Live data from Hacker News

The Big Vitamin D Mistake [pdf] (2017)

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Do we need to be skeptical of NIH because of Trump? or they're still okay? Also, remember - don't take D on its own. Always with magnesium, or you get harmed by it, for all that it also does you good. Body is not built for raw D. Also also remember, D2 is a vitamin, D3 is a hormone.

you should always be skeptical of claims and seek to understand their basis and methodology.

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

#52

It’s crazy how many of these comments completely ignored TFA. Hackernews is in decline and will be indistinguishable from Facebook or Reddit before long.

On published article does not mean it's proved and everyone must follow watever it says. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D says

> However, the evidence for the health benefits of vitamin D supplementation in individuals who are already vitamin D sufficient is unproven.

andvitamin D is liposoluble so overdose is a risk. So I strongly recomend to ask a real medical doctor.

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

#53

It’s crazy how many of these comments completely ignored TFA. Hackernews is in decline and will be indistinguishable from Facebook or Reddit before long.

On published article does not mean it's proved and everyone must follow watever it says. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D says > However, the evidence for the health benefits of vitamin D supplementation in individuals who are already vitamin D sufficient is unproven. andvitamin D is liposoluble so overdose is a risk. So I strongly recomend to ask a real medical doctor.

duh? why aren’t you discussing the merits or demerits of the article directly?

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

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On published article does not mean it's proved and everyone must follow watever it says. The Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D says > However, the evidence for the health benefits of vitamin D supplementation in individuals who are already vitamin D sufficient is unproven. andvitamin D is liposoluble so overdose is a risk. So I strongly recomend to ask a real medical doctor.

duh? why aren’t you discussing the merits or demerits of the article directly?

Which you literally did, in two comments.

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

#56
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

i just asked. i was ready with the evidence, but to my surprise my gp said “sure, 90 day ok?”

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

#57
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but not long term, from what i’ve read. do it for 90 days through winter maybe?

What have you read?

i cant find it now. It was an article that suggested you may underestimate your natural production, especially in summer, so its safer to use high doses for a period of 3 months or so with a break of the same duration, after all we are likely “accustomed “ to fluctuating supply through the year.
Post reply on HN