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

The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 308 posts

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#131

Post by crazygringo »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #126
Aurornis wrote: post #7

This is a refreshingly balanced and honest analysis of Vitamin D studies. The strongest evidence for Vitamin D is in people who are severely deficient. Bumping up to a normal range can provide some improvements. The health influencers started noticing that the Vitamin D studies coming out weren't matching their original hype for Vitamin D, so many pivoted to trying to make claims that most people are severely deficie…

It's pretty safe to assume all hyped supplements are pointless. Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy. > almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient This was the red flag that made me realize it was BS early on. If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

> Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy.

Except for the things that you get from sunlight, not diet.

> If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

But nobody who lives in e.g. East Africa and spends a lot of time outdoors is deficient.

So it's actually pretty reasonable to say that a modern indoor lifestyle combined with long winters would truly lead most people in those regions to being deficient.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#132

Post by zhivota »

Thousands of words and no mention of the obvious thing - testing whether sun exposure is beneficial or harmful.

The article opens with the observation that southern states had lower cancer rates due to solar irradiance. But then we intervene by taking pills. Why not try to absorb through the skin, even if it means something like a tanning bed?

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#133

Post by grep_name »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #127
rzz3 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think there’s anything definitive. 400IU/day from one study is nothing if you’re deficient. 2000IU from another study is better, but even then we don’t seem to know much about absorption from these studies. For example, did it actually raise serum levels by 10ng/ml after a year, and how did THAT correlate to positive or negative health outcomes? K2 also seems to play an important symbiotic relationship with D…

if supplements don't absorb and therefore don't affect health, there's no reason to take them.

You missed the K2 part of his comment though. Both my mother and I have chronically tested incredibly low for vitmain D, both always taken supplements, both never had improvement. A couple years ago, my mom texted me saying she tried a D3+K2 supplement and for the first time in her life tested in range for vitamin D on her panel. I was skeptical but tried it, and have tested in normal range since.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#134

Post by atahanacar »

annzabelle wrote: post #101
atahanacar wrote: post #67

Medical doctor here. Please don't get health advice from hn comments. As a matter of fact, I advice against reading anything about health on hn, as the risks of dangerous misinformation far outweigh any useful information you might learn here.

There was a thread that touched on lyme disease recently, and there were a ridiculous number of comments going down pseudoscientific rabbit holes about people who'd somehow gotten chronic lyme in places with no endemic lyme disease and that the only ways to fix this were chronic antibiotics and hyperthermia chambers. HN often suffers from the trait of people who are really bright in one area assuming that that means…

That is relatively benign compared to what I've seen before. I normally refrain from repeating misinformation, even for debunking it but I will make an exception (or two). I've seen comments ranging from "salt intake doesn't increase blood pressure because you pee what you don't need" to "blood glucose levels aren't good for diagnosing diabetes".

Edit: OK, that's not really a "range". I have no idea why I phrased it like that. Both are very dangerous statements that can be life threatening if the wrong person believes it. I just hope that comment didn't cause any diabetic ketoacidosis cases.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#135

Post by Bender »

atahanacar wrote: post #130
Bender wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Principal Armchair Commander here. I second this. That said I also avoid health advice from professionals. I have too often found their incentives to be in conflict with my well being. I just do my own research and ignore everyone, especially AI.

I assume you are American? I find it sad that a doctor has any incentive other than providing their patients with the best care possible.

I assume you are American?

Was it that obvious? It would be cool if I could have a theme song. [1] and yeah I don't know how to fix the US health care system.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVkTmnJkAN8&list=PLxUfU-CW9j...

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#136

Post by acheron »

atahanacar wrote: post #67

Medical doctor here. Please don't get health advice from hn comments. As a matter of fact, I advice against reading anything about health on hn, as the risks of dangerous misinformation far outweigh any useful information you might learn here.

It’s always great when years of medical and scientific studies are instantly debunked by HN’s top JavaScript developers. One wonders why we even bother having research universities.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#137

Post by vlovich123 »

crazygringo wrote: post #131
yoyohello13 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty safe to assume all hyped supplements are pointless. Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy. > almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient This was the red flag that made me realize it was BS early on. If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

> Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy. Except for the things that you get from sunlight, not diet. > If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important. But nobody who lives in e.g. East Africa and spends a lot of time outdoors is deficient. So it's actually pretty reasonable to say that a modern indoor lifestyle combined with long winters would trul…

If everyone is deficient, how would you even establish a baseline of what counts as deficient and excessive? The way they do that is they sample the population and look at the ranges of the values and maybe look at when comorbitity issues arise within those ranges. But “everyone is deficient in X” is easily dismissed hokum.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#138

Post by cup »

atahanacar wrote: post #67

Medical doctor here. Please don't get health advice from hn comments. As a matter of fact, I advice against reading anything about health on hn, as the risks of dangerous misinformation far outweigh any useful information you might learn here.

Do you think people seeking medical advice from HN comments might be related to their disatisfaction from the suppor they receive from medical clinicians?

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#139

Post by ewild »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #126
Aurornis wrote: post #7

This is a refreshingly balanced and honest analysis of Vitamin D studies. The strongest evidence for Vitamin D is in people who are severely deficient. Bumping up to a normal range can provide some improvements. The health influencers started noticing that the Vitamin D studies coming out weren't matching their original hype for Vitamin D, so many pivoted to trying to make claims that most people are severely deficie…

It's pretty safe to assume all hyped supplements are pointless. Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy. > almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient This was the red flag that made me realize it was BS early on. If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

Pretty much the only one with a real consensus around it is creatine. And even that has debate around the right dose

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#140

Post by robocat »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #126
Aurornis wrote: post #7

This is a refreshingly balanced and honest analysis of Vitamin D studies. The strongest evidence for Vitamin D is in people who are severely deficient. Bumping up to a normal range can provide some improvements. The health influencers started noticing that the Vitamin D studies coming out weren't matching their original hype for Vitamin D, so many pivoted to trying to make claims that most people are severely deficie…

It's pretty safe to assume all hyped supplements are pointless. Being generally active and eating fruits/vegetables is like 80% of the work for being healthy. > almost everyone is Vitamin D deficient This was the red flag that made me realize it was BS early on. If everyone is deficient, then it must not be that important.

> is like 80% of the work for being healthy

I would suspect you're a man under 60.

I don't think your statement applies to the elderly (e.g. my mum needing D and Calcium for osteoporosis).

And I've seen many active healthy female friends under 60 actually need suppliments (I'm ignoring the stereotypical yoga worried well): plus pregnancy or health issues have an impact too.

But maybe I'm a victim of sampling bias since the men I know seem much less likely to see a doctor.

Post reply on HN