Some previous discussions:
4 months ago, flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705486
31–40 of 57 posts
Some previous discussions:
4 months ago, flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705486
(2017) Some previous discussions: 4 months ago, flagged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44705486 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24768721 2017: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15867918
We're learning more about what Vitamin D does
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46088998
Vitamin D reduces incidence and duration of colds in those with low levels
So is 10,000 IU of daily does ok ?
This article is very technical and difficult to read. Is there a TLDR?
There's no specific info about any experiment. It just claims a statistics error was recently found in another paper/experiment. It claims fixing the error suggests we should supplement more Vitamin D.
It gestures vaguely at "Diabetes" and "immune health" and "we used to eat fish" to claim that we want/need more blood Vitamin D. It also points to some other actual studies that might have good evidence that we want or need more Vitamin D.
I would doubt anything in this could cause harm. Vitamin D is fat soluble so taking too much can be dangerous, but I don't think the recommended doses here are close to that dosage.
This paper aims for slightly more than 100nmol/l Vitamin D marker in blood, while other NIH papers claim >375nmol/l is getting into Vitamin D toxicity territory.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158375/
NIH previously claimed a serum level of less than 72nmol/l is a health problem, so this paper is bumping that up slightly.
My understanding is that large scale tests of Vitamin D supplementation don't ever seem to turn out as great as all these papers would imply. Maybe their experiments had too low a dose.
My own supplementation has done jack and shit. Maybe I needed a higher dose.
I still hold skepticism that all of humanity needs a supplement, as that's just a sales pitch from a company at that point, but the "Everyone really does need a shitload of Vitamin D supplement" hypothesis at least has a mechanism that makes sense.
I'm conflicted. It seems like in Canada the recommendation was that there was no actual error and the dosage of 1000 IU is still considered good. It's hard to find more than 2500 IU. I have no idea what to follow at this point
I'm conflicted. It seems like in Canada the recommendation was that there was no actual error and the dosage of 1000 IU is still considered good. It's hard to find more than 2500 IU. I have no idea what to follow at this point
You can get 10,000 or even 100,000 IU tablets prescribed in Canada
In the US, you can get 50000 IU on Amazon, good enough for weekly supplementation if you're low (same as prescription strength).
I'm certainly not going to put something from amazon in my body. God only knows what you're actually getting
Interesting. I live at the 45th parallel, and try to get out into the sun everyday during the warmer months, with 5000IU orally per day during the gloomy part of the year. Now I'm wondering if I should get my levels checked.
In the US, you can get 50000 IU on Amazon, good enough for weekly supplementation if you're low (same as prescription strength).
The amount of fraud and fakes on amazon is surreal. I wouldn't trust something from amazon to open a can of beans that was already open. I'm certainly not going to put something from amazon in my body. God only knows what you're actually getting