hii sorry for asking you this but i saw you mentioned something about it a while ago lol. i've been taking calcifediol for vitamin d deficiency (used to be less than 10 ng/mL) for years, a few months ago i had to change to a new physician who told me supplements and blood tests are not necessary and she gave me a summary of the 2024 guidelines. reading the guidelines is making me feel kind of insane, is it really not necessary to supplement if you're deficient but otherwise "healthy"...?
deficiency and insufficiency are not the same and professional opinions widely vary on the numeric cutoff for either category lol. some providers love to throw vit d supplementation at anyone who's below 20 or even higher ng/mL, most lab guidelines say deficiency starts around 12 ng/mL and don't assert an opinion on supplementation between 12 and 20 or 30, and last time i looked at the literature on this i saw recommendations as lax as supplement everyone, and others as stringent as don't worry unless it's consistently below 10 ng/mL. there isn't a good evidentiary base for this and most providers just view it as default harmless because the toxicity threshhold is well above what most people practically will ever approach. honestly perfect example of a question where i simply think if it matters to you, you need to involve yourself in your own care decisions -- there is no universal professional consensus to default to even if you normally trust those, and ime the vast majority of providers are not even remotely up to date on research literature, they either have a party line they'll be parroting until they go out of practice or they're defaulting to their lab's specific cutoff recommendations because the results printout bolds the number in red for out-of-range.