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

191–200 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#191

Post by munchhausen »

cies wrote: post #93
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.

> [D and] B12. Folks, get both of these checked. Yes, please. I'm spreading this news for years. Many are deficient in both. B12 has a name for being low in veg*ans, while that is true many omnis are deficient as well. It's good to have more papers published on "high-dose D3". But by what I read this has been know for many years. And shun multi-AZ tablets, they provide a false sense of security. Eat loads of fresh pr…

Drop meat, fish, eggs, dairy products...what's left? Vegan cuisine?

Not that it wasn't obvious, but you should still disclose your bias.

Good luck with your vegan diet. I hope that beans and veggies can provide for all your nutrition needs. But better keep going to those regular doctor checkups.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#192

Post by mft_ »

jhwhite wrote: post #178

Could someone help me understand this? >it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to reach 100 nmol/L. The largest meta-analysis ever conducted of studies published between 1966 and 2013 showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels What is IU/d? What is nmol/L? Could someone EL…

IU/d = international units per day (a measure of vitamin D intake)

nmol/L = nanomoles per litre (a measure of resultant blood concentration of vitamin D)

The ELI5 is:

1. Trials indicate that vitamin D deficiency (possibly below a blood concentration of 75 nmol/L) is a bad thing and is associated with a higher risk of death (from any cause) and also other health problems (risk of development of type I diabetes is given as an example)

2. The current recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin D (https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona...) is currently lower than the intakes that studies have found are needed for most people to provide the blood concentrations which may be needed for good health (possibly due to a previous calculation error in determining the RDA)

3. Therefore, the author recommends to increase the RDA for vitamin D

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#193

Post by exhilaration »

baq wrote: post #180
pcarolan wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What dose is recommended for adults and what is the best way to get it into your system?

an hour of sunshine a day?

Except during the summer months, the skin makes little if any vitamin D from the sun at latitudes above 37 degrees north (in the United States, the shaded region in the map) or below 37 degrees south of the equator. People who live in these areas are at relatively greater risk for vitamin D deficiency.

Check out the map: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#194

Post by exhilaration »

smt88 wrote: post #185
icelancer wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>I know it sounds downright crazy, but it's possible that someone who's studied medicine and practiced it for years, actually knows better than random anonymous forum users. As the link in the OP actually denotes, no, that's not always the case. Bodybuilders and performance trainers - as well as Soviet Union sports scientists - have known for decades that Vitamin D supplementation is vital. This has been rejected by…

That's why doctors recommend that people get adequate sunlight every day. Of course paler people need to find a safe balance.

For most of the U.S. population, sunlight isn't enough: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869454

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#195

Post by floatingatoll »

jhwhite wrote: post #178

Could someone help me understand this? >it was found that 8895 IU/d was needed for 97.5% of individuals to achieve values ≥50 nmol/L. Another study confirmed that 6201 IU/d was needed to achieve 75 nmol/L and 9122 IU/d was needed to reach 100 nmol/L. The largest meta-analysis ever conducted of studies published between 1966 and 2013 showed that 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels What is IU/d? What is nmol/L? Could someone EL…

The generally accepted goal by both the researchers and the US RDA is to reach 50-75 nmol/L blood levels, using however many IU that takes.

IU/d is "IU per day of Vitamin D", and nmol/L is "nmol per liter of blood". Vitamin D is measured in IU rather than grams like most other supplements for medical reasons I'm not familiar with. nmol is an unfamiliar unit, but I can help clarify why this paper is so stunning anyways.

https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessiona... is a summary of the NIH's position on Vitamin D for US citizens. The research linked by this post differs in two key ways, approximately:

First, "50 nmol/L generally considered adequate" (for adults).

Second, "8895 IU was needed to reach >50 nmol/L", vs. the NIH statement "600 IU sufficient with minimal sun exposure" (for adults).

So, in summary, for healthy adults, they assert that 10-20x the current RDA-indicated IU of vitamin D consumption is necessary to achieve the recommended blood saturation level of 50-75 nmol/L in all adults.

Two notes: These precise figures are for grown adults, NOT children; and, I strongly encourage getting a vitamin D blood test before starting or modifying your vitamin D supplement intake, especially if attempting to reach the 15x RDA levels described here.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#196

Post by ngrilly »

newhere420 wrote: post #183
ngrilly wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> incredibly low in vitamin D How much low, in ng/ml or nmol/L?

Not GP, but my level was 8 nmol/L in the middle of summer. No medical explanation could be found for why I was so deficient, and I get at least 1hr sunlight every day during my daily cycle commute (UK). Symptoms were depression, tiredness and disturbed thinking. I was prescribed vitamin D3 10,000 IU/day.

This is extremely low. And what about now, after the 10,000 IU/day supplementation?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#197

Post by exhilaration »

noahdesu wrote: post #45

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/

I got a Vitamin D test a few months ago via http://www.lifeextension.com/Vitamins-Supplements/itemLC0819...

The "Vitamin D 25 Hydroxy Blood Test" was $47. I got a blood draw order signed by a doctor that I had to take to a LabCorp - so make sure you've got one near you.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#198

Post by myth_drannon »

avip wrote: post #128
Styn wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Word of advice: don't take vitamins ADEK without advice from a physician for extended periods or in high doses. These are fat soluble so you can have too much of them.

This should be reiterated: Please consult a professional before drastically altering the chemical composition of your ephemeral body. I know it sounds downright crazy, but it's possible that someone who's studied medicine and practiced it for years, actually knows better than random anonymous forum users.

Unfortunately very few doctors keep learning and try to be up to date with the current research (I don't blame them, they are extremely overworked). Especially their diet advices are so laughable.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#199

Post by richardknop »

majani wrote: post #139

Is this specific to North America? As someone who lives along the equator, I think it's impossible to get too little sun exposure in these parts.

Well, most of landmass is north of equator actually. So North America, Northern Europe, Northern Asia, Greenland etc would be affected by this.

Most of the landmass in southern hemisphere has lots of sunlight (Australia, SEA, South America).

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#200

Post by voiper1 »

Joe-Z wrote: post #158
sumedh wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I got less sick during the winter, and my overall wellbeing improved greatly. Just out of curiosity, did you work out regularly in a gym before taking those pills?

Not the GP, but: While I discovered in the last years that I absolutely need to work out regularly or risk getting depressed, it is especially hard in the winter months. It seems that my body is preparing for hibernation and all I want to do is sleep and eat (preferably with lots of carbs and fat). I think I will talk to my doctor about trying some Vitamin D supplementation in the next months. Generally I try to avoi…

In winter you probably also get less sunlight. I'm under the impression that most people would benefit from bright daylight during the day -- I have some LEDs in the daylight/6000K spectrum on a timer at my workstation -- even if you aren't diagnosed with SAD.

Remember to keep them on during the _daytime_ only, though, to keep your body clock on the appropriate schedule!

Post reply on HN