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

11–20 of 249 posts

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#11

Post by phkahler »

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.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#12

Post by Filligree »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #10
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…

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.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#13

Post by Filligree »

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.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#14

Post by AlecSchueler »

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.

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

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#18

Post by mlyle »

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.

Sure... but conversely, if you keep dividing up and analyzing in different ways, eventually you'll get a pThis is why you "call your shot" before beginning the analysis. Otherwise, people will be suspicious you just jiggered things around until you found something.

Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake

#20

Post by nanofortnight »

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.

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.
Post reply on HN