Hacker News Reader

Comment by hannob | Hacker News Reader

Can someone explain something to me? What's this Vitamin D craze about that a lot of people in the Hackernews crowd seem to follow?

Multiple times in the past days weak studies indicating some beneficial effect of Vitamin D have been posted here. None of them looked like anything even remotely conclusive. This one just cries "confounder!".

But in the comments below a large number of people seem convinced that this is definitive evidence and that they always knew their Vitamin D pills are some kind of magic.

View on HN

I doubt anyone here thinks it's some kind of magic, but if you've been following the pandemic from the beginning, you've probably seen these two doctors who both recommend vitamin D:

- Dr. Seheult's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM2A2xNLWR4&t=821s - Dr John Campbell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCSXNGc7pfs&t=29s

It's cheap and has minimal downside. Pre-covid it was already known to "reduce symptoms of colds or influenza"[0].

[0] Benefits of Vitamin D Supplementation - Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons https://www.grc.com/health/pdf/Benefits_of_Vitamin_D_Supplem...

I feel like we're just repeating the exact same arguments seen for Vitamin C. Which went through the same arguments (cure for colds, cure for cancer, recommended by doctors etc) and ended up generally being inconclusive as to whether or not it actually helped.

At this point I'm convinced vitamin supplements are a scam in 99% of situations. The only time they're useful is when you have an actual deficiency as prescribed by your primary doctor.

Vitamin supplements are mostly a scam, but you can increase your Vitamin D level for free.

For those that don’t know, Vitamin d is created when sunlight hits skin.

“The major natural source of the vitamin is synthesis of cholecalciferol in the lower layers of skin epidermis through a chemical reaction that is dependent on sun exposure (specifically UVB radiation)”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D

Which unfortunately doesn’t work well in the winter depending on how far you are from the equator.

It’s fat soluble so levels can be tested.

>For those that don’t know, Vitamin d is created when sunlight hits skin.

Actually it's when UVB rays hit the skin, and only during certain times of the day, and north of 37 degrees only during part of the year.

In order to get enough UVB rays to make Vitamin D you need sunlight from around noon, during spring summer and fall

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257661/

Yes and no:

“Except during the summer months, the skin makes little if any vitamin D from the sun at latitudes above 37 degrees north”[1].

Also everybody’s production of vitamin D is different. There are plenty of people who work outside all day and still have insufficient levels.

[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/time-for-more...

Vit C was thought to be helpful essentially based on the testimony of one biologist. All of the research shows that it has a minimal / marginal impact on wellness if you're getting a modest amount already.

All of the research on Vit D suggests it has a much stronger impact on wellness than most supplements. I remember a list of "supplements proven to improve performance by studies" and it was basically steroids, creatine, and vitamin D; everything else was marginal or not backed by research.

Widespread Vitamin D deficiency has been known about for a decade or two, but I think the American public is only just recently starting to pick up on the research the past few years. I read about this a couple years ago and asked my doctor for a blood test, and it turns out I'm severely deficient. For what it's worth, I'm Hispanic, and anecdotally, after starting to take supplements I've actually felt better emotionally.

It's probably safe to assume that our not-too-distant ancestors spent a lot more time outside, probably with less clothes, and more skin exposed to the sun.

You can not get conclusive evidence for most health topics within a reasonable timeframe. This is not physics, you cannot just repeat experiments dozens of times to make sure. Most studies, even those done to actually get medicine approved, are relatively poor.

If there is a pandemic unfolding and low Vitamin D is very strongly correlated with severe disease outcome, I do not wait for some study to conclusively prove that Vitamin D is a causal factor. I pop those 4000 IU pills and hope for the best, because the potential upside is far greater than the downside.

Well said. And the thing with vitamin D is:

1) A whole lot of people are deficient so could benefit from supplementation anyway, and

2) Supplementation is safe and inexpensive.

As far as potential treatments go, sure, it could turn out to be nothing. But the risk/reward ratio is favorable.

We evolved to be outside in daytime. Nerds spend lots of daytime inside. Skin in sunlight makes Vitamin D. In the absence of other information, it'd be surprising if Vitamin D supplements weren't beneficial.

I have a bunch of chronic health issues and have been recommended to take Vitamin D for about 15 years or more - my brother has MS and requires it as well. We both feel like direct sun works better than the supplement but our doctors both insist we use a supplement. I do, because I listen to my doctor, but I also make sure I get outside every day. I don't "tan", I just hang out outside every day (this is easy because my son is always interested in a bike ride or whatever). In the Winter it is more difficult as I live in a more northern city in Canada but I make it work.

I'm in Edmonton, and was advised to take 2000 IU a day by my doc.

I don't tan either. Sun up here can still give you cancer, and the days are looooooong during the summer.

I've also found that the direct light-on-my-eyeballs has a big difference in waking me up and making me active.

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/ don't appear to agree with you. They might be wrong of course.

"EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to vitamin D and contribution to the normal function of the immune system. The Panel considers that vitamin D is sufficiently characterised. Contribution to the normal function of the immune system is a beneficial physiological effect for children. The Panel had previously assessed a claim on vitamin D and contribution to the normal function of the immune system with a favourable outcome. The target population was the general population. The Panel considered that vitamin D plays a regulatory role in the functioning of the immune system. The Panel considers that the role of vitamin D in the functioning of the immune system applies to all ages, including children."

https://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/consultation/...

No magic involved as can be determined from a reading of the massive peer-reviewed literature regarding vitamin D.

Vitamin D has long been staple in the "anti-aging" business, and this is something I guess many people around here are very interested in, to put it mildly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com