241–250 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pale skin in general helps synthesize Vitamin D. The less melanin you have the more you absorb, this is why lighter skin happens at northern latitudes. Darker skinned people are more likely to need to supplement it.
Darker skinned people in northern latitudes. Made worse for vegetarians like Ramanujan in England.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The curve on your diagram makes me think that you've fitted a normal (Gaussian) curve to the data. By eye, the distribution looks a bit more like log-normal, and so if you're still working on the data, you might want to try that to see. Not that anything you've said or concluded seems wrong, though.
The normal curve in the image is there for operators to visually check if the machine results are normal distributed or not. It's a "stencil", not data. The software actually does a Lilliefors normality test which returns a big No on this data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My family runs a blood analysis lab in Belgium for which I wrote some of the statistics gathering software. The thresholds for 25-OH vitamin D: When I looked at all 1738 blood samples that had their Vitamin D tested between Feb 1, 2020 and Mar 13, 2020 (We were looking into the link between Vitamin D and COVID-19): The median (P50) was 20.1 ng/mL and the average was 22.4 ng/mL. Standard deviation: 11.24 ng/mL Half th…
What do you think about the thresholds themselves? How often are they updated usually with new research?
On a personal level: I used to struggle with "winter dip". Taking Vitamin D supplements, as well as moving to South Africa, has both improved it a lot
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.
We can also relate that some drugs (albeit most are illegal but whatever, it doesn't invalidate them) from recreational to bodybuilding drugs are practically only massively "studied" by the bro-science community and many topic about harm reduction and so-on stems from there, enormous amount of people have started getting interested into health, supplements... due to reading about it randomly from people.
Although, in practice, you are partially right, it also does damage because many people will just take it as face value and just don't have enough expertise yet to do a proper reasoning around some takes and might not check if it's factual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Too much protein Is there really a scientific consensus about "too much protein"? As I understand, the bit about "stresses your kidneys" has been disproven.
Too much protein can definitely kill you, or at least make you ill, as discovered by the Europeans who explored the northern parts of America and who had initially tried to live from the meat of hunted animals, until they learned from the natives that they must eat enough fat besides the lean meat, in order to survive (most wild animals have little fat, except the bone marrow, which must be extracted). However, too m…
That's an issue of too little fat, not too much protein. The question is whether, when your other nutritional needs are being met, an excess of protein is an issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you missed my point. vitamin D levels in and of themselves aren’t an affliction. The “correct” level is established by looking at what everyone else has and also by trying to look for comorbidities. But the comorbidities are often hard to tease out; about the only disease we know is rickets. Everything else is weakly correlational for vitamin D. How do you think they define healthy levels of other hormones li…
>Everything else is weakly correlational for vitamin D. All cause mortality is correlational for vitamin D. Various disease outbreaks (common cold, etc) and severity are correlational for vitamin D. etc We even know by which mechanisms so it's not like this is far fetched stuff where we're overlooking things. This kind of stuff slaps you in the face if you live in the northern half of europe. To then think us now spe…
And somebody may not even realize this until they decide to start downing a few more chicken breasts per day and suddenly see their energy levels skyrocket, their hunger diminish, and so on. But if you surveyed them prior, they'd claim to feel perfectly normal.
Another one is testosterone which is extremely unfortunate because there's no remotely natural way to meaningfully regain significant amounts of it, but TRT is a life changing thing for many people who have low testosterone which in modern times is a huge chunk of all men and essentially all of them over a certain age.
Lame. It started like enjoying an encyclopedia and ended like getting my face punched by a narcissistic robot who might have lied about facts and gave no way to spot check except redoing the entire article again myself from scratch. A novella on biophysics and no works cited?
Reading 7k words on biophysics with supposed data and science facts and getting hit with dozens of self reference footnotes instead of external citations is offensive to my intelligence.
I do not have the karma for the downvote button so I shall simply leave this.
Vitamin D is rat poison. The stuff they use in randomly controlled trials is not the stuff your body makes on its own. Too much sun and skin produced vitamin will not kill you. Too much rat poison will.
Real human research per the Material Safety Data Sheets with zero slop:
https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/vitamin-d-is-rat-poison-th...
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.
Pretty much the only one with a real consensus around it is creatine. And even that has debate around the right dose