141–150 of 241 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue I've found with these discussions is it appears there's mixed evidence on if vitamin D *supplementation* actually has a positive impact, regardless of vitamin D deficiency. In other words, is the deficiency causal or correlative. I have no opinion on the matter, and am inclined to think there is at least some positive benefit. But YMMV
The problem is that vitamin D doesn’t absorb the same way for everyone. If a 100 people take 50IU of Vitamin D, you get 100 different results. Some get enough from minor sun exposure and maybe eating a fish now and then. Others need massive doses to get any results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allergy shots work very well.
Privileged comment. Walks in a controlled greenhouse without allergenic pollinators also work, but the poor can't easily access either in the US.
Shall we stop discussing any possible solution which might be out of reach for someone?
A lot of people are critiquing the statistical methods and quality of the study, which is fine. But it's worth pointing out that you—the individual—should not be concerned with someone else's p-value. You should be concerned with maximizing your own utility. A safe, possibly effective, and cheap intervention is probably worth trying. If it was more expensive or less safe, it would require more evidence to try.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I grew up on the Canadian praries. -10C is basically shorts weather. edit: seriously though, anything warmer than -10C you'll definitely see kids in shorts. I go skiing in shorts every year.
Wear a g-string if you want. It doesn't make the sunlight any brighter in winter.
Sadly, it doesn't say how long you should exposure yourself with a UV index of 1, which is what Winnipeg has today, and it's not even proper winter yet.
Anecdotal but when I'm sick I double my vit C and D intake which typically helps me.
Same... In our family we start taking Emergen-C a few days before we travel also.
Most vitamins are a waste of time and money, some are even harmful[1], but there are a lot of people with D deficiency, especially in winter[2]. 1 https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/17/2744#:~:text=highest%20... 2 https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/vitamin-d#edit-group-image--...
The issue I've found with these discussions is it appears there's mixed evidence on if vitamin D *supplementation* actually has a positive impact, regardless of vitamin D deficiency. In other words, is the deficiency causal or correlative. I have no opinion on the matter, and am inclined to think there is at least some positive benefit. But YMMV
I took a blood test several weeks ago, my Vitamin D level was 14 ng/ml. I was so fatigued there were times I had to lay on my office floor because I didn't even have the energy to sit in my chair. I started taking 50k IU's weekly and then 10k IU's daily, and the results were dramatic. I went from having 0 energy to nearly normal. I also had soreness in my legs which went away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I find your comment enjoyably pithy, in the case of vitamin D, many humans are currently living at latitudes which they are not suited to (skin being too dark to generate enough vitamin D given the insolation), and eating diets which do not provide them with sufficient amounts of it (the carnivore diets of Inuits and similar groups being a good contrast).
Amusing how thanks to the war on cholesterol the UK unravelled a lot of egg eating habits - a natural source of vitamin D. The UK also consumed a lot more liver than it does today I imagine...
With the industrial revolution there was a problem of kids in cities getting rickets. This was due to a lack of vitamin C and that was due to a lack of daylight due to the smog.
The solution was to take the kids out of the city so they could spend time in the countryside.
However, along with the industrial revolution came steam trains, and, with steam trains, it became a lot easier to get fresh food from the farm to the city table.
Milk became an early commodity for this railway trade, in the days before refrigeration. Bottling had to be invented too, along with pasteurisation to get the modern milk product. They fortified it with vitamin D and, in time, made it mandatory in schools for kids to have dinky bottles of milk for their morning break. All kids hated the stuff but it was 'good for them' and good for keeping farmers gainfully employed.
Then the clean air acts came along, with the first street to ban fires in fireplaces being opposite the smoke free coal factory, the factory being anything but smoke free. Deindustrialisation happened too, so there were no cities with smokestack industries at their heart.
With clean air there was no longer any need to fortify the milk with vitamin D, so that stopped. From now on, kids would get their vitamin D doing things such as playing in the school playground.
But then we became seriously car dependent and the age of the free-range child was over. With 'stranger danger' and screens (initially just TV) taking over, we entered a new era of people not getting enough daylight again.
Along the way vitamin D has been downgraded, much like Pluto, from being a 'vitamin' to being a hormone. A lot of people want to point this out and explain the science to you. From hearing how some talk about vitamin D, it sounds like the recommended supplements are all over the place.
Clearly there are millions, if not billions that seem to be living just fine with not much sunlight in their lives and on no vitamin D supplements. Where's the rickets? Good question, but then, in Antarctica, where there are months of darkness to endure, they are on something like 20,000 units a day, and they probably know what they are doing.
Maybe following their example for this winter could be my next 'nutrition experiment'. Sometimes, when there is so much conflicting information, it is best to do an n=1 experiment with one's own body.