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

381–390 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#381

Post by jimjimjim »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #247
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair skin is a lot better than skin cancer!

I've known about the sunscreen misinformation for a long time. My dad died of malignant melanoma. He wore sun screen all the time. He didn't swim. He would wear sun hats. He was paranoid, and likely had premonition of it. Unfortunately, his prevention methods might have actually exacerbated his odds even further because he was depriving his skin of one of its few natural healing modalities.

it's not misinformation. one anecdote in one direction does not counter thousands in the other direction.

Talk to some people in the southern hemisphere (australia and nz). There is a LOT of awareness of sun damage in these countries.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#382

Post by jimjimjim »

coldtea wrote: post #253
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nothing in the world is binary/yesno/truefalse!

More exposure to UV (eg sun exposure) leads to a greater chance of developing skin cancer.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#383

Post by khedoros1 »

dijit wrote: post #368
lostlogin wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That UV index stuff is no joke. My girlfriend spent an hour "sunbathing" in the canary islands and came back with the most incredible sunburn I've ever seen. I'm mega paranoid (SPF 50 all the time in hot countries) and didn't notice anything damaging but she had to be covered in aloe vera creams to numb the pain.. it affected her sleep, it must have been unbearable. Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vi…

> Not sure what the health qualms are with lack of Vitamin D

Rickets and Osteomalacia are the big ones, I think. Both are a form of softening of the bones. Vitamin D apparently helps regulate the absorption and use of calcium, magnesium, and phosphate in the body.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#384

Post by logfromblammo »

manmal wrote: post #372
logfromblammo wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False. The best "normal" source is foie gras. Natto is not "normal". It is an acquired taste. The acquisition of said taste is a difficult, nauseating, and extremely stinky path. Besides that, most of the vitamin K from natto is as MK-7. Animal-sourced vitamin K is mostly menatetrenone (aka menaquinone MK-4) whereas vitamin K from fermentation bacteria is various lengths of menaquinone, of which only MK-4 and MK-7 ha…

Foie gras is not "normal", because it's very expensive and its production inhumane. And I did not call Natto normal, if you read my comment carefully. It's not that easy to acquire, and as you said, it's disgusting. Most pills/drops you would prefer over foie gras are mostly made from Natto (MK-7) btw.. there are some supplements with MK-4 but those are rare and quite expensive.

I meant "normal" in the sense that it contains the animal form of vitamin K (K2 MK-4) rather than bacterial (K2 MK-7) or plant (K1) vitamin K.

Foie gras is nauseating for a completely different reason than natto. As actual food goes, I'd rather eat the pastured eggs and butter, even though they are also rare and expensive in US supermarkets.

It doesn't help that the supplement industry is loaded to the rafters with hucksters and scammers, but you can get a year's supply of pills labeled as 5 mg MK-4 for $90. It'd be hard to tell whether that's really what's in them without engaging a testing lab at additional expense.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#386

Post by Tharkun »

Panino wrote: post #349
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.

I know the subthread went in another direction, but: vitamin D increases the absorption of calcium. With minimal vitamin D synthesis from sun exposure in northern Europe, it makes sense that extra dietary calcium would be an evolutionary advantage. Hence, lactose tolerance. So OP's comment made sense even while confusing vitamin d and calcium.

Hah, that's a direction I hadn't considered. That is indeed exactly why vit D is added to milk in the first place. The milk industry claims it's a good source of calcium, but fails to mention it's generally a poorly absorbed source of calcium. Hence the addition of vit D.

Hard cheeses are generally very low in lactose, by the way, but I guess lactose intolerant societies are unlikely to discover this on their own.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#387

Post by cies »

unsignedinteger wrote: post #376
martinko wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Limit (or drop) meat, fish and eggs What are you smoking?

Without being too facetious, do you have anything to contribute as to why you might think dropping meat, fish, and eggs from your diet would be detrimental? The benefits of eliminating meat include reduced markers of inflammation within the body. Reduction of cholesterol. Changes in gut microbiome which as the emerging science is describing may have a more important impact on mood and cognition than we previously tho…

Thanks for chiming in.

> the only real downside from eliminating meat or reducing it substantially is the reduction in essential B vitamins provided.

Only the B12 actually. And omnis are also often deficient. Even industrially farmed animals were deficient until they started to supplement their feed (so when eating industrial meat, you indirectly eat supplement).

The B12 deficiency in those eating plant-based is a hygiene issue: before settling in villages we ate a lot of "soil" with our food, and drank a lot of soil-run-off surface water. As the soil contains a lot of B12 and the microbes that create it (which probably can even live in our intestines).

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#389

Post by adrianmonk »

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…

This is not necessarily the same issue as you're talking about, but I feel like in the winter, doing your workouts outdoors in the daytime can be a good thing.

Some people (including me) find that they stay indoors most of the time in the winter. Doing your workout outside gets you out there, which gives you not only sunlight (speaking of Vitamin D) but also a change of scenery that can cut down on cabin fever.

With the proper gear, the cold is tolerable (except maybe in extreme climates). And, especially if the exercise is vigorous, it's more tolerable being outdoors in the cold than it would be if you just went stood or sat around outside.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#390

Post by cschneid »

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 self-paid for a handful of labs a few months ago, including Vit D (and thyroid, and blood related stuff, and cholesterol, and a few other related things).

I went in, the nurse drew some blood and charged me $150. A week later, they mailed me the results.

None of this was done online, and insurance never was involved. I found a lab in town, asked their cash price, and they told me, and it was fine. Specifically the lab was associated with a larger medical facility, so call around to any local hospitals to see what they quote you.

Post reply on HN