I've tried lots of things, but with not even close to the rigor of Steve or GeorgeN. I respect that you two, and some others here, are as disciplined and driven as you are, but that level of attention and focus has always felt like a bigger price than I was willing to pay personally (if I had to choose between that level of commitment or an ablation, I'd have chosen ablation. Fortunately, my somewhat half-assed "third way" has worked well enough for me to date).
The beauty of Steve's protocol to me is that it is easy to isolate and put into effect, and it makes some sense both theoretically and in my experience with calcium. My episodes run about 1 a month more or less, and as I've said ectopics have basically become a non-issue for me, presumably because of something I've been doing right. I'll give this protocol (including testing) a few months, while keeping everything else more or less the same, and let you know what happens.
Again, thanks Steve, and George and others for doing and sharing your work!

One unfortunate thing that I've just realised, which perhaps should have been more obvious, is that attempting the "Full test" of Ca/VitD outlined in the ten "dot point" procedure above, which Dean requested, would be much more difficult than usual if started right now! The festive season is a hard time to minimise Ca intake!

If all that people succeed in doing is getting their VitD levels up, but then succumb to appetizing Ca-rich foods, they will probably suffer worse ectopic and afib experiences than if they had not done that! So starting right now is probably not a good idea.

For anyone who began literally on Dec 9th (not very likely) when I posted that procedure, I suppose if they had moved quickly with their VitD tests and everything else, and if they were strenuously abstaining from goodies at pre-Xmas parties etc, they could possibly get meaningful indications prior to Xmas Day itself. But, realistically, for anyone else it might be the sort of project that was better attempted seriously by starting from scratch after the Festive Season and once all leftover treats had gone?

Ca is in alot of stuff, they add it to things sometimes also to make it "Healthier", like Almond or Flax Milk. I threw away my Bottle of Tums when I started Ca reduction, 400mg of elemental Ca per tablet. They put Sucralose in them to make it taste good. In retrospect eating 5-6 of these a day at times was probably a bad thing.

I showed this to my ND and she was impressed so we started this on Dec 09. She has given as much as 150,000 iu of D3 to some daily with no issues. As for holiday goodies with calcium, not a tempter for me as much as sodium based goodies. Not only the flu is strongest at the end of winter in Feb/Mar, but most of my episodes are Feb to May.

Steve which calcium test is the best?

cirenepurzalot : There is no need for any Ca test unless a doctor says you definitely have symptoms which warrant one – very unlikely! The problems we are discussing (ectopics etc) occur while the Ca is still within the normal reference range for blood levels of that element. 

As far as I know, all of the info that is needed to test the Ca/VitD approach is in the posts above, and I am wary of getting too deeply into other aspects in case it just causes confusion. For example, if you get a Ca test and it shows a result still in the normal range (extremely likely) but lower than midway, what are you going to do? Are you going to add Ca to your diet as an afibber?! As I have indicated before, when my own Ca blood tests were more erratic (but always within the “normal” range), which was before I increased my Vit D levels, those Ca readings were most often below the midpoint! Nevertheless, it was definitely Ca reduction plus VitD increase which eventually stabilized them firmly around the midpoint. This “paradoxical” quality is all part of, and due to, the labyrinthine nature of the many feedback mechanisms within the body’s extremely complex Ca-stabilising apparatus, as mentioned in posts above. 

So it's better to save your money or trouble on the Ca test (unless a doctor says you definitely have symptoms which warrant one – very unlikely) and dedicate yourself to getting enough VitD tests to stabilize the latter near to, but not above, the natural solar-saturation level of 160 nmol/L (~65ng/ml). While doing that, get Ca intake low; see if there is a benefit for you; then inch your Ca intake back up until a problem reappears. Then get a Ca test if you wish to have one, while you have a Ca intake just below the level where problems reappear (i.e. while you are on the Ca intake that you would stay on if you thought this method was the right way for you to avoid ectopics and afib long-term). IMHO this would still be basically just for "peace of mind", because as long as the Ca reading comes back within the normal reference range (virtually guaranteed unless you previously had a serious Ca-metabolism problem), then if it is below midrange are you really gonna add Ca back to your diet and reverse the gains you just made? And if it is above midrange, are you gonna cut Ca intake even further even if you are already at a successful level?

[PS: all my comments above are based on the standard "Total Ca" blood test and the “Adjusted Ca” aka "Corrected Ca" figure which is usually automatically provided along with "Total Ca" by the lab (i.e. adjusted for plasma Albumin level). Both these Ca measures became stabilized very close to midrange once my VitD was ~160nmol/L (~65ng/ml) and once my Ca intake had been reduced. There was no additional info ever evident from the “Ionised Ca” test].



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2019 08:52AM by SteveCarr.

Speaking anecdotally about Ca and Potassium levels, with every test since 2015, always acceptable levels. Personally I could never understand anyone thinking they have a need to supplement these two minerals that for me, seem to be so readily food available.

Just a comment on serum Ca (and Mg) testing. The body tries to keep Ca and Mg in serum in a narrow range. As Steve has pointed out, you are likely to be in range. This is why serum Mg tests are also relatively useless looking for Mg deficiency. The intracellular Exatest (which has been discussed here frequently - I took one in 2004) is arguably the best and for Mg an RBC Mg test is next.

Serum potassium is another issue. It can and does vary significantly in fairly short periods of time. Mine was significantly low when tested (3.1) in the ER on during my first afib episode. This was also true for my son-in-law whose had afib for 4 years, but only recently went to the ER during an episode.

I recently chatted with Shannon about the movement of topics to the General Health forum. It is not meant to slight the topic. He is trying to manage front page real estate space on the main afib forum. He tells me he has a plan for all of this when the new version of the website is unveiled hopefully in the first part of next year. He is on board with Steve's concepts. I know from being a moderator on another site, that the issues faced by the moderators are ones not observed by the general membership or lurkers.

As I am now monitoring my Calcium more closely, it occurred to me to question how much is in my tap water. A quick google entry came up with 30mg per liter, but the results actually vary alot (1mg - 130mg+) based on region [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] I would suggest checking yours out somehow if you are trying to count your calcium, as it is possible that you are getting alot more than you think from water.

As for me, we have "hard" well water (but not "very hard") which tests at about 160mg/liter of hardness, but that figure includes Magnesium, and even more significantly, somewhere around half or more of the total hardness would seem to be the carbonate or bicarbonate part of the molecule that the Calcium or Magnesium is bonded to. So, I am estimating that elemental calcium is about 40-50mg per liter for my water, but I am awaiting precise results from a lab.

So I probably get close to 100mg of calcium a day from my filtered house water (my filter does not extract calcium - some can). Even with that, I don't see how I would have a problem keeping the total around 500mg (if that is what I end up trying to do) if I refrain from dairy, tofu and fortified calcium products. The numbers just don't add up as a problem even if I eat lots of the things Steve is mentioning like carrots, etc (though I'd avoid eating lots of almonds for example).

One more thing, I am now wondering how much of the relative elimination of my ectopics which happened a few years ago (I used to often get many thousands per day) had to do with reducing calcium. I stopped using calcium fortified products (for instance I've used "classic" rice dream as a milk substitute on my unfortified cereal) years ago when experimenting with electrolyte balances to improve my afib. I didn't stop eating cheese though, and my intake of that varies alot - I am guessing I've averaged 300+mg of calcium a day from cheese (and occasionally ice-cream), though a pizza binge could easily be 600-800mg. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of this relatively easy step of stopping the dairy for a while (I did start dosing about 12,000 iu of vitamin D last week - my level was 32 when I started, and I have a second test scheduled for next week to make sure I'm up in the 50 - 65 range)

Upon looking back at copious past notes which I have about increasing VitD levels rapidly (I have notes on all my past experiments etc), I see that the figures I gave in the "ten dot point" post above, which Dean requested for doing that, are accurate for me -- I weigh 70kg. However, I see that, for my wife, her levels increased more rapidly using equal 20,000iu daily doses -- presumably due to her lighter weight. (All of my family have increased their VitD levels and reduced their Ca intakes to varying degrees).

So to avoid exceeding the natural solar-saturation level it is probably wise for any lighter individuals who wish to increase VitD levels rapidly, after getting an initial VitD test and calculating from that how many days to then supplement with a short-term higher dose, to get their second VitD test earlier than I suggested in that post. To decide when to get tested, basing it upon body weight seems sensible. For example, it seems like anyone who weighed 4/5 of my weight would be sensible to get their 2nd test, and also stop their larger "loading-dose", after 4/5 of the time that the calculations I outlined in that post would otherwise indicate. If anyone does overshoot, they simply need to cease supplementation and their VitD levels will drop back. It is true that getting to a suitable serum (blood) VitD level is an individual process and requires testing, and then checking later once a steady, ongoing, "maintenance" dose is being employed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2019 01:54AM by SteveCarr.

Quote
Ralph
As I am now monitoring my Calcium more closely, it occurred to me to question how much is in my tap water. A quick google entry came up with 30mg per liter, but the results actually vary alot (1mg - 130mg+) based on region [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov] I would suggest checking yours out somehow if you are trying to count your calcium, as it is possible that you are getting alot more than you think from water.

As for me, we have "hard" well water (but not "very hard") which tests at about 160mg/liter of hardness, but that figure includes Magnesium, and even more significantly, somewhere around half or more of the total hardness would seem to be the carbonate or bicarbonate part of the molecule that the Calcium or Magnesium is bonded to. So, I am estimating that elemental calcium is about 40-50mg per liter for my water, but I am awaiting precise results from a lab.

Erling Waller, the developer of the Waller Water Magnesium Bicarbonate recipe used to post (as Erling) about the relatively high calcium to magnesium ratio of the water in Denver where he lived at that time and for many years before. He thought that long exposure to this ratio may have been a contributing factor to his developing afib. Here is a search on his posts mentioning calcium.

In the mountain west, it is common to see a lot of excess calcium ... as well as other electrolytes/minerals in local water supplies. Excess Calcium has long been known as a potential offender, not only relative to many cardiovascular issues in general, but also for cardiac arrhythmia in particular!

It is certainly true of Sedona AZ where we live. In certain parts of Sedona, excess calcium in the water is off the charts high. Hence, why we don't use direct unfiltered water from the local city supply, but try our best to always insure we have a relatively low ratio of CA to Magnesium in our water.

Cheers!
Shannon

Steve,
Found this 15 year old post I put up on the forum. More or less says it all. Do you think massive overdosing of Ca in early childhood as they did in the 1960's leads to afib in later life? Sure is suspicious.

"I was talking to my mother the other day and the conversation turned to the fact I have never had any broken bones, even though I have done many vigorous sports.

Mum then dropped this clanger.............." It was all the Calcium tablets I gave you when you were young."

Well, after reading about Ca and afib I nearly fell over. I then gave mum the third degree (nicely, she is 80) and found out that it was all the rage, here in Australia to give your children Ca supplements in the early 1960's. A tablet ( apparently they were quite large tablets!) would be crushed up and put in my breakfast cereal every morning...............this was when I was about 6 yrs to 8 yrs. Also I rember when I started school we would have to drink these third of a pint bottles of milk every day.........I think I had 2 to 4 a day till about 11yrs old plus my breakfast cereal (more milk) in the morning and when we came home from school guess what we had to drink?......a glass of milk.

All this Ca going into my body right when my heart was growing, not to mention the cholesterol in the full cream milk.......

Was this sowing the seeds for afib in later life?....I'm now 47.

Has anybody else had a similar experience or been given great quantities of milk in their childhood years?
Dean "

Dean,

This is certainly something I've wondered about, a lot, myself -- being a very large milk consumer all my life until I discovered my afib connection -- and often including my own reflections that, like you, I'd never had a broken bone despite plenty of traumatic impacts (certainly not moaning about that aspect of my calcium metabolism tho -- three of them were on my spine, two at neck level, and I often count myself very, very lucky). My son, too : huge milk drinker, and heaps of ectopic beats appeared in his late twenties (he, a doctor, has completely eliminated those by my protocol -- raising his VitD3 and lowering his Ca consumption).

One could speculate about a variety of conceivable ideas, eg :
- Long-term damage (?) to the parathyroid organ (which is exquisitely sensitive to calcium) by decades of what are essentially massive Ca doses by the standards of anything that was plausible pre-dairying.
- Epigenetic re-setting (?) of various Ca-related metabolic "thermostats" by decades of what are essentially massive ...
- Overloading (?) of Ca into bones, which are by-far the largest Ca reservoir in the body, by decades of what are essentially ...

In the last case, the bone-Ca reservoir is so large compared to all other bodily Ca and Mg stores, that one could imagine that it could take years (decades?) to restore a better balance throughout one's bones even if one "rediscovered" the optimum Ca/VitD (+Mg?) intake. [That is if there is any such imbalance in the first place -- and I'm not necessarily saying there is.] In the meantime, even as one engaged in multi-year struggles to optimise one's Ca, VitD (and Mg?) efforts, one might unknowingly be constantly fighting against one's own huge, pre-existing Ca stores?

I have no idea whether any of those things is possible or is occurring, and I doubt that anyone even has any idea (ie good research) regarding even (eg) the absolute optimum Ca/Mg content, or ratio, in bone; but it is very interesting stuff to think about.

[Despite having said all that, no doubt I'd still err on the well-trodden side of giving any child of mine plenty of Ca via dairy food: partly cos of the bone-strength experiences we've discussed above (tho super-small sample), and partly cos society is so darned competitive that it would be hard to voluntarily give away any height gain! But having experienced what I have, and knowing what I now know, I'd cut back the dairy once growth had ceased -- tho that might already be too late re any afib risk, if there is in fact a link re earlier Ca-overdosing for those who are genetically susceptible?]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2019 11:34AM by SteveCarr.

Same story here Dean/Steve. Milk at school and at home and even 'recreationally' on top of that via loads of milk shakes that were 'all the rage' in the late 60s early 70s. I was still avidly drinking cold milk and having cereal with it every morning up until age 35 or so. To add insult to injury from age 25 or so owing to GERD (for which I drank more milk to 'sooth' my stomach....) I popped calcium carbonate-based antacids like smarties (often a tube/packet a day) for years - 25 through 45 pretty much - before going the PPI route (on and off ever since - but not this last 18 months - I find a good slug of EV olive oil every morning makes a massive difference - in addition to a more sensible diet in general). I think one obviously has to have the predisposition (to ectopics and AF) to start with, but maybe AF would rear its head age 70+ rather than 40+ if we hadn't gone to mad with the Ca.

Quote
mwcf
Same story here Dean/Steve. Milk at school and at home and even 'recreationally' on top of that via loads of milk shakes that were 'all the rage' in the late 60s early 70s. I was still avidly drinking cold milk and having cereal with it every morning up until age 35 or so. .

I was in the gallon a day club as a teenager and drank a lot before that. Don't recall when I quit drinking it, but I don't recall avidly drinking milk for some time before my first afib episode at age 49. I've reported my experience with too much cheese after I was pretty much in remission and the excess Ca causing issues then, till I figured it out.

As to bone strength, my recollection is that women from countries with very modest Ca intake (~300 mg/day) typically don't get osteoporosis. When I did a bone density scan (DEXA) at age 62, my T score was 1.7, which means my density was 0.7 std deviations above the mean density for a 30 year old male. My wife, who also hasn't had milk in a long time had a T score of 2 or something like that at age 58.

I didn't drink milk as a kid because I didn't like it and still don't, I did take cal. tabs during my 20s, 30s and 40s, so I did take them for quite a while, but I didn't use very much dairy. I have been eating cheese as a snack, that is about the only dairy that I have been taking until I stopped it a week ago hoping I can get back into NSR, but no luck so far.

Liz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2020 05:02AM by Elizabeth.

Steve,

Came across these and - assuming you haven't see them before.... - thought you might find them interesting. Talking of which I'd be interested in your take on them - all a bit over my head but maybe you might see some useful info in there? The take-away for me? On one hand the whole electrolyte situation is so complex with multiple feedback everywhere must mean it's hard to come up with anything positive that isn't at the same time negative in some other way, whilst on the other hand your own strategy has definitely produced results for you (and your children). I'm going to get a D3 test next week and go from there.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"Calsequestrin determines the functional size and stability of cardiac intracellular calcium stores: Mechanism for hereditary arrhythmia"

This one too:

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

"Calcium and the heart: a question of life and death"

Great links, Mike! Further support that Steve is onto something.

Would be good to know the genetics/genotype that goes with that apart from the one gene mentioned. Suspect there are usually several genes involved for conditions to be expressed?
Shouldn't be too difficult for smart IT people and scientists to find a pattern? But who would be interested in funding such research apart from governments?

MWCF,

Interesting articles (even though, as you no doubt thought yourself, I don’t see a direct connection to me or my family members.) 

The first article’s discussions of Calsequestrin, just one of the many biochemical players in the exquisitely sensitive Ca-homeostasis machinery, is primarily related to its role in ventricular arrhythmias (and related sudden-death phenomena). Just to be clear: there is no record of such arrhythmias in my family (touch wood); merely two cases of absolutely classic paroxysmal “Lone” afib (now eliminated) and one case of abundant ectopics appearing in my son in his late twenties (now eliminated). Nevertheless, that article plus the second article are both interesting because they, and your own comments about multiple electrolyte feedback mechanisms, highlight some things which I’ve referred to numerous times : there are many exquisitely finely-tuned players in Ca-homeostasis; hugely complicated and interwoven feedback mechanisms; and it is absolutely clear that medical science wouldn’t claim to have Ca-homeostasis all worked out. 

Those several things have two vitally important implications :

1) It is perfectly plausible that there can be some relatively simple underlying aspect of Ca metabolism at the very core of Lone afib which simply hasn’t been spotted by official medical science yet. Especially if it is inherently difficult to spot!

2) One can go a bit bonkers in the Hall of Mirrors if one tries to fully understand the whole labyrinthine Ca-homeostasis web or to base conclusions on something so complex which isn't even properly yet mapped-out or understood! (I would call this the "Bottom-Up approach"). That is why I strongly prefer to focus on the “Big Picture” aspects of only those things which we can say with certainty : and that is about definite, fundamental, human evolutionary relationships to dietary Ca-intake and vitamin D levels (ie, the "Top-Down" approach) -- which I’ve banged on about in posts above and on my website [www.carrafibdietinfo.com], so won’t go over again here.

As you know, I actually think (well, I’m absolutely certain in my family’s three cases) that the latter aspect is actually very simple : for millions of years we were solar saturated with VitD (~160nmol/L, ~ 65ng/ml) and we consumed far less Ca than in typical modern Western diets. And I do also believe that the “inherently difficult to spot” aspect, mentioned in (1) above, is also lying there in those very same two facts, in the form of the apparent (but illusory) paradox that has made their connection to afib hard to recognize. That is: ”Everyone knows that higher VitD means more Ca is absorbed, so surely high VitD with low Ca-intake is just mutually contradictory?” But apparently not!! 

I have been meaning to add my father’s details to the story when I got time (I’ve already outlined my son’s) and when it wouldn't complicate anything else that I was saying. Now is a good time. 

My father will be 88 next month and was first diagnosed with afib about four years after me. Just like me, it was pure “lone” paroxysmal afib, with no other detectable cardiovascular pathology. 

Since I was already well on the way to controlling my afib with VitD supplementation and reduced Ca-intake, he at first tried the same thing, also with complete success. However, he was never as rigorous in his approach as me : perfectly understandable, firstly because he is not a scientist, and also I suppose he was at least a little bit sceptical since it wasn't what his docs were saying! Also he just wasn't that worried about afib at that stage, not realising where it inevitably led.

After a couple of years of complete elimination, he suddenly had another afib attack. He was not being as careful with the Ca and VitD as he could have been (it is difficult for me to monitor this because he lives 2,000 miles away). However, I do also certainly accept that there is an “age-progressive” aspect to afib, so that could have been in play too, as the underlying adverse trend in Ca-metabolism or Ca-sensitivity worsened until a "breakthrough" eventually occurred. 

Anyway, the upshot was that his doctor persuaded him to go on daily Flecainide. This worked, and my father found it perfectly acceptable. I warned him that it would probably “wear off” after a couple of years (which I’m convinced is actually the “age-progressive” nature of the underlying Ca-metabolism/sensitivity problem “breaking through” even the drug "barrier", rather than the drug actually suddenly “wearing off” after two years, which makes little sense).

Sure enough, two years ago, afib returned repeatedly while he was still on daily Flecainide. I explained what was going on and where this would inevitably and very seriously head for him!! This time, unlike before, he got “properly” worried! He recommenced the Ca and VitD approach, but this time with much more attention! Hey Presto: complete success! He has now been afib free again for nearly two years, while reducing his daily Flecainide dose to a token 25mg, which, because of his age, he intends to stay on (and which I suspect is largely of psychological benefit, as he suspects too; but that is a perfectly ok scenario for both of us!). 

He is, of course, now totally “sold” on the idea and the underlying evolutionary concepts. Indeed, my mother tells me that he now goes around boring all their elderly friends about how it is obviously totally unnatural and weird for any human being to consume any dairy food after the age at which they are weaned!! 



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2020 01:31AM by SteveCarr.

A few more comments: George is correct, above, that literally billions of people in countries with ~300 mg/day Ca-intakes do not get osteoporosis. In the past, it was fashionable for Western commentators to say: “Well, they don’t live long enough”. But lifespans have rocketed through most of these areas and, apart from those who have adopted more Western habits, the lower osteoporosis rates remain intact, so that excuse is getting very thin. 

In any case, a short duration of even 200 mg/day Ca intake has zero bearing on long term osteoporosis issues. So that is one reason why a very low Ca intake can be temporarily tested (especially if serum VitD has been raised, thereby increasing Ca absorption). Then, if there is any success re afib, the Ca intake can be inched back up to discover at what level of Ca intake problems re-emerge. Then one can make one’s own long-term decisions. Also, one can at any time request a “Fasting Metabolic Bone Study” from a doc if one is worried whether Ca intake etc is adequate. This is a comprehensive blood test panel of about 14 separate Ca-related and bone-related markers which will indicate whether Ca-metabolism and bone-building is all proceeding normally. Both my wife and I have repeatedly had these tests (both of us at both low Ca-intake and high VitD supplementation) without showing any problems on any of them.

Some more on VitD levels (the "Top Down" approach) : Just last October, a study was published in the most prestigious science journal Nature confirming that the ancestors of all of us spent most of the last 200,000 years in regions near to or just south of the equator in Africa (and all of our ancestors before that lived in Africa), thus confirming that all of those ancestors would have been automatically and constantly saturated with solar VitD (ie ~160nmol/L, ~ 65ng/mL). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1714-1

In any case, virtually the whole of Africa lies between latitudes which ensure permanent solar saturation with VitD. So all human ancestors for millions of years were saturated with VitD. Even once humans left Africa they dwelt in low-latitude (high sun exposure) areas for a very long period. Only more recently did they move into more northern latitudes where VitD levels would drop during winter (only). Even then, they rapidly evolved pale skin precisely in order to maximise VitD generation -- so clearly high VitD levels were, and are, better than low levels (that rapid human evolution occurred via higher death rates and/or lower fertility of those with lower VitD levels). Also, past lifespans were much shorter, so the reduced VitD levels in northern latitudes (even then, because of the constant outdoor exposure of those lifestyles, only during winter) would not have had much effect on the population's overall frequency of afib-susceptibility genes, because afib and its adverse health consequences almost entirely take effect after breeding ages (so there would have been virtually no "weeding out" of these genes due to failure of the gene-carriers to breed, over the relatively short historical period involved).

So, all in all, it is absolutely clear that being solar-saturated with VitD (~160nmol/L, ~ 65ng/mL) is absolutely the normal state for humans, and that lower levels are not as healthy and are (as a winter phenomenon) relatively recent, and, as a year-long phenomenon, very recent indeed, because in most advanced countries agricultural workers only fell below half of the workforce around 1900! [There is nothing new in any of this general conception. Its most prolific medical promoter has been Dr Michael Holick MD; but there are many publications by other medical authorities; large numbers of "Palaeo" diet aficionados have included it in their routines for many years; and even most medical practitioners, who are generally very poor on nutritional info etc, are vaguely aware of it -- as shown by the fact that Vitamin D is the most commonly taken supplement by doctors.]**

As a result, in a dietary "parameter space" which is otherwise of very great complexity, where there at first appear many, many different possibilities and combinations which could be pursued (and, to some extent, ditto for ideas about non-medical treatment of Lone Afib), keeping serum VitD at or just below ~160nmol/L (~ 65ng/mL) is for me a "Pole Star", "Fixed Point" or "Guiding Light" : something which is now so blatantly obvious, and for which there is such good evidence that one must be doing oneself good and not harm (unless it is by ingesting too much Ca at the same time!), that it is the number one priority. THEN I adjust everything else to work around that! So if I get to 90 y.o. (with VitD = 160nmol/L) and I find that keeping my Ca intake down to 200mg/day is then needed to avoid afib, then that is what I will do -- confident in that approach unless I get actual evidence to change it [At the moment, there is basically zero evidence that adding Ca averts osteoporosis. The giant trials that have been conducted have produced mutually contradictory results regarding osteoporosis, but they show a clear trend to increased cardiovascular problems! Many docs are mystified by this.]

I would say that if I am still avoiding something as serious as afib, at 90, by simply being at the natural 160 nmol/L VitD and keeping my Ca intake low (no signs it will need to be as low as 200mg/day!) then there will be a damned good chance that I'm (unknowingly?) avoiding a plague of other things too! Already there are numerous "minor" conditions and ailments that I perceive have improved or disappeared since I locked in my VitD at those levels. Some are too seemingly minor to spend space on, and some might be regarded as implausible -- although there are many claims for VitD benefits out there, all lacking large clinical trials (especially at anything like the "full" 160 nmol/L level) because there is no money in it for drug companies. But I have previously reported on this Forum how both my son and I have become essentially free of migraines since moving our VitD & Ca in these directions; another curse I have lost for the last few years (touch wood) are cold sores (my son never had them); and bleeding gums, during brushing, are definitely a thing of the past. All of these (and many more) frequently have VitD (and Ca re migraine) claims made about them, and in some cases there is a bit of research.

So as far as I am concerned, that's the obvious central trick : get one's VitD stabilised at or just below the natural 160 nmol/L, and temporarily trial one's Ca intake as low as one can, to see if there is a beneficial afib effect. Then inch the Ca intake up and make one's own decisions.

But I cannot stress enough : it is no good to simply increase one's VitD levels if one is an afib sufferer. In my clear experience that will worsen the outcome (unless one already has a low Ca-intake, which is very unlikely in Western society). It is only wise to significantly increase one's VitD levels if one at least temporarily greatly decreases Ca intake to observe the effects. Then one can inch Ca-intake back up and make one's own decisions.

**GeorgeN has pointed out to me that the well-reputed Dr Mercola is one who ensures that his serum VitD remains around this natural ~160nmol/L (~ 65ng/mL) level all year. There are many other prominent medical practitioners also.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2020 02:03AM by SteveCarr.

Steve,

Many thanks for your views on the couple of articles I posted - much appreciated.

And great news about your dad too!

I just ordered a Vit D test online and should get the results in a week or so and will let you know.

As I think I mentioned already (PM), I used PPIs on and off all my adult life up until about 15 months ago. Since then - and managing my diet better including losing weight - I've resorted to Bisodol brand antacid tablets (that I've also used in any event over the years) for when any reflux occurred. I always thought in my head from memory that this brand was best as it was mMg rather than Ca based. Wrong. I looked yesterday to see over 500mg CaCO3 per tablet........ So they're gone. I've ordered some Maalox (all Mg-based) for use from now on instead. I'm hoping to not need it too often if I'm on top of my game eating habits-wise. But I did pig out over Xmas and did take quite a lot of Bisodol tabs (1 to 3 per day) ....... this coincided with me also (and I know I shouldn't have before getting the D tested) supplementing with 5000iu/day D3 this last couple of weeks (I already had it in the cupboard having tried it before a couple of years ago only to find it made ectopics worse so I stopped) ..... no surprise to you that the ectopics have been quite a lot worse than usual this last couple of weeks...... Wish I'd checked the label on the Bisodol tabs before now rather than relying on an old memory (probably wishful thinking...).

Thanks again for all your posts on this Steve.

Best regards,

Mike

I have started increasing my Vit D intake. Mine was considerably low at my last blood work and the doctor wrote me a script for it. I'e only been taking it for a few weeks now so its too early to say if I am noticing any real benefits or not. I've also started CPAP and a couple other things over the past month.
I will say I am feeling much more energetic since starting the CPAP. I notice those results almost immediately.

Quote
mwcf
I've ordered some Maalox (all Mg-based) for use from now on instead.

Mike, Doesn't Maalox contain aluminum hydroxide as a primary ingredient? I'm not sure if that's not worse for one than calcium.

rocketritch,

I'm hoping that you are noting the multiple warnings in earlier posts above, and that you are reducing your Ca intake if you are increasing your VitD; not emulating what Mike (mwcf) has accidentally done in the post immediately before yours -- increased his ectopics by increasing VitD without a Ca reduction, or apparently even accidentally increasing his Ca intake.

Quote
ln108
I've ordered some Maalox (all Mg-based) for use from now on instead.

Mike, Doesn't Maalox contain aluminum hydroxide as a primary ingredient? I'm not sure if that's not worse for one than calcium.

Thanks for alerting me to that. Doesn't look like there's an antacid available that doesn't just contain magnesium compounds. Maybe an occasional 15mg PPI is the least bad option!

Quote
SteveCarr
rocketritch,

I'm hoping that you are noting the multiple warnings in earlier posts above, and that you are reducing your Ca intake if you are increasing your VitD; not emulating what Mike (mwcf) has accidentally done in the post immediately before yours -- increased his ectopics by increasing VitD without a Ca reduction, or apparently even accidentally increasing his Ca intake.

My Ca intake is already relatively low. I greatly reduced my Ca intake many years ago along with other things. I used to drink allot of milk until reading somewhere that milk could increase afib burden. Although at the time I don't believe that Ca was the culprit I had read about. My major non food source of Ca is the Chelated Magnesium I take and sports drinks when working out.

Quote
mwcf
Doesn't look like there's an antacid available that doesn't just contain magnesium compounds. Maybe an occasional 15mg PPI is the least bad option!

You could try magnesium carbonate. I've used this product with some success, though I don't think it's as effective as the standard antiacids.

Quote
ln108
Doesn't look like there's an antacid available that doesn't just contain magnesium compounds. Maybe an occasional 15mg PPI is the least bad option!

You could try magnesium carbonate. I've used this product with some success, though I don't think it's as effective as the standard antiacids.

Thanks for that. Agreed worth a try but when I went to order some I looked for and bought some Mg hydroxide instead as its one of the two principal ingredients in Maalox (along with Al hydroxide).
Cheers,
Mike.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/07/2020 09:56PM by mwcf.

Mike. have you tried the belly breathing exercise for acid reflux? It cured mine quite quickly. I'll give more details if you're interested.