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

141–150 of 308 posts

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#141

Post by atahanacar »

cup wrote: post #138
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?

Yes and no. Some are just way overconfident in their knowledge of medicine and human body, while it is miniscule compared to the average physician's. Medicine is a field much larger than people realize. It is easy to think you know a lot when you don't even know how much you are missing.

Having a reason doesn't make it any less dangerous though.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#142

Post by jrumbut »

nostromo wrote: post #95
sbayg wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Baby aspirin was overdone too. Interestingly, the fish oil hype cycle has a much longer timeline if you consider the popularity of cod liver oil once upon a time.

Cod liver oil wasn't hype, it was needed in norther climates to prevent rickets. It was taken for its Vitamin D, not for its omega 3s.

They used it for both and as a source of vitamin A and whatever other nutrients are in it. They used it for everything. There is an episode of I Love Lucy where a recipe for homemade baby formula is described which includes cod liver oil.

In a lot of things it was pretty good at what they used it for though, that does continue to be true.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#143

Post by systemsweird »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #4

I suspect that blood vitamin D is mainly a marker for how much outdoor exercise people are getting, and that it is the exercise rather than the D which is causal.

Bingo. Obviously being deficient is bad, but the reason supplementation seems unimpressive is this is one of those proxies for healthy lifestyle. Kinda like how grip strength is correlated with longevity but banging out tons of hand gripper sets isn’t going to do much for you health.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#144

Post by tim-tday »

anamexis wrote: post #125
Etheryte wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly you don't even need to know the recommended number. In many countries you can get tested for free, and if that's not the case for you, getting tested usually costs in the ballpark of a box vitamin D supplements. Measure and only then supplement, then measure again later. You don't need to fly blind.

A year's worth of daily 5000 IU (125 mcg) Vitamin D supplements costs approximately $15, so you could also just supplement.

Strangely the protective effects of vitamin d for heart disease appear NOT to be achieved through supplements. (Though the protective effects for cancer ARE)

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that people who get outside a lot protect their health through both natural vitamin D from UV light exposure and cardiovascular exercise.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#145

Post by systemsweird »

torstenvl wrote: post #53
legitster wrote: post #26

Your body needs vitamins in order to form complex aminos to operate. But your body only needs to make so many of them - especially if you are an adult, not pregnant, or not suffering from a disease of some sort. The very premise that loading up your body with "excess" vitamins beyond what you need is already pretty fraught. Building a house without enough lumber can lead to long term deficiency - but loading up a con…

> loading up a construction site with more materials than are needed shouldn't automatically be assumed to be good It is almost universally recognized as good to do exactly that. It's better to have one planned extra trip to return excess materials (if they can't be used on the next job) than to have multiple unplanned trips when you unexpectedly run out of this or that.

You mean my DIY projects that result in a dozen trips to Home Depot aren’t optimal :)

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#146

Post by chr15m »

zhivota wrote: post #132

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?

Yep, it's sunlight.

Nobody will run that trial though because we've spent decades telling people the sun is dangerous and gives you cancer (both things can be true of course). Putting people in the sun every day would not pass ethics tests.

Also you cannot sell sunlight.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#147

Post by yoyohello13 »

robocat wrote: post #140
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.

> 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 sin…

I don’t want to get into an argument about health on the internet, it’s really a no win situation.

Although feeling bad, going to a doctor, getting labs, taking a calcium supplement is completely legitimate and a very different story from watching a YouTuber say ‘everyone is vitamin D deficient’ then going out a buying a bottle of supplements.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#148

Post by nullc »

rbjorklin wrote: post #93
nullc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I took 2000IU (+K2) a day for many years in between testing my blood levels and still had Likewise, 23ng/ml while taking 2000iu/day of dry vitamin-d. Switched to 5000iu +K2 in MCT oil, -- 8 months later I'm at 64ng/ml.

Any noticeable difference how you feel health wise? Energy levels? Mood? Sleep quality?

Unfortunately too many other changes happened at the same time. I am enormously healthier now (in numerous measurable as well as subjective ways) but it may be that the D levels played no role.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#149

Post by tremon »

NoPicklez wrote: post #120
codethief wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun in northern countries in summer is less intense?

Come to Australia during the summer and watch how quickly you burn outside without sunscreen.

Yes, it's crazy to consider how far north Earth's entire land mass is skewed. Australia is basically the southernmost landmass (apart from Tierra del fuego), yet it is located squarely under the Tropic of Capricorn; at the same distance north of the equator (Tropic of Cancer), you've merely reached Mexico, the Sahara desert, and the Himalayas.

Re: The worthlessness of Vitamin D is mildly exaggerated

#150

Post by ww520 »

_0ffh wrote: post #106
rbjorklin wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any noticeable difference how you feel health wise? Energy levels? Mood? Sleep quality?

Not the same person here, but a data point nonetheless. Before supplementing D3 I had a cold basically every year, sometimes twice a year. Since I brushed up my levels I average 1 cold in 6 years.

Oddly, since the Covid time, I haven't caught a cold or flu once. I'm not sure it's the vaccines, the flu shots, or the less physical contacts on things overall. I still go to crowded places from time to time, like plane or train rides. May be the population in general have less cold or flu virus overall to go around.
Post reply on HN