D3 + MK7 if you really want to amplify its effectiveness.
What's the source of this? I've seen a lot of D3+k2 caps now.
Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
141–150 of 249 posts
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#142It 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.
I thought third Monday in Jan is the saddest day.. most likely to take your life
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#143Earlier 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…
I don't usually defend the western system, but there are plenty of other systems out there that will caringly prescribe you snake oil. Simply understand that the western system is science based within a limited range. It is usually excellent if the cause of an illness is defined on a black and white test. If not, time for the patient to do the research.
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know if supplements are the best way to attack that but it's one of the easiest ways. I've also tried to get my RDA of Vitamin D every day. Often I get it from fortified (coconut) milk and a multi-vitamin. But I prefer to include fish. I'm particularly fond of canned sardines [1] because they're a long-shelf-life pantry item, they're a relatively inexpensive protein, they have lots of omega-3s and fit my lo…
Sardines are good, I love them, but they definitely smell strongly and so will you if you eat them frequently. I wonder if there anything similar without the smell? Honestly for the reasons you listed though sardines are kind of a super food imo.
> Sardines are good, I love them, but they definitely smell strongly and so will you if you eat them frequently.
Not sure I agree. It might help that I buy the smaller sardines (as mentioned above) and combine them with acid. I just did a search and both of those things were recommended as ways to reduce odor. I also generally eat them at room temp rather than cooking them, which I'm sure makes a big difference in their smell. I also haven't had any complaints about my smell, but they'd be mostly from my family as I'm a remote worker... /shruggie
> I wonder if there anything similar without the smell?
Maybe salmon and mackerel? I think they're in the middle of the food chain (where sardines and tuna are more at the extremes) and similarly between in fat content.
> Honestly for the reasons you listed though sardines are kind of a super food imo.
Yeah, I think if sardines aren't a superfood, the word doesn't mean anything at all...
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are so indoctrinated they for some reason actually think most doctors want to help them. I assume they also trust their dealerships service advisor.
It's so much worse than you think. Almost ALL doctors want to help. It's system (in this case, the reimbursement system) that makes it impossible to help, even though they want to. The doctors themselves have far less agency than you think.
I actually dated a med student all through medical school and thus made a huge social circle of doctors I've kept in touch with for over a decade as they all became doctors and now have almost a decade of experience too.
I'd say about half want to help, but can not due to the system. The other half enjoy maximizing their income through the system and don't care either. So that leaves very very few that are actually able and willing to actually help an average person.
Now, do they help their family and close friends? Yes, as much as they still care to and remember how to. Which isn't at a very high level either IMO.
Recent example, my friend dislocated his shoulder. Immediately was recommended to have surgery and attempts were made to schedule. With his insurance, he'd have to come out of pocket $7500, which he doesn't really have.
I told him I know many motorcyclists at the pro level that dislocate shoulders in crashes, and without surgery are back competing on the bike. Only a handful have surgery to repair it, usually to stop it from reoccurring (since they crash often).
He pressed his doctor on if he really needs the surgery and for an explanation why many athletes don't have it done and what the reasoning for auto recommending him to get it done. Their tone instantly shifted and he chose to wait it out. Shoulder back to normal now. Thousands saved, and potential medical mistakes saved during the surgery.
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#146It's maybe a good time to re-post this in-depth series on vitamin D supplementation. You don't want to take too much. https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-2-shannon-s-st...
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.
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#147Earlier 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…
I think you got downvotes because you misunderstood what people were taking umbrage with in the first example.
It’s not that birth time can never have real effects. It’s that if you keep rolling a die long enough, eventually you’ll hit a “statically unlikely” event like rolling 4 fives in a row or hitting 1 2 3 4 in order.
Extraneous sub group analysis are like rolling the die again. Say you’re searching for a p-value of .05 with a confidence interval of 95%. That means 19 out of 20 times it’s indicative of a real relationship and 1 out of 20 times it was due to random chance.
If you do a bunch of extraneous sub group analyses like the reviewer wanted, you’re banking on the statistical likelihood that eventually you’ll get the result you want even if it’s not a real relationship.
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#148It 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 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?
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#149Earlier 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…
Consider that while you are one person, a doctor sees many patients. They see that prescribing Vitamin D helps almost none of their patients in the short term, and they can only rely on research for the long term (i.e. they are not seeing the same patient over decades).
Doctors run the whole gamut. There certainly are doctors who will recommend Vitamin D for any issue under the sun. I've been subjected to that, and it totally didn't impact the issues I was going to the doctor to see. At the other end you'll get doctors who will stick to the official guideline (as long as your Vitamin D levels are "normal"). And you have those in between, who will discuss it with you, give you the pros and cons, and will support you in your decision.
I've had enough doctors recommend treatments that have little backing that I'll happily take the risk and stick to the studies. ("No thanks, I won't go for that surgery which studies have not shown tackle the problem" (an assessment the doctor admitted to only when I asked him directly)). I know I'll be wrong on occasion, but I suspect I'll be wrong more often if I follow the other path.
Still, you'll get all sorts of doctors, and it shouldn't be hard to find one who will happily reflect back to you whatever you want to hear.
As for 30 years, the major study associating Vitamin D with mortality came out about 15 years ago.
Re: Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
#150It's maybe a good time to re-post this in-depth series on vitamin D supplementation. You don't want to take too much. https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-2-shannon-s-st...
That article is so weird: > Of course, there is a selection bias in who comes to me. There are people out there doing just fine on 5000 units of Vitamin D daily. I only see the ones who develop high calcium levels. But I see enough of them to know that this is not an exceptionally rare occurrence. I have been to lectures in which physicians have claimed that Vitamin D toxicity almost never occurs. In my experience, t…
The point is it's a hormone--not, like, ascorbic acid or something. It's good to be aware that it can poison you, especially when the "vitamin" label can make it seem harmless.