Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

dkfz.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 249 posts

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#21

Post by tuukkah »

Filligree wrote: post #13
ramoz wrote: post #9

> However, when the studies were divided according to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen. In the four studies with the infrequent hogher doses, there was no effect on cancer mortality. In contrast, in the summary of the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant twelve percent re…

Did they test "high dose taken frequently" at all? Bearing in mind that the guideline vitamin-D daily dose target is set at just about the lowest possible value that doesn't cause obvious deficiencies.

From the footnotes:

> In the studies, daily low doses were 400 to 4000 IU per day, and higher-doses administered at longer intervals were 60,000 to 120,000 IU once per month or less.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#22

Post by crazygringo »

Filligree wrote: post #12
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D3 (animal-based) > D2 (plant-based) > D1 (synthetic), at least in humans if you read the literature, that is. The fishy thing is how actual scientists do whole studies using only D1 and then draw conclusions.

My takeaway is to keep eating fish.

No, you'd basically have to eat salmon all day long every day to have any meaningful effect.

Eating fish is not a viable or realistic way of maintaining healthy vitamin D levels. You have to either get sunlight or take a supplement.

(And I love fish, I eat salmon daily sometimes, but I still supplement with D3.)

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#23

Post by oppositelock »

SoftTalker wrote: post #3

I've been taking a daily vitamin D supplement since COVID-19 broke out in the USA. I believe there's a lot of evidence that many people are deficient in vitamin D. I don't know if supplements are the best way to attack that but it's one of the easiest ways. Getting daily sun exposure isn't always convenient and not really possible for a good chunk of the year since we have real winter here.

I have some hard numbers on this in my own health. I'm a pasty north European living in California and I get plenty of sunshine, as I enjoy the outdoors. As I got older, I got increasingly more viral infections and strep throat was a twice a year affair. It didn't occur to me that I could be vitamin-D deficient, but I was, severely. For some reason, 10+ hours of sunshine a week isn't enough for me to make my own.

Over months, I tracked my blood vitamin D levels as I took supplements, and now I know that the 2500IU dose is enough to keep me at nominal levels - the higher doses cause it to build up too much and would eventually cause liver issues.

I know it's anecdotal, but in the few years since I did this, those recurrent sicknesses have vanished. I'm also taking vitamin B, which is another one you get less efficient at absorbing as you age.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#24

Post by oldgradstudent »

phkahler wrote: post #11
hannob wrote: post #2

"When all 14 studies were pooled, no statistically significant results emerged. However, when the studies were divided according to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen." This sounds fishy. Sounds like their primary result was nothing, and then they looked for something else. Would require some checking if they had a prereg…

>> This sounds fishy. Sounds like their primary result was nothing If you combine results from a bunch of studies that really didn't do anything, it's going to mask the results from the ones that did.

Maybe, but with 14 studies you have ~2^14 ways to split the studies into two groups.

If you test multiple hypotheses, you have too adjust the p-value accordingly.

Have the authors disclosed how many alternative hypotheses were tested until the result in the article was found to be significant?

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#25

Post by ramoz »

nanofortnight wrote: post #20
Filligree wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they test "high dose taken frequently" at all? Bearing in mind that the guideline vitamin-D daily dose target is set at just about the lowest possible value that doesn't cause obvious deficiencies.

Vitamin D is fat soluble, and thus you can overdose on it. High dose frequently is not recommended, and most high dose supplements will have warning labels about vitaminosis.

I've also been told to be careful with any vitamin supplements while on chemo, and to consult a cancer dietician before conducting you're own science... the reason, as I understand it as a patient, is that high oxidation can actually keep cancer cells strong and healthy enough to create chemoresistance.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#27

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

AlecSchueler wrote: post #14
Filligree wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My takeaway is to keep eating fish.

Overfishing is serious enough at this point that I'd rather take a small health risk than contribute to it.

Does aquaponic tilapia not have D3?

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#28

Post by belltaco »

ramoz wrote: post #9

> However, when the studies were divided according to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen. In the four studies with the infrequent hogher doses, there was no effect on cancer mortality. In contrast, in the summary of the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant twelve percent re…

If you read further they found that lower daily doses were better.

> In contrast, in the summary of the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality

> In the studies, daily low doses were 400 to 4000 IU per day, and higher-doses administered at longer intervals were 60,000 to 120,000 IU once per month or less.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#29

Post by [deleted] »

hannob wrote: post #2

"When all 14 studies were pooled, no statistically significant results emerged. However, when the studies were divided according to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen." This sounds fishy. Sounds like their primary result was nothing, and then they looked for something else. Would require some checking if they had a prereg…

[deleted]

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#30

Post by nairboon »

ramoz wrote: post #9

> However, when the studies were divided according to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen. In the four studies with the infrequent hogher doses, there was no effect on cancer mortality. In contrast, in the summary of the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant twelve percent re…

Frequent low doses. The other time/quantity combinations were either not studied or had no effect.
Post reply on HN