for an illness where the medical field traditionally ****s up all the time (because you would need a real, deep and intelligent meta-analysis of the currently existing science and maybe clinician experience which in this case only exists in specialists, but they apparently didn't bother to read and understand the studies they cited, or at least not the ones i know are flawed beyond comprehension).
this is obviously intentional cherry-picking something where they were most likely to **** up the review, but you called it the gold standard, so they should not have a problem beating the odds, right?
io and behold, it is horribly wrong on two major points in the first 5 sentences (to the point where you will definitely damage and might - over time - kill the patient if you take their word for granted).
i don't want to derail this thread (...any further) and i can't check deeper into it without an subscription (maybe it is made more clear in the full article), but i hope there is some way to keep track of how much confidence should be placed in what they say on single topics. i would imagine they have vitamin d metabolism (where we probably have a lot of research and the topic is reasonably narrow) down a lot better than specific conditions with sparse research, but like i said, i sure as **** hope that clinicians who treat me are better than this 'gold standard' initally suggests.
it may just be an issue of the proverbial 'idiot in a hurry' making treatment mistakes due to only reading the abstracts, but my personal experience with doctors leads me to think that many of those i have seen are very vulnerable to being exactly that kind of idiot (i remember being treated stupidly - ie with adverse effects and no success - several times for different stuff and every single time the wikipedia article pretty much - once even very specifically - said to not take what the professional i just saw prescriped me. and we're talking wikipedia here, not even anything close to uptodate.com).

tl;dr: please ask true professionals for medical problems and don't think uptodate makes you an expert at whatever topic you just read up on.

Having spent 6 weeks in a massive endocrinology department working with "true professionals," I can say that 100% of them prescribed oral vitamin D and not topical. No true professional is going to tell someone to use topical vitamin D. (I only read the tldr though)

 

[mr.cooper69]

Also a quick Google search shows that people are being prescribed topical vitamin D for the treatment of psoriasis. It seems that the medical field has found merit in that, perhaps it has other benefits that no one has bothered to study.

Yep, this is a well known and effective method for treating psoriasis, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the advertised claims of the product . Rather, it has to do with interactions directly on the skin. Do you have a skin condition?

 

[iddqd]

sorry, language barrier thing. i did not mean to address you directly, and i didn't even talk about vitamin d and did not question the validity of anything you said about it nor your knowledge on the topic.

better tl;dr: if uptodate.com is a gold standard, that standard might be set very low as per the quality of their meta-analysis on the one thing i looked up.
so everyone who wants to use it to study should be aware of that, and i am bringing this up because my own initial reaction was 'oh, cool, i can use this to conveniently study everything i ever want to look up'

 

[Synapsin]

Also a quick Google search shows that people are being prescribed topical vitamin D for the treatment of psoriasis. It seems that the medical field has found merit in that, perhaps it has other benefits that no one has bothered to study.

Nah. In clinical settings, usually physicians prescribe large oral doses of D3. I posted about this a few years ago on bb.com, usually patients are prescribed doses such as 50,000 IU 2-3x a week:

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=129990233&p=604937783&viewfull=1#post604937783

Having spent 6 weeks in a massive endocrinology department working with "true professionals," I can say that 100% of them prescribed oral vitamin D and not topical. No true professional is going to tell someone to use topical vitamin D. (I only read the tldr though)

I will verify that lots of medical professionals use uptodate. It is also very popular with students.

sorry, language barrier thing. i did not mean to address you directly, and i didn't even talk about vitamin d and did not question the validity of anything you said about it nor your knowledge on the topic.

better tl;dr: if uptodate.com is a gold standard, that standard might be set very low as per the quality of their meta-analysis on the one thing i looked up.
so everyone who wants to use it to study should be aware of that, and i am bringing this up because my own initial reaction was 'oh, cool, i can use this to conveniently study everything i ever want to look up'

Uptodate is pretty up there, but cochrane reviews are also stellar reads. With anything, however, you take things with a grain of salt, and use it to help you form a more complete picture, and not as something you blindly follow.

 

[fightbackhxc]

Yep, this is a well known and effective method for treating psoriasis, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the advertised claims of the product . Rather, it has to do with interactions directly on the skin. Do you have a skin condition?

I do get eczema from time to time in the winter. My hands generally get very dry too but as far as a chronic condition no I dont.

 

[fightbackhxc]

Maybe Carl can chime in, he isn't here to scam people and has come to earn a pretty trustworthy reputation. He isn't a medical professional but he does know quite a bit and his guests are pretty awesome at times.

 

[kissdadookie]

Nah. In clinical settings, usually physicians prescribe large oral doses of D3. I posted about this a few years ago on bb.com, usually patients are prescribed doses such as 50,000 IU 2-3x a week:

Yup. My mom has a script for super doses of D3.

 

[koi1214]

That is a very expensive price for a very minimal difference over oral vitamin D (which already has pretty good bioavailability), not to mention you may not even be deficient. If I was going to be spending $50 on one bottle of a vitamin D product, I would get a blood test first.

I agree with getting blood work.

Product makes no sense...

The medical therapy for vitamin D deficiency is high dosed D3 supplementation (as in, how people are actually treated by prescription meds using modern medical science). There is absolutely ZERO indication for avoiding first pass metabolism (i.e. IV, transdermal etc).

The writeup is also factually incorrect on multiple levels, even on a basic undergrad biochemistry level, but that's a different story

As always great input from you.

 

[triceptor]

Sorry I am buried but someone brought this to my attention so I will come back and make more of an effort to read each post and respond.. with that being said Dr. Reinhold Vieth is the person who did the research on topically delivered D3 and I trust his opinion as one of the foremost Vitamin D scientists in the world. Oral Vitamin D and IM injected D3 has some glaring drawbacks and I can assure you that those within the Vitamin D community realize this may be where the lack of efficacy in many RCT's comes from. All of the Vitamin D benefits have been extrapolated from epidemiological studies on population that live in sunny climates yet when we do RCT giving people oral/IM doses we don't see some of the benefits conferred. If one has an issue with the research cited in the science write-up on the value of D3 delivered through the skin then I suggest that you're beef is with Dr. Vieth. I hope this is taken in the spirit that's its meant. There is no tone of disrespect for anyone opinion here. I say if you think Primal-D is bull**** then that's your opinion and don't spend another second thinking about it. if you think there's some value to the premise that D3 has been delivered through the skin all throughout evolution and this is a good thing to mimic with supplementation then Primal-D may be something you want to investigate. I am not trying to convert people to seeing this. I have people within the Vitamin D scientific community who are supporting this product. And I would expect to have those who do not.

 

[triceptor]

this from Dr. Stephanie Seneff a respected Vitamin D researcher and scientist over at MIT when asked to evaluate the same research that is being taken issue with here -

I am extremely struck by this statement!

" DMSO which is used as a carrier in Primal D."

You are providing a source for sulfate as well as the vitamin D, which is, of course, perfect! DMSO can be converted to sulfate even without sunlight exposure, albeit less efficiently. But you are promoting the formation of vitamin D sulfate by adding DMSO, which I would expect to be very beneficial.

One reason why vitamin D from the gut gets carried in the chylomicron or ends up inside LDL particles (and has even been known to cause an INCREASE in LDL as a consequence!) is that there isn't enough sulfate available to transport it without packaging it up inside a lipid particle (unsulfated).

As you know, I generally prefer topical delivery rather than gut delivery - because the gut is very complicated and lots of things can go wrong. I think supplying vitamin D plus DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide, which is very similar to MSM) would surely be a great idea in Canada or Alaska, where it's impossible to get enough sun.

 

[kissdadookie]

Oh damn you Carl. I'm almost out of oral D3. Considering picking up some Primal D tbh.

 

[triceptor]

I don't get on the boards much any more but for those who remember me I was the guy who wrote the "Homebrewing With Phlojel Ultra" document back in 2002 that has made it around the boards showing step by step how to compound most actives (tren from fina pellets, test base, pro-hormones when they were still around LOL) into lecithin-based organogels that had an average of 40% through-the-skin delivery.. My background in topical delivery is pretty much a given. But I didn't create Primal-D because of that. Dr. Vieth's work on through-the-skin D3 delivery held a patent for 20 years. I snatched the patent up when his expired and he did not attempt to re-file it. He had no interest in using it. He wanted those who did use it to pay him a royalty most likely. That is why no one had jumped on the topical delivery of D3 wagon. They would have had to pay him to do so. I snatched up the patent and improved upon it with intention of producing a product. Its really that simple. Dr. Vieth is brilliant. I trust his understanding of the science. If its not what some people agree with that's very cool. Open discourse and disagreement is what makes the scientific community better.

 

[kissdadookie]

I don't get on the boards much any more but for those who remember me I was the guy who wrote the "Homebrewing With Phlojel Ultra" document back in 2002 that has made it around the boards showing step by step how to compound most actives (tren from fina pellets, test base, pro-hormones when they were still around LOL) into lecithin-based organogels that had an average of 40% through-the-skin delivery.. My background in topical delivery is pretty much a given. But I didn't create Primal-D because of that. Dr. Vieth's work on through-the-skin D3 delivery held a patent for 20 years. I snatched the patent up when his expired and he did not attempt to re-file it. He had no interest in using it. He wanted those who did use it to pay him a royalty most likely. That is why no one had jumped on the topical delivery of D3 wagon. They would have had to pay him to do so. I snatched up the patent and improved upon it with intention of producing a product. Its really that simple. Dr. Vieth is brilliant. I trust his understanding of the science. If its not what some people agree with that's very cool. Open discourse and disagreement is what makes the scientific community better.

Tbh with you, I just like the idea of not having to keep buying D3 since a bottle of Primal D supposedly should last like, what, 2 years worth of daily dosing? LoL.

 

[triceptor]

there are 420 applications in a bottle. I have found that taking 3 sprays a day works best for me. That gets me ~70ng range. Some may be fine with less and others more. If you're like me a bottle will last about 5 months. Some physicians tell their patients (and I am in no way endorsing this next statement) that >20ng and between 20ng and 30ng is the "safe" target. for that person 1 application a day or every other day will probably be all they need and thus the bottle will last a year. Hope that helps.

 

[triceptor]

how much of your body do you have to cover with this stuff?

I just spray it on my forearm and then rub them together. There's a video on the Primal-D home page showing this. you don;t have to cover your body with it. It's best to spray it in the areas with the thinnest skin for better delivery. BTW Primal-D is produced for Supper Human Rx by Patrick Arnold. I thought I'd mention that JIC its of any interest. I chose Patrick's company to produce Primal-D because he's the most talented chemist I know of.

 

[triceptor]

Having spent 6 weeks in a massive endocrinology department working with "true professionals," I can say that 100% of them prescribed oral vitamin D and not topical. No true professional is going to tell someone to use topical vitamin D. (I only read the tldr though)

So I guess you are saying that Dr. Reinhold Vieth, Dr. Stephanie Seneff two top Vitamin D researchers in the world onions are meaningless? IMHO the endo's you are referencing are not on the research side so it would not be in their ability to suggest something that is not a standard of care accepted by the medical orthodoxy

 

[mr.cooper69]

lol

 

[triceptor]

lol

???