Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Big Vitamin D Mistake

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#31

Post by bbunix »

rapsey wrote: post #19
mborch wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or better, just spend more time outside.

The amount of disinformation commonly expressed about vitamin D is quite amazing. Bogus claims: 1. Spend a couple of minutes outside and you will be OK. 2. It is absorbed through the eyes. 3. Deficiencies are rare. When in fact: 1. Does not apply at any time when your body is covered up mostly. Wear trousers and a T-shirt and you've cut yourself off severely already. Add weather with less sun, sunscreen, and/or more…

You'd think sunny places would fare better - however after moving to Key West from Montreal I discovered people here spent a lot of effort avoiding the sun (skin cancer is big down here).

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#32

Post by nlperguiy »

timewarrior wrote: post #14

This article recommends around 100 nmol/L. Most people are between 20-30, because they don't get enough Sun and do not take supplements. It gets really really bad when the number gets below 10 and it takes months to recover. Another Vitamin whose deficiency cause irreversible damage is B12. Folks, get both of these checked.

Yet taking too much B12 increases risk for lung cancer. [1] [2]

[1]: http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10.1200/JCO.2017.72.7735

[2]: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/22/health/vitamin-b6-b12-lung...

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#33

Post by Johnny555 »

pkaye wrote: post #24
timewarrior wrote: post #14

This article recommends around 100 nmol/L. Most people are between 20-30, because they don't get enough Sun and do not take supplements. It gets really really bad when the number gets below 10 and it takes months to recover. Another Vitamin whose deficiency cause irreversible damage is B12. Folks, get both of these checked.

Because of impaired kidney function, I get my vitamin D levels monitored every month. Yes supplements can take 2-3 months to increase the levels. The sun actually works pretty good if you can stay outside 15 minutes in noon sun. But that's difficult in the winter months.

I've read varying reports of how much sun you need to generate a day's supply of vitamin D, but rarely do they mention how much skin needs to be exposed.

Face only? Face and arms? Entire upper body? Entire body?

Is there some online resource for this with time of year and latitude corrections? I imagine there's quite a difference between vitamin D production in noon sun in Fairbanks Alaska versus Miami Florida.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#34

Post by YokoZar »

olympus wrote: post #9
tw334 wrote: post #2

what is this saying in plain english? That we all need to take vitamin D supplements?

Basically yes. I didn't read the paper, but the abstract says that our current recommendations were designed to get us past a threshold of 50 (nmol/L, but the units aren't that important). But they claim that we should be aiming to get above 75, and it would be best if we could get above 100. So drink more fortified milk. Edit: oops, looks like I read it wrong. 50 nmol/L isn't the threshold the current RDA gets us to…

You would need to drink over 4 gallons of fortified milk per day to get the recommended 8000 IU. Milk just isn't fortified enough, because the current daily recommendations are so low.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#35

Post by [deleted] »

yufengg wrote: post #22

tl;dr: we need wayyy more Vitamin D than previously recommended. ~13.3x more. Take supplements to reach 8000 IU/day for adults. existing standards from the NIH: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona...

[deleted]

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#36

Post by pkaye »

timewarrior wrote: post #30
pkaye wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of impaired kidney function, I get my vitamin D levels monitored every month. Yes supplements can take 2-3 months to increase the levels. The sun actually works pretty good if you can stay outside 15 minutes in noon sun. But that's difficult in the winter months.

Another big challenge in winter months is that people are so covered with warm clothes, that even going out in Sun doesn't help much.

I wonder if glass windows would block out the benefits?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#37

Post by King-Aaron »

Anecdotally, I had this discussion with a cardiovascular interventionist specialist about seven or eight years ago when I was managing a team of cardio theatre orderlies in a private hospital. He made the comment, "mark my words, in about five to ten years time there will be a major scare about needing to absorb more vitamin D".

His opinion was that the increase in sunscreen usage and the push to avoid skin cancer by staying covered up was likely to blame. I find it interesting when articles such as this pop up, because it directly reflects his concerns from those years ago.

For reference, this was the late Dr Geoffrey Mews (who I only just realised has passed on while I was looking for a reference to post. That's made me a bit sad now)

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#38

Post by tathougies »

timewarrior wrote: post #26
DigitalJack wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to have a gene mutation that makes methylation of B12 inefficient. I never did well in chemistry or biology for that matter, but my limited understanding is that methylation is necessary for it to be useful. It turns out that you can buy methylated B12 called methylcobalamin. The more common form is cyanocobalamin, and is not very useful for people like myself. That is my understanding, if anyone here knows…

Thanks for this added information. I discovered the same thing, with another family member where Methylcobalamin worked wonders and Cyanocobalamin didn't. One thing I would add is that Methylcobalamin needs to be injected to work best. If people do not have your gene mutation, they are better off taking Cyanocobalamin. PS: Whenever someone in family has major health issue which no one can get handle on - they reach o…

You can take methylcobalamin sublingually. Absorption is fine, according to my blood results.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#39

Post by nugget »

timewarrior wrote: post #14

This article recommends around 100 nmol/L. Most people are between 20-30, because they don't get enough Sun and do not take supplements. It gets really really bad when the number gets below 10 and it takes months to recover. Another Vitamin whose deficiency cause irreversible damage is B12. Folks, get both of these checked.

I've never read a recommendation for 100 nmol/L before. Previous numbers were around 50-70 nmol/L. So this seems noteworthy.

There also appears to be some evidence to support Vitamin K2 as a complement to Vitamin D supplementation, in order to reduce or prevent cardiovascular calcification.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#40

Post by pcthrowaway »

timewarrior wrote: post #26
DigitalJack wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to have a gene mutation that makes methylation of B12 inefficient. I never did well in chemistry or biology for that matter, but my limited understanding is that methylation is necessary for it to be useful. It turns out that you can buy methylated B12 called methylcobalamin. The more common form is cyanocobalamin, and is not very useful for people like myself. That is my understanding, if anyone here knows…

Thanks for this added information. I discovered the same thing, with another family member where Methylcobalamin worked wonders and Cyanocobalamin didn't. One thing I would add is that Methylcobalamin needs to be injected to work best. If people do not have your gene mutation, they are better off taking Cyanocobalamin. PS: Whenever someone in family has major health issue which no one can get handle on - they reach o…

I thought the injection was typically hydroxocobalamin. Has this changed?
Post reply on HN