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

391–400 of 459 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#391

Post by repsilat »

lachenmayer wrote: post #186
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...

This sounds extremely low to me, but looking at the list of top journals sorted by Impact Factor on https://journal.komci.org/SearchJournal.php (you have to choose "Impact factor" in the "Sort results by" dropdown, as it does not generate a useful URL), the top journal only has an IF of 0.791. I don't really know anything about the medical publishing world, but I would have expected a top journal to be cited much mor…

If most papers have dozens of citations, shouldn't each paper on average be cited dozens of times? Obviously with massive skew.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#392

Post by neonhomer »

tathougies wrote: post #370
neonhomer wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's 'normal' at your lab? My lab says 50 ng/ml is normal, but my experience with antibodies says it should be between 70 and 100 to see an effect.

My lab shows anything over 30 ng/ml as "optimal" (looks like 30 to 100 on the chart). My values the past 2 years have been in the mid 50's.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#393

Post by jdahlin »

ryanmarsh wrote: post #353
netcraft wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

holy smokes, thats a ton. Are there any effects of too much?

Yah like doing 25k a day. That could cause problems.

Surprisingly few problems. Wife has been doing 80k a day for the past few years and have help tremendously with her auto immune decease.

If you're going to do high doses, stay away from anything with significant amount of calcium in your food (dairy, nuts etc)

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#394

Post by chaostheory »

Styn wrote: post #117
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…

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.

Yes they can check some of your vitamin levels with a periodic blood test.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#395

Post by icelancer »

lostlogin wrote: post #285
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…

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...

That literally has nothing to do with whether or not Vitamin D is useful.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#396

Post by davidbanham »

coldtea wrote: post #316
lostlogin wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the time it takes to get a burn is 10 minutes or less, you might as well treat it as exposure = burn.

That's when sunbathing on Venus. Or if you're a ginger or similar. On good old Earth, one can sit in the sun for hours on end without a burn. In fact people frequently do, like all the time.

It depends where you are and what time of year it is. Go to Tasmania in summer and give that a shot. Ozone layer depletion is no joke.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#397

Post by WillPostForFood »

mkempe wrote: post #344
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's easier said than done for some. A couple of years ago we had an exceptionally bleak November here, with one city for example having only 12 minutes of sunshine in the whole month of November. (I'm not talking about places within the Arctic Circle, although relatively speaking they could almost seem that way for some, of course.) The average where I live for Nov is about an hour of sunlight per day, but to catc…

UVB rays do pass through clouds.

It is more complicated than that. A dark cloudy day (no gaps to sky) will not have much UVB. A day with thin high clouds won't block much, and may make it worse (reflecting or scattering).

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#398

Post by WillPostForFood »

triangleman wrote: post #327
exhilaration wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Get a blood test first so you know your Vitamin D level (they're cheap: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15869485 ), maybe you already get enough from your diet. If you do need supplementation, then Vitamin D3 (specifically Cholecalciferol) is vastly better absorbed than Vitamin D2. If you want a specific recommendation, buy this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07234TTCC and take it twice per week (Sunday & T…

According to the article, it is safe and recommended to take one of those 5000 IU capsules per day.

I see 8000 IU for adults:

This could lead to a recommendation of 1000 IU for children 1 year of age, and around 8000 IU for young adults and thereafter.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#399

Post by seasonalgrit »

ConfucianNardin wrote: post #281
seasonalgrit wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Thanks for noting this. Their web site design (as well as the use of a dotcom domain) gives a misleading impression

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake

#400

Post by BeetleB »

icelancer wrote: post #140
nvarsj wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Call me skeptical, but I severely doubt multivitamins can help with depression of any kind. Maybe placebo. TFA is about mortality.

>>severely doubt multivitamins can help with depression If the multivitamin has sufficient Vitamin D, it definitely can. There are plenty of research papers indicating at least some sort of link, and Soviet Sports scientists have known about the performance benefits for a long time, well prior to oral supplementation (they irradiated athletes). Here's one of many metasources available. https://www.vitamindcouncil.org…

As I mentioned in another comment, the evidence of a link between mood and Vitamin D is poor.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15870969

Post reply on HN