Study was in an elderly cohort with cognitive impairment. This is a cohort more likely to have nutrition and diet problems and spend all of their time indoors. I haven’t found the full study but the results look marginal for a narrow group.
Then there’s this important note in the highlights:
> Higher daily Vitamin D intake may impact cognition in persons with sleep disturbance and MCI.
More is not better with Vitamin D. Correcting deficiencies is good but the mega dosing trend is not.
Don't go overboard, but you have quite a bit of margin for error. I am finding one claim that the upper maximum daily dose for Vitamin D is 4000 IU. A Costco daily multivitamin is 400 IU (most adults are recommended at 600 IU).
If you start supplementing with a traditional, OTC Vitamin D option, likely very low risk of complications.
I am not arguing against that. I argue that correcting this deficiency is not in the competence of people who are not medical professionals no matter how many articles they've read on the front page of HN about vit. D.
You need to be quite irresponsible and blindly take large doses for extended periods of time to achieve this though - and there's a significant margin between what's considered a "too high" level and what's actually known to be toxic. Do keep your levels in check (you don't need to see a doctor to do that), but there's no need to be overly scared.
You can very much overdose with melatonin as well, leading to your sleep schedule getting worse and worse the larger the dose. Ask me how I know before assuming my risk tolerance.
You are speaking nonsense and lies, considering anyone can get themselves tested. Visiting a doctor is not needed for it.
Doctors are in fact notoriously bad when it comes to vitamin D. None of the docs that I have ever visited eagerly tested my level. I always had to beg for a test. Moreover, none of them ever helped me optimize my level. It is tragically dangerous and harmful to rely on them for it.
> Doctors are in fact notoriously bad when it comes to vitamin D.
Most doctors know nothing about the endocrine system, at all. I self taught myself through "Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric" and I probably know more than 99% of general practitioners out there. Heck, most doctors are likely unaware of the endocrinological functions of D3.
On Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric, I consider it a must read for anyone btw
What conflict of interest would that be? I'm getting paid by big doctor to tell adtech devs with unchecked egos to go ask someone who has actually dedicated 10+ years of their life to study and practice medicine?
Don't kid yourself. The formal requirement remains at 600 IU which is murderous for anyone who succumbs to obeying it. This formalism proves the malfeasance of the medical profession.
This guy will get you killed. It is reasonable to maintain a blood level of about 45 ng/mL. This often requires 5000 IU/day, perhaps less in seniors with weaker kidneys, or those with heavy sun exposure which is dangerous for other reasons. You don't need to see a doctor for this, but you do need to get the test done every year or two. Personally I prefer not involving a doctor for any of it.
Nobody disputes that excessive vitamin D is not good, but maintaining a blood level below 45 ng/ml also is not good. Covid studies had ascertained that a level of at least 50 ng/ml was optimal.
Ironically these "IU/day" estimates are bogus. Direct ~noon sunlight at the equator for fair skinned individuals produces (full body exposure) 15-50k IU/hour of D3 equivalent, depending on the estimate. You clearly don't see people dropping dead after two hours in the sun.
GPT response
For a fair-skinned adult, nude or essentially whole-body exposed, at solar noon near the equator under a clear sky, a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate is:
Exposure Approx. D3-equivalent produced
~3 min ~2,500–6,000 IU
~5 min ~4,000–10,000 IU
~10 min ~8,000–20,000 IU
~10–15 min / ~1 MED ~10,000–25,000 IU
>20–30 min does not keep increasing linearly
The best-known experimental anchor is that roughly one full-body minimal erythema dose (1 MED)—enough UV to cause faint redness later—is associated with a vitamin-D effect comparable to ingesting about 10,000–25,000 IU (250–625 µg) of vitamin D3. Reviews note that this estimate has also received support from outdoor solar-exposure studies, although the original experiments used artificial UV sources.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3257661/
study
An excess of anything is not good. The point is that insufficient supplementation leaves most people far below the optimal blood level of vitamin D, typically even in a hazard zone, and doctors do absolutely nothing to address the situation. As the definitive case in point, they maintain the formal requirement at 600 IU which shows their intent to kill everyone who isn't better informed.
Check out interventional RCTs for near-infrared light exposure. They're showing a lot more promise than for ultraviolet light exposure or vitamin D supplementation.
All those professionals (scientists, doctors, etc.) who for decades told you not to supplement a good dose of vitamin D have been trying to get you killed. Often they work for big pharma or industry interests, and want to peddle million dollar medicines that don't even work right. They would have us live and die in ignorance. It's also no surprise that healthcare expenses are through the roof. Supplemental vitamin D is hurting the business of endocrinologists most of all.
Too extreme of a take. They're ignorant at best. In fact after cholecalciferol/calcitriol and the whole vitamin D receptor family, ignorance of the importance of bacterial balance and mineral intake are the next two biggest categories.
"Self-medicating" with a standard multivitamin is harmless at worst, and so is additional vitamin D supplementation if it's not in the extreme over a long period of time. It has a nonzero chance of helping, and it's a cheap and easy thing to throw into one's routine.
This sentence spoken on an engineering forum is pure... idiocy. Physicians are nothing more than bio-engineers, and if you apply sufficient reasoning you'll see that there is very little functional difference between the human body and a computer program (monadic equivalence)
FYI most physicians would find parent's advice agreeable. My physician said as much.
It doesn't take much reading about a topic as contentious as vitamin d supplements to come to similar conclusions. Have you done any review at all of the relevant literature?
I have read every article that has hit HN's front page. It seems like at least one per month since I joined in the heat of COVID at which point in time HN was adamant that bolus doses of vitamin d prevented COVID...
Each and every article leads to the same conclusion for me though - people should really be asking an endocrinologist instead of Dunning–Kruger-ing their health.
Let me get this straight: the source of your expertise on multivitamins and vitamin D is HackerNews articles, which makes you more qualified than the average physician, and you're accusing others of Dunning-Kruger?
As per the research, what vitamin D did, if an optimal level, is prevent mortality from Covid, not prevent one from getting Covid. I don't recall any basis for claims that it prevented Covid.
Doctors are utterly useless when it comes to vitamin D. They don't even test anyone who doesn't beg for it. They also never help optimize anyone's level.
Why does every health topic on HN attract so much comment spam?
This was posted 2 hours ago, and right now it's the fearmongerers and pedants. I'm expecting the next wave of comments to be the promoters of bad supplement advice and personal blogs. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned peptides or whatever else yet. That's when you know the discussion has really gone to shit.
Nobody wants to honestly discuss vitamin deficiencies and their impact on quality of life? Most people do have deficiencies. Many of them have otherwise unexplained minor symptoms that are proven to be related to mental health. Vitamin D is at the top of the list. It's worth getting checked out in your routine bloodwork during a doctor visit.
The recommended amounts are what is optimal, but what is strictly necessary is usually far lower. That's why people aren't keeling over and why most of them don't care. Most people have suboptimal diets for a million tangential reasons not worth arguing about. Intake may not even be the problem if you have an undiagnosed endocrine or metabolic issue. Lots of people are prediabetic, drink too much, etc.
I don't think this short list of facts will help, but can we get back on track?
Study was in an elderly cohort with cognitive impairment. This is a cohort more likely to have nutrition and diet problems and spend all of their time indoors. I haven’t found the full study but the results look marginal for a narrow group.
Then there’s this important note in the highlights:
> Higher daily Vitamin D intake may impact cognition in persons with sleep disturbance and MCI.
More is not better with Vitamin D. Correcting deficiencies is good but the mega dosing trend is not.
Don't go overboard, but you have quite a bit of margin for error. I am finding one claim that the upper maximum daily dose for Vitamin D is 4000 IU. A Costco daily multivitamin is 400 IU (most adults are recommended at 600 IU).
If you start supplementing with a traditional, OTC Vitamin D option, likely very low risk of complications.
I'd like to add that correcting deficiencies implies seeing a physician to get your dosage right. This is necessary both for Vitamin D and Melatonin.
If you're not a sedentary geriatric with MCI this study is probably not for you.
Sadly, many people in northern areas who are otherwise healthy are vitamin D deficient. It can be a side effect of trying to protect from skin cancer.
I am not arguing against that. I argue that correcting this deficiency is not in the competence of people who are not medical professionals no matter how many articles they've read on the front page of HN about vit. D.
You can very much overdose on Vit D. I suspect your risk tolerance is different than mine.
You need to be quite irresponsible and blindly take large doses for extended periods of time to achieve this though - and there's a significant margin between what's considered a "too high" level and what's actually known to be toxic. Do keep your levels in check (you don't need to see a doctor to do that), but there's no need to be overly scared.
You can very much overdose with melatonin as well, leading to your sleep schedule getting worse and worse the larger the dose. Ask me how I know before assuming my risk tolerance.
You are speaking nonsense and lies, considering anyone can get themselves tested. Visiting a doctor is not needed for it.
Doctors are in fact notoriously bad when it comes to vitamin D. None of the docs that I have ever visited eagerly tested my level. I always had to beg for a test. Moreover, none of them ever helped me optimize my level. It is tragically dangerous and harmful to rely on them for it.
> Doctors are in fact notoriously bad when it comes to vitamin D.
Most doctors know nothing about the endocrine system, at all. I self taught myself through "Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric" and I probably know more than 99% of general practitioners out there. Heck, most doctors are likely unaware of the endocrinological functions of D3.
On Endocrinology: Adult and Pediatric, I consider it a must read for anyone btw
What conflict of interest would that be? I'm getting paid by big doctor to tell adtech devs with unchecked egos to go ask someone who has actually dedicated 10+ years of their life to study and practice medicine?
Don't kid yourself. The formal requirement remains at 600 IU which is murderous for anyone who succumbs to obeying it. This formalism proves the malfeasance of the medical profession.
This guy will get you killed. It is reasonable to maintain a blood level of about 45 ng/mL. This often requires 5000 IU/day, perhaps less in seniors with weaker kidneys, or those with heavy sun exposure which is dangerous for other reasons. You don't need to see a doctor for this, but you do need to get the test done every year or two. Personally I prefer not involving a doctor for any of it.
Nobody disputes that excessive vitamin D is not good, but maintaining a blood level below 45 ng/ml also is not good. Covid studies had ascertained that a level of at least 50 ng/ml was optimal.
> 5000 IU/day
Ironically these "IU/day" estimates are bogus. Direct ~noon sunlight at the equator for fair skinned individuals produces (full body exposure) 15-50k IU/hour of D3 equivalent, depending on the estimate. You clearly don't see people dropping dead after two hours in the sun.
GPT response For a fair-skinned adult, nude or essentially whole-body exposed, at solar noon near the equator under a clear sky, a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate is:
Exposure Approx. D3-equivalent produced ~3 min ~2,500–6,000 IU ~5 min ~4,000–10,000 IU ~10 min ~8,000–20,000 IU ~10–15 min / ~1 MED ~10,000–25,000 IU >20–30 min does not keep increasing linearly
The best-known experimental anchor is that roughly one full-body minimal erythema dose (1 MED)—enough UV to cause faint redness later—is associated with a vitamin-D effect comparable to ingesting about 10,000–25,000 IU (250–625 µg) of vitamin D3. Reviews note that this estimate has also received support from outdoor solar-exposure studies, although the original experiments used artificial UV sources. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3257661/ study
> This guy will get you killed
Yeah, no. Advising people to correct Vitamin D deficiencies but to avoid overdosing is correct.
I quoted the study. The study agrees that excessive Vitamin D consumption is not good.
An excess of anything is not good. The point is that insufficient supplementation leaves most people far below the optimal blood level of vitamin D, typically even in a hazard zone, and doctors do absolutely nothing to address the situation. As the definitive case in point, they maintain the formal requirement at 600 IU which shows their intent to kill everyone who isn't better informed.
Not an interventional RCT. This belongs to the useless pile of Vit D observational studies.
Check out interventional RCTs for near-infrared light exposure. They're showing a lot more promise than for ultraviolet light exposure or vitamin D supplementation.
The shortened title is incorrect: the “/“ should be “+”.
Fixed
All those professionals (scientists, doctors, etc.) who for decades told you not to supplement a good dose of vitamin D have been trying to get you killed. Often they work for big pharma or industry interests, and want to peddle million dollar medicines that don't even work right. They would have us live and die in ignorance. It's also no surprise that healthcare expenses are through the roof. Supplemental vitamin D is hurting the business of endocrinologists most of all.
Too extreme of a take. They're ignorant at best. In fact after cholecalciferol/calcitriol and the whole vitamin D receptor family, ignorance of the importance of bacterial balance and mineral intake are the next two biggest categories.
Before you start self-medicating -- "participants had a mean age of 67.2±8.9" and this is a study focusing on people with mild cognitive impairment.
You should see a physician before attempting to treat your poor sleep with vitamin D or melatonin.
[flagged]
"Self-medicating" with a standard multivitamin is harmless at worst, and so is additional vitamin D supplementation if it's not in the extreme over a long period of time. It has a nonzero chance of helping, and it's a cheap and easy thing to throw into one's routine.
Spoken with such confidence! Are you a physician?
> Are you a physician?
This sentence spoken on an engineering forum is pure... idiocy. Physicians are nothing more than bio-engineers, and if you apply sufficient reasoning you'll see that there is very little functional difference between the human body and a computer program (monadic equivalence)
FYI most physicians would find parent's advice agreeable. My physician said as much.
It doesn't take much reading about a topic as contentious as vitamin d supplements to come to similar conclusions. Have you done any review at all of the relevant literature?
I have read every article that has hit HN's front page. It seems like at least one per month since I joined in the heat of COVID at which point in time HN was adamant that bolus doses of vitamin d prevented COVID...
Each and every article leads to the same conclusion for me though - people should really be asking an endocrinologist instead of Dunning–Kruger-ing their health.
Let me get this straight: the source of your expertise on multivitamins and vitamin D is HackerNews articles, which makes you more qualified than the average physician, and you're accusing others of Dunning-Kruger?
As per the research, what vitamin D did, if an optimal level, is prevent mortality from Covid, not prevent one from getting Covid. I don't recall any basis for claims that it prevented Covid.
Doctors are utterly useless when it comes to vitamin D. They don't even test anyone who doesn't beg for it. They also never help optimize anyone's level.
Why does every health topic on HN attract so much comment spam?
This was posted 2 hours ago, and right now it's the fearmongerers and pedants. I'm expecting the next wave of comments to be the promoters of bad supplement advice and personal blogs. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned peptides or whatever else yet. That's when you know the discussion has really gone to shit.
Nobody wants to honestly discuss vitamin deficiencies and their impact on quality of life? Most people do have deficiencies. Many of them have otherwise unexplained minor symptoms that are proven to be related to mental health. Vitamin D is at the top of the list. It's worth getting checked out in your routine bloodwork during a doctor visit.
The recommended amounts are what is optimal, but what is strictly necessary is usually far lower. That's why people aren't keeling over and why most of them don't care. Most people have suboptimal diets for a million tangential reasons not worth arguing about. Intake may not even be the problem if you have an undiagnosed endocrine or metabolic issue. Lots of people are prediabetic, drink too much, etc.
I don't think this short list of facts will help, but can we get back on track?