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

Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

ijmpr.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 241 posts

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#161

Post by schuyler2d »

bluGill wrote: post #86
Aldipower wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, that is interesting. They can synthesise it in their liver?

Many animals can. There are a gene for it, humans don't have it. There is a lot of speculation as to why, but nothing really stands out (possibly just random chance - if you eat enough there is no advantage to keeping the gene and in turn no loss from losing it. However I'm unable to rule out other possibilities) https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3145266/ is a really interesting survey of the issue across many…

From the article: > Another argument supporting the suggestion that species which have lost their GLO gene were under no selective pressure to keep it, is that all species which have lost their GLO gene have very different diets but all of them have diets rich in vitamin C

What would a diet poor in vitamin C be considering that "everything else" makes it? I guess root vegetables? It feels like, if anything, this would imply a GLO gene decay more often than has happened, no?

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#162

Post by a3w »

humanfromearth9 wrote: post #159
thrusong wrote: post #4

I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba where it is quite cold for a big majority of the year. I have dabbled with supplements because I get a couple of major colds every year. I've heard things like you only need 15 minutes of sunshine per day to get your recommended dose of Vitamin D, but I've also heard it can be quite bad for you if you have too much in your system (and it's hard for your body to flush excess amounts). If t…

25000 IU weekly during winter is OK, for an adult

An adult with 60 kg or 160 kg of mass?

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#163

Post by givemeethekeys »

roncesvalles wrote: post #122
gwerbret wrote: post #100

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each group (which, for a study administered in a community setting, is an essentially impossibly-high completion rate). -- No author disclosures -- in fact, no information about the authors whatsoever, other than their names. -- No information on exposures, lifestyles,…

My bullshit meter redlined as well. > Incidence of ARIs was documented through monthly follow-up visits and self-reported symptom diaries validated by physician assessment. This is basically impossible to accomplish for 386 participants who aren't in some form of captivity (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school). Nobody cares enough to maintain a "self-reported symptoms diary" an…

> (e.g. incarcerated, institutionalized, in the military, or a boarding school).

That's a pretty big list. Add Retirement communities and your pool increases even more. Add to that the fact that this is India where the population is at least 5x bigger and much more concentrated..

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#164

Post by mda »

mwigdahl wrote: post #67
mda wrote: post #40

Unfortunately Vitamin D deficiency tests (probably it is not covered by your insurance), high dose supplements are currently pushed so much by Doctors I started to think this is almost a scam. Most of the research about the subject are very noisy and conflicting.

If it's a scam, who's profiting? The pills are dirt cheap, generic, and over the counter.

Tests are very expensive

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#165

Post by kingkawn »

trilogic wrote: post #156
gwerbret wrote: post #100

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each group (which, for a study administered in a community setting, is an essentially impossibly-high completion rate). -- No author disclosures -- in fact, no information about the authors whatsoever, other than their names. -- No information on exposures, lifestyles,…

[flagged]

Wanting to agree with a study’s conclusions and so ignoring its weaknesses and red flags is bad scientific practice, further reinforcing the comment questioning the value of this publication

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#166

Post by dynm »

This paper states:

> The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India

As far as I can tell, that registry is here: https://www.ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pubview.php

Doing a keyword search for the first author's last name reveals zero hits. (It's possible I'm missing—that search does not inspire confidence.)

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#167

Post by zahlman »

trilogic wrote: post #156
gwerbret wrote: post #100

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each group (which, for a study administered in a community setting, is an essentially impossibly-high completion rate). -- No author disclosures -- in fact, no information about the authors whatsoever, other than their names. -- No information on exposures, lifestyles,…

[flagged]

> It is: Negative, Unproductive, Antagonist, non Factual and frankly futile (unless provocative).

The comment gives clear reasoning and makes claims about the contents of the paper that are supported by reading the paper. To call it "non-factual" is simply incorrect. The word "futile" is nonsensical in this context.

You used three different words to complain that the comment critiques the study. There is nothing wrong with such critique in comments here, and indeed a healthy community requires that critique can rise to the top where it's warranted.

> Have you done an experiment lately to show counter proof? Beside claims what else do you have!

This is completely logically irrelevant, and suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of logic. Pointing out that a study is flawed does not require providing evidence for the opposite of the study's conclusion.

> This paper is very positive

A paper being "positive" has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its finding is correct, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether its methodology is valid, and it also has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it accurately reports what was actually observed (i.e. whether any kind of fraud was involved).

> It is in fact (by personal experience)...

It is fundamentally impossible to know those things "by personal experience". That's why studies exist.

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#168

Post by mapontosevenths »

trilogic wrote: post #156
gwerbret wrote: post #100

Heh...this is a shady study if I ever saw one. -- Exactly 400 study participants recruited. -- Exactly 193 of 200 participants completing the study in each group (which, for a study administered in a community setting, is an essentially impossibly-high completion rate). -- No author disclosures -- in fact, no information about the authors whatsoever, other than their names. -- No information on exposures, lifestyles,…

[flagged]

> It is in fact (by personal experience) essential for the health

You might be right, but this study doesn't show that because it's a genuinely bad study. Someone serious should do a real study on it.

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#169

Post by zahlman »

cj wrote: post #127
johnisgood wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50 IU is nothing. 3000 IU is something. I have MS, so I need to supplement at least 10k IU. And yeah, it does not absorb well unless you eat some fat.

I took 10k iu via a multivitamin for a few months, and ended up with Vitamin D levels 5x higher than the maximum on the labcorp reference range. "Vitamin D toxicity" It took many months to get the levels back to normal. Vitamin D is one of those things that once you overdose, it takes many months for the levels to slowly come down after you stop supplementing. Be careful with Vitamin D! The downside to having high le…

> An excess of vitamin D causes abnormally high blood concentrations of calcium, which can cause overcalcification of soft tissues, including arteries and kidneys. Symptoms appear several months after excessive doses of vitamin D are administered. A mutation of the CYP24A1 gene can lead to a reduction in the degradation of vitamin D and thus to vitamin toxicity without high oral intake (see Vitamin D § Excess).

> Treatment

> In almost every case, ceasing vitamin D intake, combined with a low-calcium diet and corticosteroid drugs, will allow for a full recovery within a month. Bisphosphonate drugs (which inhibit bone resorption) can also be administered.[2]

Regardless, blood levels need to be checked for this sort of thing and doses are not one-size-fits-all. I also once was taking 10k daily, for several months, and ended up just barely in excess territory with no noticeable symptoms. (I settled on taking 4k daily in the long term.)

Re: Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels

#170

Post by leetrout »

MisterPea wrote: post #131
leetrout wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was put on prescription vitamin D2 50000 IU and it caused a bunch of side effects for me including heart palpitations for over a week and then a paradoxical reaction to magnesium causing them to be even more intense. Proceed with caution and listen to your body. Doctors were accusing every other thing than accepting whatever it did to my calcium / other electrolytes bothered my heart.

Interesting, my levels have always been chronically low and I feel no effects from daily 5000IU

That's still 15000 IU under my weekly dose so maybe you just haven't hit the threshold I hit.
Post reply on HN