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

281–290 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#281

Post by ConfucianNardin »

seasonalgrit wrote: post #244
Matrixik wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here you can find all info you want: https://examine.com/supplements/vitamin-k/ Search on that page for: "Skeleton and Bone Metabolism". K1 and K2 work differently. We know a lot but there is still a lot more we don't know. Hell, looks like even different versions of K2 (from MK-4 to MK-13) works for different stuff in body. Only because MK-7 stays in blood for longer than MK-4 doesn't mean that it better. It could a…

Both of those sites appear to be money-making ventures that sell vitamins; I wouldn't consider them reliable sources. Here is a university page with information: http://www.umm.edu/health/medical/altmed/supplement/vitamin-...

Examine.com does NOT sell vitamins/supplements.

They collect and analyze available research, and the result of that process is their product (in the form of guides etc).

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#282

Post by neves »

exhilaration wrote: post #193
baq wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

BTW, here is the equivalent South Parallel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37th_parallel_south

Argentina and Southern Chile in it. Buenos aAires looks ok. Bu

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#284

Post by afpx »

drostie wrote: post #256
patkai wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 methodolo…

Thanks for the recommendation - I've never heard of Lakatos and have only read Popper and Kuhn. Do you have any other recommendations?

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#285

Post by lostlogin »

icelancer wrote: post #135
avip wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>>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…

I don’t think that the drug regimes of the Soviet Olympic Teams should be held up as a good example to follow - a lot of damage was done to a lot of people. On a related note, the Russian team just got banned for trying that crap again.

http://www.rollingstone.com/sports/news/russia-banned-from-2...

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#286

Post by robg »

rmm wrote: post #97

I have been taking 5000IU Vitamin D for the past 7 years, with a little more over the winter months. It's stupidly cheap, I get 360 5000IU capsules for $13, so it has cost me less than $100 over that period. Anecdotally, it was a game changer for me personally. I got less sick during the winter, and my overall wellbeing improved greatly. A word of advice, increase Vitamin K intake aswell. Vitamin D helps calcium abso…

D3 is the more active form, agreed on adding K too. Worth paying a bit more for higher quality controls.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#287

Post by cies »

munchhausen wrote: post #191
cies wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [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.

> Vegan cuisine?

Yes. Let's call it plant-based. As veganism is much broad and often based on ethics. Where plant-based diets mostly based on scientific findings. Especially the whole-plant (WFPB) diet seems to have a lot of scientific backing in being the healthiest diet.

> I hope that beans and veggies can provide for all your nutrition needs.

Thanks. But this is more then well proven by studies now. And I did my checkups, only D and B12 were deficient (now fixed). I never felt healthier. See "the china study" and "the adventist studies". Also the nutritionfacts.org website/YTchannel and MicTheVegan will give you a good overview of the scientific evidence behind the health benefits of a whole plant-based diet.

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

We're all biased. I'm not paid say this, or paid by big-broccolli, thus no conflict of interest :)

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#288

Post by jessaustin »

chadgeidel wrote: post #228
exhilaration wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That line was a lot lower than I imagined! Surprised that Denver is “too far north”.

It is silly to go through the trouble of including a map, only to reinforce the imprecision of the parallel approximation. Obviously People in Denver get more sunlight than e.g. people in Nashville, given the altitude and weather patterns. More detailed maps don't limit themselves to drawing a straight line.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#289

Post by thinkingemote »

Johnny555 wrote: post #33
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.

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.

Note that in the winter months even if you're naked outside in the UK you won't get any vitamin D, the sun is too low, the latitude (about same as Alaska) too high.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#290

Post by jessaustin »

StevePerkins wrote: post #263
Tharkun wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Vitamin D is only absorbed in the presence of fat in the intestine. Milk is a source of fat. Of course it isn't the only source of fat, but the hypothesized explanation is more plausible than you might think.

I have observed 'seanmcdirmid to be a thoughtful commentator. It would be uncharitable to suggest that he thinks that USDA has regulated milk drinking for millennia.

Most "1st-hand" nutritional research is also wrong. That has been the case for decades, which explains the field's relative lack of progress. The reason is that most nutritional research is funded by large commercial food interests.

Post reply on HN