You are here

Vitamin D and kidney stones???


I have been diligently trying to increase my Vit D levels for nearly 2 years now.  I have done so by slowly increasing the amount I take and am now at 4,000 iu's per day.  I had my level checked earlier this week and I was thrilled that it came in at 63, the highest yet.  Right under the test result (done at Mayo Clinic) was the following: Interpretation: 51-80 ng/mL (increased risk of hypercalciuria). Many on this forum firmly believe that we CMLers should keep out Vit D level at 75+.  What do you all think of the higher risk of kidney stones at these level?

Scuba, Sandy???

Do you take vitamin K2?

(aka: menaquinone or MK-7)

Also - what is your blood calcium level? just because the clinic says, "increased risk" - is there? Do you see it in your blood test?

I suspect not. Let us know your blood calcium level. If it's normal - let that be a lesson.

but take vitamin K2 - it works together with D3. (D in the body).


p.s. I am taking 15,000 IU's every two days (5,000 one day, 10,000 the next) now that we are in winter (i.e. no sun). Vitamin D for me is around 70 ng/ml.

The referenced article makes unsubstantiated claims. If K2 + D3 vitamins can reduce the probability of men getting prostate cancer by 60% then the NHS could save 7,200 deaths a year.

Thanks Scuba - I hadn't thought about my calcium levels.  My most recent blood calcium level was 9.5 mg/dl and has been consistently between 9.0 and 9.5 for over 2 years now, so does that mean I am not at higher risk for kidney stones as long as my calcium levels aren't above normal range?   

I take Vitamin D3 only because I get virtually no sun due to my history of skin cancer and the compounding effect on the skin from TKI's.  When I used to get lots of sun before CML, my Vit D levels were always 40ish.  Also, I believe I get enough Vit K through my diet - pasture raised, organic eggs, cheese, and meat, spinach, yogurt, butter.  Thus, I do not take a K2 supplement. I have always believed that getting enough vitamins through proper diet is superior to supplementation so I try my best to do it that way.

Reference range:


"Calcium is maintained within a fairly narrow range from 8.5 to 10.5 mg/dl (4.3 to 5.3 mEq/L or 2.2 to 2.7 mmol/L). Normal values and reference ranges may vary among laboratories as much as 0.5 mg/dl."

Chances of kidney stones when blood calcium is within the above range is low. Making sure you drink when thirsty or otherwise are properly hydrated will minimize chances of kidney stones assuming you are healthy otherwise (no parathyroid issues). Your vitamin D level is NOT going to cause hypercalcemia. The notation on your Clinic report is just a typical 'warning' in the absence of additional information because your D level is not within their range ....

Note: from labtest

"Tests for Vitamin D Deficiency. The most accurate way to measure how much vitamin D is in your body is the 25-hydroxy vitamin D blood test. A level of 20 nanograms/milliliter to 50 ng/mL is considered adequate for healthy people. A level less than 12 ng/mL indicates vitamin D deficiency."

Any level above 50 is considered above normal ... i.e. too high. I don't follow this at all anymore. I consider the above information out of date. You would have to have itamin D levels way above 100 ng/ml in order to drive the body into hypercalcemia. 100 to me is the cutoff. I maintain my vitamin D level around 70. It has been as high as 85 and as low as 52. Over several years I learned what amount of vitamin D3 I need to take to keep where I am. Over the years the benefit to me keeping my D level above 50 (but below 100) has been zero colds, flu or getting 'sick' at all. And once I elevated my D level, my blast count fell to zero. I am a believer in the importance of Vitamin D in blood health (immune system).

Also I do take vitamin K2 (menaquinone aka MK-7). Vitamin K is NOT the same thing as vitamin K2. Your diet is almost certainly devoid of K2. K2 requires fermented foods like kimchi, Natto, etc. Do you eat those? If not, you are likely deficient in K2. By taking K2 along with D3, you pretty much insure any excess calcium uptake by the intestines (which vitamin D facilitates) is directed to the bones instead of soft tissue. This is the power of the D3+K2 combo. Our ancestors ate "dirty" food. It was loaded with bacteria and natural fermentation. This was the source of K2 and our bodies evolved to process and use this as nutrition. In our sterile society, K2 is no longer available as much. Hence the deficiency.

Additional info on K2:

Absolutely - would love to see their references. I came across this one:

and suspect the "60%" figure cited in the earlier reference is in relation to both D and K2 together, but you are certainly correct in the "unsubstantiated" comment. Writing that prostate cancer is reduced by "60%" should have a footnote attached to it with a reference.

I take K2 not for prostate health. If it helps, great, but for its role in binding calcium in the blood removing from soft tissue and carrying it to the bone for deposition. On this, there is very well documented biochemistry and mode of action. The point of the article that I took away is that vitamin K2 and D work together. I take them in the same day with fatty food (avocado, etc.).

Nimbus2 - I found a reference citing experimental results yielding the greater than 60% reduction in risk of prostate cancer:

Perhaps the NHS should look into this and recommend that people increase their K2 intake. Would probably save some lives ... or more likely extend life and so increase burden on the NHS!

Thank you, Scuba, for finding the reference.

Every two years a retired consultant visits our village and provides PSA testing to all the gentlemen of the village. He also provides presentations and discussions on prostate cancer. His view is that there is nothing that will help to reduce prostate cancer except for tomatoes. Next time he visits, I ask the question concerning K2.