151–160 of 249 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Mayo Clinic thinks otherwise: https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%281... Another article about the findings: https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/vitamin-d-toxi...
Your link is broken.
Last century they insisted Vitamin C prevents/cures cancer. This century it's Vitamin D with the same level of insistence. Don't hold your breath. Abstract says it all: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20799507/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why I type this here? I found it interesting that I had to discover this cure on my own. The medical system wuldn't have figured that out on their own, let alone accept that it was the single solution. It's because studies showing correlation between Vitamin D level and winter depression/SAD are mixed. I'm not saying it's a placebo. If it works for some people - great! But you can't expect doctors to recommend it w…
I am a high risk cancer patient who is blind, i.e. doesn't necessarily get a lot of sun exposure due to disability + occupation. Given the discussion in this thread regarding correlation with lattitude and cancer risk, me being around 47 deg, and my personal history, I would have expected a caring medical system to suggest vitamin D to me roughly 30 years ago already. But alas, it turns out you have to do your own st…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This (among other things) makes me wonder why we don't have better metrics and monitoring solutions for the human body. Your option is anecdotal self-diagnosis, or a full blood panel after seeing a doctor and convincing them that you need to be tested. It seems there's room for a product that monitors your health and sends you notifications when you need to address any metrics that are falling out of normal tolerance…
Blood panels are expensive and laborious to do with any frequency. Your body does a reasonably good job of monitoring and remediation on its own.
I believe their implication is that there should be some engineering effort to reduce the expense and labor
There have been many vit D studies before, e.g., this one with 25K participants in the USA, which found no effect: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944 It's best to look at a meta analysis of all existing data/trials instead of focusing on one trial that happens to be positive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, exactly. There's a real-life example of an author group who got sufficiently annoyed at a reviewer requesting an inappropriate subgroup analysis: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Reviewers asked for the subgroup analysis; authors said "no, this is statistically nonsense"; reviewers said "yes, but we'll reject the paper otherwise"; reviewers said "ok, but only if you let us also spl…
The two signs bracketing the summer months (I presume this was in the northern hemisphere?). That's a potentially interesting finding. > inappropriate subgroup analysis No subgroup is inappropriate unless you know all of the values of all of the parameters. But sure, the intent they tried to demonstrate (take all sub-group analyses with a grain of salt) is a good thing to remember. Edit: To whoever downvoted me, time…
Not being deficient in Vitamin D is not the same as having optimal levels of Vitamin D. Optimal levels of Vitamin D are probably around 60-70ng/ml, with a bias to upper end of that range (in my opinion anyway). I say this because individuals with a lot of sun exposure will typically have Vitamin D levels around 70ng/ml so this is in my opinion is likely closer to the levels of our ancestors. However, a lot of experts would argue 50ng/ml is optimal, but I disagree with this primarily because the number is based on population averages in populations that are largely Vitamin D deficient.
In comparison, to be considered deficient you would generally need levels below 20ng/ml which less than a third of what I suspect is optimal (and natural).
Again, I'm just an autistic bro scientist, but my understanding is that low levels of Vitamin D are strongly associated to higher levels of inflammation in the body. We also know that higher levels of inflammation in the body are linked to various negative health outcomes like depression, impaired immune function, and increased cancer risk.
If I were to guess most individuals who develop cancer are older and generally less healthy. Given that most people in the West don't have optimal levels of Vitamin D in the first place we can only assume that those with cancer have even less optimal levels.
Therefore the idea that supplementing Vitamin D in a population highly likely to have suboptimal levels of Vitamin D would reduce cancer mortality should not be surprising at all. If you live in the West you really should consider taking 1,000 - 2,000 IU of Vitamin D a day – and perhaps more if you're able to monitor your levels to ensure you're not taking too much.
I'm really not a fan of taking supplements in general, but Vitamin D is one of the few most people in the West probably would benefit from taking at a low dose.
It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it. But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an approintment with a nutrition s…
20,000 is way too high even though you are doing only once/week. 2000 or less daily is more appropriate. Doses that are too high can also cause blood calcium to spike and can pull it out of bones and deposit into soft tissue.
It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it. But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an approintment with a nutrition s…
The biggest thing to know is the six-week lag time of effects either way. You aren't at peak sadness around the solstice, or around Christmas, you're sad six weeks after that-- around Valentine's Day.
For me peak depression occurs right around the solstice and starts improving immediately - yet slowly - right after. I'm definitely in a better place by mid Feb.
It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it. But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an approintment with a nutrition s…
This (among other things) makes me wonder why we don't have better metrics and monitoring solutions for the human body. Your option is anecdotal self-diagnosis, or a full blood panel after seeing a doctor and convincing them that you need to be tested. It seems there's room for a product that monitors your health and sends you notifications when you need to address any metrics that are falling out of normal tolerance…
The market for that is very small, most of the things that kill are known, the solutions are known, there is nothing cost effective, no magic pill
Optimize for the basics, you have a long way to go before individual tests bring anything to the table. If you don't exercise vigorously 5+ times a week, walk 20k steps a day, skip alcohol, stop eating processed food, &c. no amount of vitamins will extend your life. It's like changing your tires every 5000km while skipping oil changes until the engine dies