Live data from Hacker News

Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

devaboone.com

31–40 of 218 posts

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#31

Shouldn't they be looking at getting vitamin D via sun exposure, rather than supplementation? If the real benefit is sun exposure, which also increases vitamin D, then just supplementing vitamin D won't show any benefits.

Very hard to quantify sun exposure and do this in a controlled way.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#32
post #25

The most obvious evidence to me has always been that Europeans are not black. A change like the loss of melanin requires selective pressure, which in this case was likely furnished by less vitamin D as we migrated away from the equator. The pressure must have been significant since being white carries a big downside: higher vulnerability to sunburn and skin cancer. When I lived in Cali I always envied my darker skinn…

> I gotta say though... the world would have far less race problems had that odd little quirk of photosynthesis of a key nutrient not existed.

Humans being humans, I’m sure nose shape, eye color (just ask Bran Sanderson), hair color/texture, or something else would readily suffice in the absence of a perceptible difference in skin tone.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#33
correct me if I'm wrong (like that ever happens on HN...) but even mainstream SSRIs like Lexapro (which I am taking, I'm a lifelong depressive, thanks) probably get a big red X in "prevention of depression". trying to "prevent depression" is like trying to grab Jell-O.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#34
post #15
post #2

So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?

I would frame it in the opposite direction: having a serious illness is correlated with low levels of Vitamin D. People with a serious illness may stay inside more, and go outside less. It's possible that "low levels" of Vitamin D are still within the healthy range, and they merely are an indication of how much time the person has spent outside during the day. In other words, it's possible that Vitamin D is pure symp…

"It's not even necessarily the case that going outside is healthy, but that healthy people tend to go outside more."

Right, that's why I used the word correlated - while it's not unreasonable to think that having an active lifestyle could cause you to be more healthy, it's pretty much a statistical necessity that the two are correlated, because being very sick precludes you from having a lifestyle like that.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#35
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would frame it in the opposite direction: having a serious illness is correlated with low levels of Vitamin D. People with a serious illness may stay inside more, and go outside less. It's possible that "low levels" of Vitamin D are still within the healthy range, and they merely are an indication of how much time the person has spent outside during the day. In other words, it's possible that Vitamin D is pure symp…

> It's not even necessarily the case that going outside is healthy, but that healthy people tend to go outside more. This is a departure from the discussion of supplementing vitamin D though, isn't it? I guess the treatment "go out and do sports" is a very different one compared to "X amount of vitamin D per day as a supplement" and the former may indeed be healthy , while the latter may not be, even though they both…

The point is, you can’t just supplement everything and just eat starch and sit before the computer all day. It’s a healthy balanced lifestyle that matters.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#36
post #10

If deficiency is linked to all these maladies then why aren’t we seeing them occur with less frequency in areas that get full sun year round?

You would actually have to compare (dark skinned people in equatorial regions, light skinned people in places with less sunlight) to (light skinned people in equatorial regions) and optionally against (dark skinned people in places with less sunlight), with group A being the control, group B being expected to fare better, and group C expected to date worse.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#37
post #2

So Vitamin D deficiency is linked to cancer, heart disease, respiratory infection, stroke, diabetes, and death. But taking it as a supplement helps with none of the above. What is a reasonable hypothesis then? That having an active lifestyle that brings you outside in the sun both causes your Vitamin D to go up, and is correlated with better physical health in general?

From TFA:

> How can we reconcile promising early observational studies linking Vitamin D to most major causes of death with our current results? One thing that seems increasingly clear is that in most cases low Vitamin D (truly low Vitamin D) is a marker of poor health rather than a cause. Vitamin D is made in the skin after exposure to sunlight. A chronically ill, frail individual may leave the house less often, leading to lower Vitamin D levels. Fixing the Vitamin D will not fix the chronic illness.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#38
It seems like its easy to identify the harms of extremes. Too little of X causes Y and too much of W causes Z. But with so many variables affecting the human body(nutritional, genetic, environmental, microbial, mental, etc) how can we even approach being certain about optimal levels in the middle? I don't see how we could control for enough variables for long enough to know how much vitamin D is best for the body, and exactly how it interacts with other variables in regards to various diseases.

Re: Vitamin D, part 3 – The Evidence

#40
post #25

The most obvious evidence to me has always been that Europeans are not black. A change like the loss of melanin requires selective pressure, which in this case was likely furnished by less vitamin D as we migrated away from the equator. The pressure must have been significant since being white carries a big downside: higher vulnerability to sunburn and skin cancer. When I lived in Cali I always envied my darker skinn…

What's interesting is how strong the selection pressure seems to be to have melanin content adjusted to match the local conditions for sunlight. In the western hemisphere, where humans have only lived for ~20,000 years, there was already notable variations in pigmentation developing prior to 1500AD. That would make sense if vitamin D production is very important to health.
Post reply on HN