Live data from Hacker News

The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#32

(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

More recent Vitamin D discussions:

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

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45732670

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#34

This article is very technical and difficult to read. Is there a TLDR?

This article is not technical and is 4 pages and includes a 1 paragraph executive summary. There's only 2 pages of content.

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.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#35

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

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#36
post #35

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

Yeah but to get a prescription you probably have to have a valid reason. If the general directive is that 1000 is fine, I'm assuming it's not easy to get a prescription for that

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#37

This article is very technical and difficult to read. Is there a TLDR?

Eat one small rock per day as important source of vitamins and minerals critical to digestive health.

If poultry or pigeon, eat two per day.

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#38

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

Re: The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

#40

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

When you buy from reliable brands with a wide range of supplements in their own store on Amazon, you get what that store offers on Amazon as well as elsewhere. If you don't know the brand, Amazon is a bad place to learn about them.
Post reply on HN