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

261–270 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#261

Post by noam87 »

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: nothing helped my IBS. Dietary changes, exercise, nothing. Drs said nothing looked wrong. By the time I was 26, it was so bad I would stay home and not socialize often. I would need immodium like candy just to get through a social function. It was truly a nightmare. I was ready to give up.

4000 UI vitamin D a day, and about four weeks in it magically goes away 90%. I've gotten thanks from other people I passed the tip to.

Incidentally, the symptoms started abruptly about a year and a half before my diagnosis of melanoma; another disease with a vitamin D link.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#262

Post by netcraft »

edraferi wrote: post #257
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?

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

This is per day?

I have been deficient for a few years now and I take ~6000 IU per day, but it doesnt seem to make a big difference in my blood tests. I already thought 6K was a lot...

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#263

Post by StevePerkins »

Tharkun wrote: post #240
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supposedly this is why Northern Europeans evolved lactose tolerance. Asians got the D they needed from the sun and leafy veggies.

Seems odd, considering cow milk contains virtually no vitamin D. It is often enriched with vitamin D, but that practice likely does not predate the evolution of lactose tolerance.

When it comes to nutrition, the majority of unsourced information on web forums is made-up nonsense. Perhaps not maliciously in bad-faith (i.e. maybe OP really has heard this before)... but usually someone repeating something they heard 3rd or 4th-hand without any real fact-checking.

Milk is high in vitamin D because it's intentionally added. Like iodine in table salt, or fluoride in drinking water. Obviously these things had no role in human evolution before they started in the 20th century.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#264

Post by 0xJRS »

guilty001 wrote: post #109
andy_ppp wrote: post #89

If you intend to take vitamin d I read in various places you should also take magnesium and probably vitamin k as well. And less calcium. Everything is interconnected. https://www.precisionnutrition.com/stop-vitamin-d

I recently started taking 3000mg of magnesium per day as magnesium chelate. The bottle recommends three capsules per day for muscle spasms / cramps. Historically, I have a couple of basic assault charges, an assault with sexual intent charge, I was charged with two counts of trafficking a controlled drug (later dropped). Shortly after I commenced taking six capsules a day I started feeling a lot less psychotic .

I would also recommend taking Zinc with it. I was taking Magnesium at one point by itself and developed a muscle twitch which was fixed by adding Zinc.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#265

Post by carlmr »

edraferi wrote: post #257
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?

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

I was already taking 10.000IU a day (in winter) to battle Seasonal Affective Disorder. I live above 51N latitude though, so I practically don't see the sun in winter.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#266

Post by 0xJRS »

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'd be interested to see your approach and what you've done so far on the Cancer/AI front. Do you have links to anything online?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#267

Post by JustSomeNobody »

PacketPaul wrote: post #233
JustSomeNobody wrote: post #223

This makes it sound impossible for some people to get enough vitamin D from sun and food without supplements. If you're fair skinned and living in northern climates, you'll be deficient even with a healthy diet given that you can't be out in the sun that long without burning. Is the human body that defective?

Wouldn’t it be if you are dark skinned not faired skin?

This is true, yes. But really both have issues. It takes much longer in the sun for a dark skinned person to get enough exposure to produce a healthy amount of D. But the fair skinned person burns readily, so they can't stay in the sun long without protection which would inhibit getting enough sun.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#268

Post by micro_cam »

jooke wrote: post #160
davidshepherd7 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to back this up: the journal it's published in has a very very low impact factor of 0.235 (i.e. it publishes 4x more papers that it gets citations, probably most of it's papers are never cited by anyone) [1]. If this paper was considered a big a deal by the wider research community you would expect it to be published in a high profile journal. [1]: https://journal.komci.org/ViewJournalInfo.php?JID=109#Impact...

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

They didn't seem to do any novel work. Just cite the work of others without even doing a meta analysis of statistical significance.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#269

Post by 52-6F-62 »

edraferi wrote: post #257
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?

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

Interesting. I started taking it since I've started working inside for my day job. Apparently I should be upping my dosage. I take a multi and one or two D tablets and probably get a max of ~5600 from that outside of any absorbed from foods.

I also eat a lot of eggs. My girlfriend will be pleased to know that I'll be upping our egg intake!

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#270

Post by Sean1708 »

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).

I thought it was burning that was associated with an increased cancer risk, not just tanning in general?
Post reply on HN