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

41–50 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#41

Post by tathougies »

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…

Except the majority of people on the planet cannot digest lactose, and drinking more milk can cause all sorts of unpleasant digestive symptoms.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#42

Post by timewarrior »

nlperguiy wrote: post #32
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...

It's difficult to determine whether there is a selection bias. Many people who smoke, take Vitamin B12 supplements.

Anyways it's a good idea to not overdo these supplements.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#43

Post by delinhabit »

basicplus2 wrote: post #16

Sufficient vitamin D is gained primarily from Sun exposure.. typically between 10am and 2pm, I have read that at certain latitudes and times of year the required window is considerably less but cannot find a reference. http://www.return2health.net/articles/does-vitamin-d-really-...

This is a good article on the matter with more in depth information: http://www.solar-facts-and-advice.com/vitamin-D-from-the-sun...

As one of the sibling commenter said, it very much depends on your skin shade and the location on Earth.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#45

Post by noahdesu »

Has anyone had experience ordering blood work (e.g. the vitamin d 25 hydroxy test) without visiting a doctor? I've seen very few references to the set of sites that pop up first online [0, 1, 2, 3] when I've gone looking for reviews in the past. Any suggestions? I'm in CA.

[0]: https://www.privatemdlabs.com [1]: http://www.directlabs.com/ [2]: https://www.walkinlab.com/ [3]: https://www.health-tests-direct.com/

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#46

Post by timewarrior »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #40
timewarrior wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yep, they are and also the best form. Extremely unstable in capsules and oral supplements though.

Methylcobalamin isn't very effective orally. However someone with a gene mutation doesn't have any choices.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#48

Post by mjevans »

pkaye wrote: post #36
timewarrior wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Anecdotally, a lot of window products have built in films, coatings, or dopants that reduce UV exposure and possibly other portions of the spectrum.

I would /guess/ that pure (greenhouse?) glass, maybe not even visibly transparent, would be effective.

Both could be worth studying if someone hasn't already.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#50

Post by micro_cam »

This article seems to be a low quality review of other research with a clickbatey title (full text here: https://www.jpmph.org/journal/view.php?doi=10.3961/jpmph.16....).

Pubmed is sort of like arxiv.org and the fact this has an nih.gov base url should not be taken as an endorsement of it by the NIH.

That said I do actually believe that more then the recommended amount of vitamin D can be beneficial and the recommendations are in need of reevaluation.

Post reply on HN