Vitamin D occupies an odd place in public health: simultaneously one of the most-supplemented nutrients on earth and one of the most confidently mis-self-diagnosed. The confusion is unnecessary, because vitamin D is among the few nutrients whose status is defined by a single, standardised, widely available blood measurement. Understanding that measurement — what it captures, where the thresholds sit, and who actually lands below them — replaces both complacency and panic with arithmetic. The definitive clinical framing remains Michael Holick’s landmark review in the New England Journal of Medicine (2007), still the most-cited map of the territory.
The measurement: why 25-hydroxyvitamin D
Vitamin D made in skin or swallowed is biologically inert. The liver converts it to 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] — the storage and transport form with a 2–3-week half-life — and the kidneys (plus many tissues locally) perform the final activation to 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D, the actual hormone. Status testing measures 25(OH)D, deliberately: it integrates weeks of sun and diet, while the active hormone is tightly regulated and can read “normal” even in true deficiency. When any laboratory anywhere reports your “vitamin D level,” this is the molecule being counted, in ng/mL or nmol/L (multiply ng/mL by 2.5 to convert).
The thresholds — and the honest disagreement about them
Two authoritative ladders coexist. The Endocrine Society clinical guideline defines deficiency as 25(OH)D below 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L), insufficiency as 21–29 ng/mL, and sufficiency at 30 ng/mL and above — thresholds anchored partly in parathyroid-hormone suppression and calcium-absorption physiology. The Institute of Medicine/NAM population framework considers 20 ng/mL sufficient for bone health in nearly all healthy people. European bodies, EFSA included, work with the 50 nmol/L adequacy line. The honest summary: below 20 ng/mL, essentially every authority agrees supplementation is warranted; between 20 and 30 lies a genuine expert-judgment zone; far above 30 there is no evidence that pushing higher adds benefit — and past 100 ng/mL, established toxicity risk (hypercalcaemia) begins. Numbers, not adjectives, should drive decisions.
Who actually lands low: the risk geometry
Deficiency is not randomly distributed; it follows predictable physics and physiology. Latitude and season: above roughly 35–40° latitude — which includes Georgia at ~42°N, alongside most of Europe — winter sun arrives at too oblique an angle for meaningful cutaneous synthesis for several months, making late-winter the population’s low point. Skin melanin: darker skin requires several-fold longer sun exposure for equal synthesis — protective against UV damage, costly for vitamin D at high latitudes. Age: the skin’s synthetic capacity falls substantially with age (roughly four-fold lower in the elderly versus young adults), precisely as fracture risk rises. Body composition: vitamin D is fat-soluble; higher adiposity sequesters it, lowering circulating levels at any given intake. Behaviour and cover: indoor work, full-coverage clothing, and consistent high-SPF use all suppress synthesis. Gut and liver conditions: fat-malabsorption disorders and cholestatic disease impair both absorption and conversion. Stack two or three of these factors — an office worker in Tbilisi in February; an elderly nursing-home resident anywhere — and low status becomes the expected finding, not the surprise.
Why test before high-dose supplementation
Three practical reasons. First, dose rationality: the correction dose for a level of 12 ng/mL and the maintenance dose for 28 ng/mL differ several-fold; without a number, both under- and over-shooting are common. Second, response verification: absorption varies with body weight, gut health and formulation (fat-soluble — the oil-carrier rule applies); a repeat test after 8–12 weeks confirms the chosen dose actually moved the marker. Third, safety ceiling: vitamin D toxicity is rare but real, essentially always supplement-induced, and invisible until calcium rises; the EFSA tolerable upper intake level of 100 µg (4,000 IU)/day for adults exists precisely because “more” stops being better and eventually becomes harmful. Testing converts supplementation from faith to titration — the same logic laboratories apply to any hormone-adjacent system.
The clinical bottom line
Vitamin D status is a measurable fact, not a vibe: 25(OH)D below 20 ng/mL means deficiency by any standard; 20–30 is the judgment zone; high-latitude winters, darker skin, older age and higher body weight are the strongest predictors of landing low. Test, supplement to a target with an oil-based D3 taken with food, re-test once — and involve a healthcare professional for doses above the everyday range or when medications and kidney conditions enter the picture.
Primary sources
- Holick MF. Vitamin D deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(3):266-81
- Holick MF, et al. Evaluation, treatment, and prevention of vitamin D deficiency: an Endocrine Society clinical practice guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(7):1911-30
- EFSA: Tolerable Upper Intake Level of vitamin D
- NIH ODS: Vitamin D — Health Professional Fact Sheet
- GMJ: The vitamin D activation pathway — skin, liver, kidney
Was this article helpful?
Disclaimer. This article is health journalism intended for general information and education. It is not medical advice and is not a substitute for professional diagnosis or treatment. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual circumstances. Full disclaimer →
Related Coverage
Editorial standards. This article was produced under the GMJ News editorial process, with oversight by the GMJ Editorial Board. Our editorial process. Spotted an error? Contact the editorial team.
