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

251–260 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#251

Post by blurbleblurble »

hollander wrote: post #246

Several years ago I read an article on Facebook about vitamin D, and because I was in pain and tried many things like this, I read more about it, and started using 2000 IU daily. In about two weeks I felt a lot better. Later that year I was on holiday in the mediterrenean and noticed how much better I felt after a morning in the sun. This made me decide to take even more, so I increased use to 6000 IU/d, and I felt e…

I recommend 1000 IU drops. They contain 1000 IU in a single drop, literally. You can get them off the shelf at my local health foods co-op. I've taken 40,000 IU before in a single day (I read that was a safe upper limit for most people). It felt amazing. It also helped me process built up emotions from winter darkness and depression. That day I took 40000IU I literally wept, then felt relief like none other, and a lightness of being.

Also, by the way, people under stress might appreciate some vitamin B complex. There's a reason why they put vitamin B in those 5 hour energy drinks: it helps our bodies cope with the stress of that much caffeine.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#252

Post by psychometry »

Spooky23 wrote: post #207
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

People who work outside don’t get skin cancer. People who cook themselves for fun do. If they did, we would know, because workers compensation would be paying for it.

Cancer is a complex, heterogeneous disease caused by varying degrees of interaction between inherited and exposed risks. It's just not as simple as you make it out to be.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#253

Post by coldtea »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #172
deepGem wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

Sun exposure != skin cancer.

It's like avoiding eating food altogether because you might became obese, or worse (given the odds) choke on it.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#255

Post by lostlogin »

deepGem wrote: post #111
King-Aaron wrote: post #37

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…

The NIH guys also did a study that said that even in tropical countries, Vitamin D absorption has fallen dramatically because of lifestyle changes. One of the probable factors is the lust for fair skin. I routinely see people covered from head to toe to help them stay fair skinned, even kids are sent to play covered in full sleeve clothing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3897581/

When the burn time is less than 10 minutes, you need to cover them up or have them play in the shade. The UV index for tomorrow is just shy of 14 and we are a month or two from the time of year when it’s highest, you would need medical treatment for a child who played in that and was uncovered all day.

Related: I found the old measure (burn time) much easier to use than the new UV index, and while having it standard across countries is good, it’s not straight forward to convert.

https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-o...

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#256

Post by drostie »

patkai wrote: post #173
jooke wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know why this is the case? Is there some flaw in their methodology?

Good question! The scientific method does not include references to "impact factor" :)

I mean, it does. The "fairy tale" that one hears in high school doesn't, but we put aside fairy tales when we became adults.

If you are done with the "undergrad level" of Popper and Kuhn it is worth reading Imre Lakatos's work on philosophy of science. It contains a moment where one realizes that research programs live or die by this "impact factor" and that this living or dying is a key part of the overall methodology of science. The gist is that science is actually participating in a survival-of-the-fittest evolution with certain foundational ideas as the "genes" which "reproduce". So scientific ideas are actually good or bad in no small part due to their ability to create further scientific research along similar lines. A low impact-factor therefore directly says "along this particularly important-to-science axis, this journal sucks."

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#257

Post by edraferi »

pcarolan wrote: post #175
King-Aaron wrote: post #37

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…

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

From the last couple sentences of the abstract:

This could lead to a recommendation of 1000 IU for children 1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter. Actions are urgently needed to protect the global population from vitamin D deficiency.

So 8000 IU for adults

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#258

Post by scott_s »

kgwgk wrote: post #210
Sean1708 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.

But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).

Indoor tanning is associated with higher rates of skin cancer: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_info/indoor_tanning.ht... I suspect outdoor tanning is as well.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#259

Post by Bartweiss »

kgwgk wrote: post #210
Sean1708 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The tan is caused by an increase in the activity and number of melanocytes, the cells that make the pigment melanin. Melanin helps block out damaging UV rays up to a point, It's not particularly clearly worded but to me that seems to suggest that tanning increases melanin and that melanin helps prevent cancer regardless of whether your dark skin is natural or tanned.

But if tanning also produces cancer it remains to be determined which effect dominates (unlike for people with naturally dark skin, where the effect can only go in the beneficial sense).

Broadly, my understanding is that a major change in skin tone is 'worth' about 15 SPF, so tanning would fall somewhere below that.

For a fixed amount of sun exposure, spreading out the duration is better both to establish a tan and to allow more time for skin recovery. But there isn't really a case where tanning increases safety, because you get the tan via exposure.

It's like saying pilots who practice a lot are safer; for any given flight it might be true, but cumulative risk can only rise.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#260

Post by CWuestefeld »

neonhomer wrote: post #250
dcx wrote: post #156

Related to this topic, if you have IBS/IBD, some interesting research been coming out in the last couple of years indicating that low vitamin D may play a role in this issue as well. This [1] 2015 study found 82% of people with IBS had low vitamin D levels relative to 31% in the control group. This [2] 2016 one proved causation of vitamin D supplementation improving symptoms, by randomly splitting into two groups and…

Anecdotal: I have Chrohns and take 2000 UI Vitamin D everyday. I've been prescribed the lowest dosage anti-inflammatory (Mesalamine) for years and rarely had a flare up. My Vitamin D blood tests always come back in the normal level.

Another anecdote... I also take mesalamine (as Delzicol in my case), and take 3000 IU of Vitamin D (along with supplements of calcium, B-complex, and some others). I almost never have flares.

However, I can't get a good colonoscopy - my GI doc says the prep is always bad, even if I extend it for an additional day. He attributes that to a chronic simmering inflammatory state preventing things from cleaning out well. That puts me at a much higher risk of colon cancer, and so I'm also doing Entyvio infusions prophylactically.

Post reply on HN