Live data from Hacker News

Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

dkfz.de

171–180 of 249 posts

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#171

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.

Yep. I live in Alaska and my doc checks vitamin D levels as a routine part of my annual physical.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#172
post #124
post #85

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.

I take 10,000 IUs daily (recommended by my dr) every single day of the winter/spring/fall and get 20 minutes of unrestricted, full body sun during the summer. I have done this for years. I have a level of ~70 which my doctor says is just fine and I never, ever get sick.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too, I went to doctors when I was in Seattle, they recommended complicated stuff...no Vitamin D though. I also had a B12 deficiency that contributed to depression, and it was a decade before that was figured out too. But doc's are super eager to prescribe SSRI's.

SSRI's make money, B12 shots and Vitamin D don't. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

Most SSRIs don't make money. I just ordered a 90-day supply of the generic version of my SSRI (actually an SNRI) for $45. And in looking it up, I realized that I overpaid because I went through my insurance, while GoodRx would get me the same pills from a local pharmacy for $20.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are we talking about depression or the weather? 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.

IIRC, the effects of not getting enough and supplementing take six weeks. Sunshine actually manufactures it right away on your skin.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The usual rule in Norway is to take vitamin D in months that end in R. That is, all the time except the summer. Nothing specifically to do with SAD, just that in the winter you don't get enough sunshine.

Don’t know any Norvegian but are there more months that end in R than September through December in your language?

Looks like Januar and Februar.

https://norwegianacademy.com/learn-months-and-seasons-in-nor...

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#177
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought third Monday in Jan is the saddest day.. most likely to take your life

Good point, see the sibling comment. If you're getting regular sun, your low point for the year will be the solstice. If you aren't, it'll be six weeks after that.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#178
post #157

A few thoughts from an autistic bro scientist... 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 l…

What's an autistic bro scientist and why is that relevant?

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#179
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Curious on what basis you're making this recommendation. It's the kind of thing I would normally read and recall at a later stage as good info, but my doctor prescribed me 20k IU a week recently for a period of a couple of months.

If your doctor prescribed you that then that is fine you should follow your doctor's advice. They might have specific reasons for the high dose.

I was once prescribed a 50k dose by my doctor but had very noticeable negative effects and I know that was far too high for me.

The recommended daily allowance is like 400 and that should cover the needs of most people. If you are deficient then you probably want quite a bit more than that until you get back to normal. The safe upper limit is 4000 /day so I would probably try to stick to doses below that. If you take 2000 per day that should be well within the safe range, and even if you take 2000 on as few as 2 days/week that probably covers your needs. Some individuals might have trouble absorbing it and might need higher doses though.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shoulder surgery should not be delayed. The probable retraction of some damaged parts is not a joke. Your friend could have been the lucky one in the pool, but there is also a possibility that in a few years the problem will grow and the surgery required will be much heavier and expensive. > and without surgery are back competing on the bike. My bet is that they are on painkillers for life

> My bet is that they are on painkillers for life Also, they are professional athletes at the peak of their bodies' physical fitness capacity with teams of doctors, physical therapists, and trainers looking after their health with a focus that few of us can imagine, and an overriding ethos of sacrificing their future health on the altar of present performance. In general, professional athletes' healthcare decisions s…

If a group of great doctors lets people crashing at 180mph ride again without surgery after a shoulder dislocation, doesnt that mean that maybe his doctor in nonametown USA might be able to learn a thing or two from them? Or are they just trying to keep their operating room billing hours maxed out? I guess we won't know for sure but I have a hunch.
Post reply on HN