Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
devaboone.com
Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
1–10 of 218 posts
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#2So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#3So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?
I read (maybe here on HN comments) that Vitamin D could only be the indicator. People who live a certain lifestyle have low risk of the mentioned diseases AND have good Vitamin D levels. But you have to live that lifestyle, not just take supplements.
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#4But the lady on Joe Rogan disagrees. I now take 25,000 IUs each day so I won’t get coronavirus.
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#5So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?
It might just be that the production of vitamin D via sunlight has other effects on the body, perhaps vitamin D has been a proxy for those effects but for obvious reasons taking it as a supplement doesn't trigger the same outcome.
It's unfortunate that exposure to UV is so harmful, I'm left wondering if trials using UV lightboxes to stimulate vitamin D production would change the kinds of outcomes (cancer, heart disease, depression...) we're expecting it to .
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#6So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?
I read (maybe here on HN comments) that Vitamin D could only be the indicator. People who live a certain lifestyle have low risk of the mentioned diseases AND have good Vitamin D levels. But you have to live that lifestyle, not just take supplements.
[deleted]
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#7But the lady on Joe Rogan disagrees. I now take 25,000 IUs each day so I won’t get coronavirus.
Good grief. Please be careful and work with your doctor...
ETA: This is probably sarcasm isn't it?
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#8So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?
Nobody knows yet, but sunlight exposure causes the body to produce other things than Vitamin D, like nitric oxide (or similar correct me if I'm wrong here). It also affects circadian rhythms, so maybe people who get out more sleep better, maybe they are in better health from being more active, etc etc.
Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#9Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence
#10If deficiency is linked to all these maladies then why aren’t we seeing them occur with less frequency in areas that get full sun year round?