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

41–50 of 249 posts

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#41

Post by ramoz »

belltaco wrote: post #28
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.

ah, daily==lower

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#42

Post by SoftTalker »

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.

A lot of fish you would buy at the supermarket is farm-raised. Especially catfish, salmon, and tilapia.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#44

Post by tuukkah »

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 systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection to preclude data-driven analyses and selective reporting (CRD42020185566). In addition, the methods, including the selection criteria, the statistical analysis, outcomes, and subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were published in advance in a study protocol (Schöttker et al., 2021).

EDIT: And in the protocol, the first subgroup analysis they list is relevant:

> Daily dose versus weekly/monthly bolus dose versus bolus dose at the beginning of the trial followed by a daily dose https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/1/e041607

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#45

Post by Etheryte »

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.

Regarding deficiency, your GP can measure this for you for nearly no to no cost. No matter what your reasoning for taking some, it's always good to check what the baseline you're dealing with actually is before. For context, I'm from a country where low vitamin D levels are very common so I had a test done a few times throughout the year and turns out I've never been under the recommended levels.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#46

Post by timeon »

SoftTalker wrote: post #42
AlecSchueler wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

A lot of fish you would buy at the supermarket is farm-raised. Especially catfish, salmon, and tilapia.

Good thing about farm-raised fish is that it is less contaminated, because it is usually mostly plant-fed. But it also makes it less nutritious.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#48

Post by jghn »

oppositelock wrote: post #39
jghn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Over months, I tracked my blood vitamin D levels OOC what did you use to do this?

Monthly blood tests prescribed by a doctor at a local bloodwork lab.

Did you have a challenge getting them to initiate that? I'd imagine once you're shown to be severely deficient it's easier, but there's a chicken & egg.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#49

Post by nabla9 »

TL;DR Vitamin D *deficiency* is cancer risk and relatively common. High doses don't work.

>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. 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 reduction in cancer mortality.

>"We observed this twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality after untargeted vitamin D3 administration to individuals with and without vitamin D deficiency. We can therefore assume that the effect is significantly higher for those people who are actually vitamin D deficient,"

Post reply on HN