I got my blood checked last year and decided I should probably actually know if I'm doing too much or too little. I was within 5% of the middle of the healthy range for vitamin D levels. For reference, 5,000 IU is >800% the FDA daily recommended value. People with indoor jobs and hobbies are probably not getting enough.
Unfortunately the daily recommended value was established erroneously and should be much higher. Many research papers mention this. For example:
> The Institute of Medicine recommendation for adults younger than 70 years of age is 600 IU of vitamin D daily. We are told that this would achieve a level of 50 nmol/L in greater than 97.5% of individuals.6 Regrettably, a statistical error has resulted in erroneous recommendations by the Institute of Medicine leading to this conclusion and it might actually take 8800 IU of vitamin D to achieve this level in 97.5% of the population.7 This is a serious public health blunder.
From the 2015 paper, Vitamin D for influenza
> A colleague of mine and I have introduced vitamin D at doses that have achieved greater than 100 nmol/L in most of our patients for the past number of years, and we now see very few patients in our clinics with the flu or influenzalike illness. In those patients who do have influenza, we have treated them with the vitamin D hammer, as coined by my colleague. This is a 1-time 50 000 IU dose of vitamin D3 or 10 000 IU 3 times daily for 2 to 3 days. The results are dramatic, with complete resolution of symptoms in 48 to 72 hours. One-time doses of vitamin D at this level have been used safely and have never been shown to be toxic.8 We urgently need a study of this intervention. The cost of vitamin D is about a penny for 1000 IU, so this treatment costs less than a dollar.
Wow. Why isn't this more prominent on the covid radar?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc#Dietary_recommendations
> In the case of zinc the adult UL is 40 mg/day (lower for children).
> The EFSA reviewed the same safety question and set its UL at 25 mg/day, which is much lower than the U.S. value.
You're right, people should know that 50mg is bigger than 40mg/25mg (at least for a safe prolonged daily limit - single dosage limit might be higher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc_toxicity ). It's kindergarden level math and still it seems people have trouble with it.
I'm not being ironic, it seems that's a common problem. Maybe explains why the situation got to the point it got.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11073753?dopt=Abstract
Studies using much higher amounts of zinc do not show larger effects than this. The duration reduction in the above study was 28% while studies using 200 mg found a reduction of 35%:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20542704176942...
Simply put, it does not make sense to multiply the dose by a factor of sixteen in order to improve effectiveness by 20%.
Yet I don't know exactly what GP is talking about. There are loads of studies about zinc for the common cold and there are loads of pills on store shelves containing zinc and claiming to treat the common cold. At least here in the United States, that is. People don't take it because of the side effects and the stupid dose forms available (although the situation seems to be slowly improving).
How many cases have they seen? N = what value?
Also, in terms of number of studies, it's N = 1.
I'm not saying it's not a good idea. I'm saying let's get more data before we proclaim it from the roof tops.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202003.0235/v1
There may be others, I haven't really been looking.
--- (Snippet from the article) ---
YouTube's response is now to simply remove videos containing misinformation while previous policies have seen most related content demonetized. Examples provided by the executive include videos claiming that people can be cured by taking vitamin C or turmeric. Neither has been proven to act as a cure according to the wider health community.
Another example of prominent videos that are being removed, she continues, are those related to 5G as an underlying cause. The policy changes, like the rise of those conspiracy theories, have had to be rapid. As a result, for the time being, Videos that contain claims in direct opposition to information provided by WHO will be removed as well.
YouTube hopes that by removing conspiracy theories and misinformation, it can help keep users better informed.
----
While it may squash some of the stupider and more dangerous ideas floating around right now, it tosses the baby out with the bathwater and harms important discussion about whether those in charge right now do actually have their information right.
Has been always like this with censorship.
For instance, in this comment from six days ago I write about a possible vitamin D connection:
The other thing to make sure of while taking Vitamin D is to take adequate Vitamin K2(menaquinone), else you land up with kidney stones. For continued benefits, I also take some amount of sodium borate and magnesium. Anyway, this is my irregular regimen and you will need to talk to your doc before you do this.
Get tested, meet a doc, get the right dose, and understand how it works.
Less sun exposure in general.
The one difference is during winter, your basically go to work in the dark and arrive home in the dark as well.
edit: that was a joke, not a very good one I guess.
He was talking about 2 things
* UV light kills viruses, so why don't you shine UV light into the body to treat the virus
* Many viruses such as the flu don't transmit as well during the summer due to the weather conditions (heat + humidity), so could heat treat the virus in-vivo
Both of those suggestions are ignorant. He very clearly did not mean that getting some sunlight -> Vitamin D will help Coronavirus.
Maybe viruses don't transmit as well during the summer because people are outside more and have higher levels of Vitamin D?
I've discussed this with my doctor after being severely low on vitamin D. It caused physical pain. I'm far enough north that it is impossible to get the sunlight needed during the winter. I still have days, but they are short without strong sun - not to mention that it is too cold to go without a jacket. So, supplements at least during the winter.
During the summer, I have the option of getting at least 15 minutes of sunlight a day (May through August). Being outside isn't enough: I need to make sure that more than just my face is exposed.
But then, on top of it all, I wound up taking a medicine that not only makes me sensitive to sun, but a bit more prone to a milder form of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't help with vitamin D production.
The end result is that I wind up taking vitamin D all year and simply get my levels checked from time to time. Luckily, the over-the-counter stuff does the trick (there isn't the variety in vitamins here as there is in the US).
As pointed out upthread, most supplements are hilariously low-dose. I take 20k IU, 3 times per week. (most supplements are like 1000IU per pill, but 3000IU pills can be found)
Assuming 'linear no-threshold'? I find that pretty suspect.
Vitamin D is only produced with in UVB wavelength [1]. No vitamin D is produced over 318nm. I wonder if that's the reason they divided the range in UVA, UVB and UVC.
The solar ray incidation angle, pollution and altitude (higher, more UVB) affects the amount of UVB that hits the surface [2].
Therefore, the time of the day you are sunbathing is important to optimize Vitamin D synthesis. Midday is the best time. If you live bellow 25 degree latitude, the UVA/UVB ratio on winter is about the same on summer. Of course, you should take in consideration the weather and the UV index. I'm talking only about the ratio.
This paper [3] has guideline for sun exposure for Australian. It is possible to correlate the data for other places in the same latitude -- taking in consideration the Australian differences in UV index.
[1] https://www.direct-ms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Vit-D-s... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285056396_Vitamin_D... [3] https://staging.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/194_07_040411...
Moderate exposure is healthy, and may decrease the risk of many other cancers and heart disease.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/260247#3
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/07/dose-sunshine-ex...
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-some-sun-exposure-will-p...
Another way to look at it is that we evolved with the sun over millions of years, and that wouldn't have happened if it were too bad for us...
Vitamin D is produced on UVB spectrum [1 Fig. 1] that decreases with the solar azimuth degree [2].
[1] https://www.direct-ms.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Vit-D-s...
[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285056396_Vitamin_D...
On your evolution comment, most Australians don't have dark skin, but the ones who were here before Europeans do. I think that is a good indicator that the body is adjusting to something harmful. On the other hand, many dark skinned people in Britain aren't in a climate they evolved for either. We all have to be mindful that people move around the world faster than evolution now and may need to adjust our habits.
This paper [1] has the recommended exposure time for a few cities in Australia. If you live in the same latitude, as long you live in the same latitude, this can be used as a guideline.
https://staging.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/194_07_040411...
I couldn't believe it the first time I went to Singapore, in 35C heat all day in the sun at a theme park, and didn't even get a minor blush on my pale skin due to the humidity and latitude. Definitely eye opening coming from NSW, Australia.
From the table there, for example, in Townsville in summer, with 11% of your body exposed, it takes just 6 minutes to synthesis 1000 IU of vitamin D.
A fair-skinned female friend who studied at James Cook University used to complain she got sunburnt walking between classes... So DWG, if you read this, apologies for telling you off for exaggerating!
Over exposure to sunshine is a bad idea. Depending on latitude, time of year, skin colour and a few other very well understood factors determines what is a safe exposure to the sun. We all know this already. Getting outside generally involves fresh, moving air. There is also the risk of gentle, through moderate to vigorous exercise.
Wear a hat and sunscreen if required but a good thing you can do to fight this nasty (all other things being equal) is take moderate exercise outside daily. Don't overdo it and keep away from other people.
I won't recommend a dose of Vit D because I am not a doctor but this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Recommended_levels is probably a good start.
It depends on a lot of things. Time of year, time of day, skin colour, where you live, if you're under an Ozone hole, UV index, personal sensitivity/medications, etc.
This is a good summary[0] for the situation in Australia, possibly the worst in the world when it comes to the sun being deadly. Their strongest statement about avoiding sun:
"During summer in Australia, all states experience long periods during the day when the UV Index is 3 or above (see Table 1). During these periods, a combination of sun protection measures (broad brimmed hat, covering clothing, sunscreen, sunglasses and shade) is recommended when outdoors for more than a few minutes. In summer, most Australian adults will maintain adequate vitamin D levels from sun exposure during typical day to day outdoor activities."
So a few minutes in the sun without protection is enough to raise your cancer risk during the worse times on the worst days and you shouldn't be seeking any sun intentionally for vitamin D during these times. Growing up it was easy to get sunburned in 10-15 minutes on some days, and the advice was that if you burn you definitely raised your cancer risk.
[0]: https://wiki.cancer.org.au/policy/Position_statement_-_Risks...
Anecdote, so take it for what you will.
I argue that if you go outside and wear the appropriate sun protection—long pants,long sleeves, neck covered, broad rim hat, and wear sunscreen on the exposed parts—you can't get enough sun exposure to produce enough Vitamin D.
Seems reasonable that it's not based on your experience.