Hacker News Reader

Comment by PragmaticPulp | Hacker News Reader

The association between Vitamin D deficiency (VDD as referred to in this article) and increased risk of respiratory infections is well-known. Mild to moderate Vitamin D supplementation, especially during winter or in those with subpar dietary habits, is a good idea.

However, I've noticed that Vitamin D has been garnered an almost cult-like following on parts of the internet in recent years. Some of the health claims around Vitamin D are getting out of control, and the recommendations for Vitamin D supplementation are far too high in certain circles.

I have to admit that I fell for this to some degree. I started supplementing 5000 IU/day after reading all of the writings about Vitamin D deficiency, the health benefits of Vitamin D, and the arguments that current Vitamin D supplementation recommendations were far too low.

But that 5000 IU/day put me near overdose territory when I got my serum levels checked. Even my doctor, who is very pro-Vitamin D supplementation, warned me to significantly cut my supplementation.

The scary part is that I see recommendations for significantly higher Vitamin D dosing all over Twitter and health forums lately. There's a growing idea that more is better, amplified by health influencers trying to stand out from the crowd and the growing cult-like status of Vitamin D as a wonder vitamin.

I think encouraging mild vitamin d supplementation (or improved dietary patterns with more Vitamin D) is a good step in the right direction, but I'm also worried to see how much of this is being exaggerated and taken to unhealthy extremes.

When in doubt, get a blood test.

View on HN

I think the cult-like following for Vitamin D is an inverse of some of the cult-like following for the vaccines. (VACCINES ARE GOOD, FOLKS, DON'T REPLY SAYING I'M AN ANTIVAXXER)

There are people who believe that the vaccines are much more capable than they are, and go as far as lionizing Pfizer in the form of things like tattoos, Fauci fan art, and so on. Yes, they are a very small segment of the population, but I've run into these people in real life. One of my best friends has a faith-like belief in the vaccines to such a point that he totally clams up if I show a shred of skepticism. This was a guy who practiced formal debate and we used to have many intellectual discussions despite our differences.

The people who believe Vitamin D is their Lord and Savior are reacting to the fact that the establishment has almost entirely abandoned the pretense of "diet and exercise" in favor of pharmaceuticals to the exclusion of almost anything else. Vitamin D isn't a cure, but it is very underappreciated, and when the entire medical system not only fails for decades to solve obesity but then fails to tell people to take action in their own lives to get themselves fit and healthy, it's cause to raise an eyebrow no matter what you think about Vitamin D.

Both are a result in a division caused by a system that fails to explain its own legitimacy. I think it's great that we have the vaccines. I think Vitamin D is great. I think both are imperfect. But I can't blame people for attaching themselves to either one as if they are separate churches to attend; what have the establishment done to establish our trust?

> But that 5000 IU/day put me near overdose territory when I got my serum levels checked. Even my doctor, who is very pro-Vitamin D supplementation, warned me to significantly cut my supplementation.

That's interesting. It's been a really long while since I looked at research papers around Vitamin D, but my conclusion was that what was thought to be a daily limit for Vitamin D wasn't entirely justified for the average healthy person, but I'll have to check that again. I've been either getting some sunlight every day or taking 5000 IU supplementally every day and haven't suffered any obvious consequences.

Sunlight really is the best though, and you don't need that much sunlight to get a sufficient dose. It also raises levels of nitric oxide which has its own benefits.

"There are people who believe that the vaccines are much more capable than they are, and go as far as lionizing Pfizer in the form of things like tattoos, Fauci fan art, and so on"

I was genuinely thinking you are making it up. Then I checked the web. First I shook my head, but then I reminded myself US is a nation of 330+ million people. Some are bound to do something outlandish like branding your body with corporate logo for no pay.

Mildly related, I am currently going through Ellul's work and I am in awe of American propaganda machine.

> but then I reminded myself US is a nation of 330+ million people.

As I type this, there are a few score people gathered together waiting for a long-dead icon of liberal politics to return from beyond the grave and join forces with the previous president, who is politically opposite.

You can find anyone who believes anything in the US of A.

That's totally fair. Perhaps for people such as myself, who grew up in a time where the fringe of society pretty much stayed that way, the publicity that anyone can get today can create a simulation of normalcy.

> the publicity that anyone can get today can create a simulation of normalcy.

It seems like it isn't hard for any belief or belief-system to obtain a critical mass. It feels like a paradox: if the threshold for critical mass has fallen, or the number of people required to reach critical mass has grown for every niche? I'm not sure what's going on, but I'm scared. Maybe this is the "old person scared" thing I giggled about when I was a kid watching my grandmother try to make sense of a computer...

The scientific definition for the COVID vaccine is that it is "leaky". This is true of the flu vaccines as well.

https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/home/topics/respira...

They knew this and they lied to us all. That was the worst type of propaganda. And IMO, Fauci is the worst at this type of patronizing behavior.

We cannot vaccine our way out of this pandemic. It is with us, so get healthy.

Getting vaccinated is also a good option if you're concerned about your health.

In fact, the optimal might be to get vaccinated and then get Covid on purpose. Thus you get the mildest possible case. After that your immune system is properly trained and subsequent infections will be milder.

I'm double-vaccinated but strongly considering this option now as corona passports are being discussed in my country. Fuck that logicless shit (restrictions should apply to everyone equally).

I am double vaxxed (6 months) and I sit in the most crowded coffee shops I can all day in a college town, no mask. Nothing yet.

Sure. What's your point?

they are trying to get infected... yes we need some proper research into this idea of vax / infect treatment.

Not that I am really trying, but not avoiding it either. My fear is gone, you know? And I have a mental health comorbidity (but none of the bad ones like diabetes and obesity.) I mean everyone went into hiding after they got the vaccine and then the vaccine wore off. That was the perfect time to gain what should be a broader immunity. Maybe it is like I already had my booster?

There is a lot of talk out there but I know they really do not know how the immune system works, neither do I. But it seems vaccine alone is doing nothing but keeping people alive. So if the vaccine can keep me alive, why avoid the virus?

Yeah I'm not pretending that they make up any sort of majority or massive minority, but they are small and can be loud. If there really were that many of them, the Fauci propaganda film on Disney+ wouldn't have been so highly ratio'd, I think.

Plus I live in California and, yeah, we can be pretty weird like that.

Putting aside the particularly enthusiastic individuals, there are many people who really want to believe that this problem is going to go away because the government and Big Pharma will make it happen. I think everyone wants to believe that. I want to believe that science and technology can put a stop to this and maybe we can enter a new renaissance. The difference is that some have gone as far as to view any sort of questions as a form of heresy. Or they've reached a point where they can't handle any amount of disagreement.

I'm a little biased, perhaps. I have a few sets of friends and family that became so heavily invested in the pandemic that they entirely closed themselves off for the last year and a half. My best friend whom I've known almost my whole life and I consider to be a brother not only has decided he can't have an earnest discussion about strategy against the virus but I've only seen him twice in the last year and I've not been able to see his wife or his son who was born last year. I effectively have a non-blood nephew whose first years I'm missing out on, and at this point I just don't find it to be reasonable. One of my cousins and his family remained totally locked up this whole time, going as far as to decontaminate all of his mail and leave it to air out in the garage for a week. I can't meet his children either, and until recently his children couldn't see other children. He and his wife would throw a conniption fit if they know that I was more skeptical than they. None of these people even care that I've been vaccinated.

There's more personal stories I have, but those are the ones that emotionally affect me the most. I've talked to many others on Discord that have similar stories about their own social circles.

So yeah, when some people witness such extreme reactions and realize that the establishment has shown an almost total lack of interest in self-improvement, they are liable to think "Big Phrama doesn't want me to take Vitamin D, so that must mean it works against COVID! And if it doesn't, well, screw Big Pharma anyway."

In another circumstance, although I am kind of a supplement fiend myself, I'd have made fun of the Vitamin D, HCQ, and Ivermectin people in any other circumstance. Now I just see it as just a reflection of our collective ignorant choices rather than as an aberration. And to be honest, I just can't bring myself to shame the people who overestimate Vitamin D because at least they don't act like I carry the black plague.

Illinois here and we are all weird:).

Regarding the enthusiastic individuals and believers in technology in general, I want to run something by you that I heard somewhere, and I think it is applicable here. I think it was a salesguy pitch, but the argument went ( based on the lyrics of:

"The sun'll come out tomorrow So you got to hang on till' tomorrow, come what may! Tomorrow, tomorrow, I love ya, tomorrow You're only a day away!")

that Americans are super optimistic. I remember buying into that description since I was internally comparing it to the old country and basic response to everything being doom and gloom. There is some value to hope, but I agree that blind faith can be counterproductive here.

I hear you on the family front. It has been a very weird experience overall. My extended family and social circles tend on the conservative side with some outliers. As far as I know, all are vaccinated too. As expected, the reactions were all over the place. We have one family unit that locked itself in with their kid and has not seen anyone for months initially and is only now relaxing their protocols somewhat. I do think it is a little over the top, but it really is their choice.. for better or for worse. We have one that is regularly roaming the countryside.

All this is happening, while my wife is still going full time to work at a doctor's office. We have a baby too, but we are going for the middle ground. It probably helps that we are home bodies. In all probability, we will eventually get covid just based on her exposure alone.

Overall, I agree with you -- we all missed out on some memories.

But all this talk about vitamin D reminded me I have to schedule an annual check up. Heavens know I did not move much in 2021.

Anyway, stay healthy.

Stop feeding the antivaxxers then.

We do precautionary actions that may not save us all the time. Seatbelts, shelter in place during tornadoes. Crossing at intersections. Just because these activities fail for a lot of people doesn’t make the practitioners sheeple. This insistence that all of the societal technology that we’ve developed that got us from 100,000 humans to 7 billion is bad is pastoralism at best, a suicide cult at worst.

Sheep weren’t that numerous before humans either, which makes me wonder of the “sheeple” comments are projection, accidental or otherwise. Going back to pre-enlightenment society will reduce us to just another animal.

> Just because these activities fail for a lot of people doesn’t make the practitioners sheeple

Of course not. What makes people sheeple is treating someone not wearing a seat belt like a war criminal.

> This insistence that all of the societal technology that we’ve developed that got us from 100,000 humans to 7 billion is bad is pastoralism at best, a suicide cult at worst.

Who is making this claim? Some nut on twitter maybe but no one in this thread.

> Going back to pre-enlightenment society will reduce us to just another animal.

It's interesting that you invoke The Englightenment. One definition of The Enlightenment I see is "use science AKA empricism to make decisions". But another part of The Englighenment is liberalism: the idea that individual people are adults who ought to be able to make decisions about their lives. That people can't simply depend on the state, the church, or the law, that every adult human is a moral legislator who must draft his own law and live up to it (or fail to).

> Stop feeding the antivaxxers then.

Why should anyone take you seriously after reading this sentence? Although you may not intend this, how am I to know that you aren't implying a level of dishonesty in what I've shared? Because that certainly seems to be what you are saying. Do you think that I think that I'm feeding "antivaxxers" and not being forthright about it? I just don't find it productive when you and countless others make such a statement. In fact I'm not even sure what you define as an "antivaxxer". If you are going to call me out, at least be a bit more precise.

If there's something I said that suggests that I'm merely feeding antivaxxers, or doing so in a way that goes beyond what the system has already done to feed the so-called antivaxxers, by all means, tell me how I'm the problem.

> We do precautionary actions that may not save us all the time. Seatbelts, shelter in place during tornadoes. Crossing at intersections. Just because these activities fail for a lot of people doesn’t make the practitioners sheeple. This insistence that all of the societal technology that we’ve developed that got us from 100,000 humans to 7 billion is bad is pastoralism at best, a suicide cult at worst.

I don't think we would have enacted seatbelt laws if the tradeoff was severe restrictions on civil freedoms and possible damage to society as opposed to, you know, the minor inconvenience of just putting on the belt. And putting on a seatbelt isn't really the same argument as injecting a rushed vaccine using technology that hadn't yet been deployed to humans on a wide scale, as well as being at the point of coercing people to do so.

That's a tangent I shouldn't have just entertained, though, because I am not necessarily here to debate such nuances. My point isn't really to argue for or against vaccines per se, despite my having shared some of my personal perspective on the matter. The point that I was making is that both the conspiracy-level skepticism and the science/vaccine zealots are all a result of the same thing, and if we don't wake up to all the extreme divisions we are seeing, it's not going to matter what we do. Vaccines, Vitamin D, whatever. If too many of us can't agree on anything, and the system is operating in such a way where the division is seemingly intentional, how exactly can we blame people in either camp from going to the extreme?

> “sheeple”

This is not a word that I used and, if you reexamine what I've contributed to this thread, you will see that I'm not condemning people in any such way. While I do believe that most people respond to systemic control beyond a point I consider reasonable, I no longer dismiss this as a character flaw more than a symptom of the information age.

I'm sorry if I am reading too far into what you are saying here. I'm just not sure exactly why you brought that up.

> Going back to pre-enlightenment society will reduce us to just another animal.

Agreed. While I think we need to be far more careful about the road we choose to go down as a post-enlightenment world (assuming you were referring to the Age of Enlightenment and the philosophy that came from it), we can't go back and I don't think it would actually be desirable to go back.

> Sunlight really is the best though

The problem is that, for many people, their ability to synthesize Vitamin D from sunlight decreases as they age. (Also you have to be living at a latitude where you can get enough UV from sunlight.) Having your blood levels of Vitamin D checked regularly can help you to decide whether you need supplementation, and if you do, it can help you to adjust your dosage.

Vaccines are probably 3 orders of magnitude more effective at reducing the spread of covid than vitamin d. Not 3 times, 3 orders of magnitude, probably more than that really. Imperfect as they are it is still an amazing and wonderful thing we were able to create and get them out so quickly, likely millions of lives saved and millions more would have been if not for morons spreading lies

For sure, I don't deny that at all.

My point is that these things are reflections of society (civilization?) as a whole. If society is being fractionated, you'll see it with vitamins and vaccines. From what I've seen, few things haven't seen some amount of fractionation for my whole life.

It doesn't really matter whether or not any of this stuff works if the establishment isn't widely considered to be legitimate. You will inevitably end up with two camps, or possibly an entire loss of control. The point of actually doing things to instill confidence is to give few to no reasons for society to fractionate down the middle.

Like, if you want people to take vaccination seriously, you probably don't want to tell the public you won't take the vaccine because you don't like the current president. You also probably want to level with them and at least tell them some of the truth as opposed to using omission and indirection, and no coercion, to get them to do what you want them to do. Oh, and it would also be a good idea to not villainize skeptics, because there will always be people who are wrong, instead favoring giving them reason to come to your side.

All of the above that I just mentioned happened, at least in the United States. It's not hard to find sound-bites of establishment top-brass saying that they wouldn't take the vaccines because they didn't trust Trump. When people on both sides see this indignance and then see these politicians make a complete 180 once they've restored their power, why in the hell would you expect anyone to trust them with their health? A skeptical person is going to start wondering what else those politicians have lied about and why the establishment health experts haven't told people to improve their health as part of the fight against the pandemic. If mainstream news comes out trying to downplay Vitamin D, they might think "heck, if they're saying that then I should probably believe the opposite".

I'm sure I'll be misunderstood by what I've said there, but hopefully someone reads this and considers it if they haven't before. I've never been anti-vaccine, and if I ever said anything in the past that came off that way, either I misspoke or I was wrong.

I like how the you manage to blame primary pro-vaccine people for not promoting them perfectly for vaccine skepticism ... while completely ignoring pure FUD and lies routinely used by anti-vaccine movements.

And how it is only democrats who are responsible for some anti-vaccine claims despite massive anti-vaccine, anti-masks campaigns from republican politicians.

I could have addressed that side as well, but I didn't think it was necessarily relevant to the point. There's also now diverging definitions of what defines "anti-vaxx". Anti-vaxxers might be against all vaccines, or anti-vaxx might mean being against the mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV2, and then sometimes I get labeled as such (or as a sympathizer) because I think there are valid concerns about these vaccines.

In terms of the OG anti-vaxxers, I agree that they did and perhaps do still play a significant role in fostering distrust. In my opinion, that's just too easy a point to make. Did I really need to make a point about it? It's not really a controversial opinion to state on HN that people who are out of touch with reality share responsibility for vaccine hesitancy.

What's more important is that we recognize that this issue doesn't exist in isolation. I do not buy that the extreme anti-vaxxers share the bulk of responsibility here. The authorities had a chance to get everyone on board, and they totally blew it. Anti-vaxxers could have not existed before this pandemic and they would have still been created as a part of the radical shifts in global societies and how power structures have used tactics that appear to rather intentionally create divisions.

> And how it is only democrats who are responsible for some anti-vaccine claims despite massive anti-vaccine, anti-masks campaigns from republican politicians.

Yes, that is true, and I corrected myself before I even saw your comment.

You framed or as whole society explanation of universal sociological truth of things splitting to two sides down inthe middle.

And in subsequent analysis you completely ignore active and large campaigns to make people distrust vaccines or that covid exists.

> The point of actually doing things to instill confidence is to give few to no reasons for society to fractionate down the middle.

The expectation is that group you dislike for unrelated reasons have to be perfect. The group you like for unrelated reasons is not responsible for anything they say or do.

> do not buy that the extreme anti-vaxxers share the bulk of responsibility here

People believing anti-vaxxers are responsibility of loud anti-vaxxers. There was no magic happening, it was people believing what those said.

> The authorities had a chance to get everyone on board, and they totally blew it.

Large political movements were anti vaccers for political reasons. There was no chance to get everyone on board, when actual politicians and party operatives actively openly and frequently opposed vaccines.

And your analysis completely misses these people.

Right, and of course - why not both? Low vitamin D causes other problems, easy to happen in the cold months…

My stance might be very different if the state and the mainstream decided to encourage the public to not only get vaccinated but also do things to be healthy. Losing weight, restricting calories, choosing to eat lentils instead of Macaroni and Cheese, going on daily/nightly walks, getting sun exposure, all shouldn't be ignored or treated as obsolete. What exactly is the reason, other than keeping the junk food industry afloat, that we not all be encouraging ourselves? Do we really need a bunch of studies to be performed to conclude that being generally healthy is either helpful against infection or at least won't make infection worse?

If we had a campaign of "do your part, eat right, get some walking in, and help the fight against COVID", I'd be like "Hell yeah! Now's our chance to see if we can beat this thing! Get the vaccines, get healthy, and join the fight!"

And now look. :(

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/09/fitness-companies-surge-in-d...

I've come across some data supposedly contesting the idea that obesity is a big driver in hospitalizations, but I'm not sure how much I buy it yet, and it certainly doesn't seem like a good reason to just do nothing at all.

Personally all the covid restrictions make me so depressed that I don't care about my health. And I never really cared enough about it to lose weight anyway. I was very active before the masks came in (hiking etc) but they enforced them even outdoor when on your own. So the sudden stop in doing that didn't work out well. But generally I just eat wrong, I live alone and hate cooking. So I've always been on the heavier end of the range.

The way life is right now I wouldn't really have any interest in reaching my pension age anyway as there's not much to do.

But promoting this in a situation where people have less motivation is not really going to help. Once the pandemic is over and we can live life again I'll think about it.

But depression factors into it majorly for me and I've been more depressed than ever.

It isn't the government's job to endorse someone's regimen of virtue.

It depends on if you think the government exists for the betterment of society as a whole or for the betterment of the individual.

Yet we tax vices.

What are you basing your numbers on?

> The people who believe Vitamin D is their Lord and Savior are reacting to the fact that the establishment has almost entirely abandoned the pretense of "diet and exercise" in favor of pharmaceuticals to the exclusion of almost anything else

It doesn't get much more establishment than the NYT, and yet somehow their pages are filled every day with "diet and exercise" articles. Not really sure what you're trying to say here.

With regards to The Vax'ers vs The Vitamin D'ers...

If nothing else this study / paper does raise the question: What was the Vitamin D "status" of those who took part in the vax trials?

That is, perhaps the vax is effective, but as dependant on Vit D levels? Lower D? Less effective vax??

Yeah, hard to study, but given all the sociopolitical implications, certainly someone should make the effort?

A parody I found of your friend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_s5y9Ls83Q

Btw I stopped reading at "the establishment" because I know your worldview is informed by random suspicions about a vague cabal that controls the wold.

> But that 5000 IU/day put me near overdose territory when I got my serum levels checked.

I need to consume 4000 IU/day just to keep my serum levels acceptable. I do agree though that blood tests are necessary. When I started getting into the vitamin D supplements, I had my blood levels tested every 3 months for a few years. I started out dangerously deficient and even 8000 IU/day was barely moving the needle in the beginning. However over a longer period 8000 IU/day ended up being too much, so I cut it down to 4000 IU/day where I've been for years now.

There are a lot of factors going into this and everyone's circumstances are different. Frequent testing to verify assumptions is a must.

I spend a good amount of time outside, going running regularly, and am in decent shape. I also eat 250g of salmon weekly, which contains about 1000-2500 IU. However at the end of the day I live in the north (59 deg lat) and the sun here is of limited impact.

The mammalian liver stores vitamin A and vitamin D (polar bears store so much of the former that polar bear liver will give you vitamin A poisoning, even in small quantities).

If you are deficient that usually means low reserves, so some or most of what you take will go into your liver instead of your blood. Over time your serum levels climb on the same dose, which is why you have to keep testing. It’s also why therapies for vitamin D deficiency can include prescription ultra high dose pills taken once a month for a few months, rather than (or in addition to) daily supplementation.

Body fat also stores Vit D (and A, E and K), so you also need to consider how much has been deposited there and how much of one’s body fat turnsover.

The group https://grassrootshealth.org sells an inexpensive at-home test kit for D3 serum levels. IIRC it includes two tests so that you can make changes if needed then check to see how much they helped, and back off on supplements if desired.

I had also been taking 5000 IU/day with K2, which helped me get up to 50 ng (starting from 39). I stopped taking the supplements because I felt sun exposure was probably the better way to approach it. For one thing I live in a sunny place, and I enjoy the relaxation. Also, my guess is that D3 levels may be a proxy for things like sun exposure, and that the health benefits might derive from those instead, and might be more complex than just one compound.

If I can't reliably get sun exposure though, as in the next three months when my local UV index gets pretty low, I'll go back to supplementation.

I'll attempt to cite this before the edit timer expires.

If you live above 35° North, a full day of sun is not enough to get all the vitamin D you need. There's a reason foods (like bread, milk, cereal) are fortified.

You didn't mention any negative effects of approaching vitamin D overdose, did you experience any or was this simply a concern of your doctor?

Some of the worst effects aren't immediately obvious, such as metastatic calcification of tissues over time.

Long-term effects aren't fully elucidated because high Vitamin D doses weren't common until recently. However, there is growing evidence that excess Vitamin D can contribute to worsening cardiovascular disease and premature aging of cells.

You won't necessarily feel the effects of too-high Vitamin D levels right away, but years or decades of excess Vitamin D could do a lot of hidden damage without any benefit over moderate levels.

> there is growing evidence

Since you don't say what 'excessive' is, we don't know whether your comment is significant or not. Can you please avoid making statements like this without adding a link to a peer-reviewed paper so that we can assess it.

EU study from 2012: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2903/j.efsa....

As to excessive dose: " Without calcium supplementation, even very high vitamin D3 supplementation does not cause vascular calcification, especially if another important finding is included. Even when calcium blood levels are high, the culprit for undesirable vascular calcification is not vitamin D but insufficient blood levels of vitamin K2".

COVID-19 Mortality Risk Correlates Inversely with Vitamin D3 Status, and a Mortality Rate Close to Zero Could Theoretically Be Achieved at 50 ng/mL 25(OH)D3: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis: Front Public Health. 2021; 9: 624559.

Just found this (staring me in the face, a pdf link)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7973108/pdf/fpu...

A suggestion: your otherwise helpful reply might be more effective without upbraiding the commenter you're replying to. (Yes, irony noted that I'm upbraiding you.)

Also, you can buy supplements that combine D3 with K2, if you are concerned about calcium transport.

I started moderating my vitamin D intake a little last year too, the blood test is a good idea, but during the initial parts of the outbreak, everything was closed, and rightfully so, so I was relying on gut instincts and luckily didn't overdose.

I'm not a doctor, but I have read that Vitamin D also benefits bone health, especially in people of color. The price of the supplement went up dramatically last year, a $2.50 bottle of 1,000 IU pills here (East Coast US) costs now anywhere from $5.45-$15.00 now in retail stores. It's sad that opportunism is usually always the first move in health care in the US now. It's a shame how much better health (and even proper education on it) depends so much on income/wealth here in the US.

Why, it's almost as if some sort of central planning would be a better way of planning healthcare for a nation!

$4.99 for 1k or 5k at Trader Joe's.

My understanding is Vitamin D stays in your system a while. It’s one of the reasons why I believe Vitamin D deficiencies tend to be treated with 1-3 very large doses of Vitamin D, separated by weeks, with what I assume are blood tests in between.

Yes! The half-life of Vitamin D in the body is very long. Toxicity can build over many months of supplementation, which is why it's important to get a blood test after around 6 months of starting supplementation.

What's interesting: There doesn't seem to be toxicity associated with Vitamin D produced by sunlight. The body seems to have mechanisms that prevent overdose, even if you're constantly in the sun.

There was a lady on a reddit sub who claimed she is working in a hospital and having cases of people overdosed with vitamin D that causes calcium to build up in the blood vessels.

Data point: I recently found out my vitamin D levels were extremely low and was prescribed 1 50,000 IU tablet a week for 8 weeks. Halfway through the course I'm already feeling much better.

I jumped on the train recently after the wife suggested it. And have heard some promising info from watching some John Campbell's videos and a bit of googling around about it. Been taking 4000/day since August and do feel better overall. Haven't caught any colds yet (knock on wood). From what I had read, 4000 was the max suggested amount to be safe. I'm hoping that I won't get any bad colds this winter by doing this.

> I'm hoping that I won't get any bad colds this winter by doing this.

Unfortunately, I was still getting colds regularly while my blood levels were around 100ng/mL.

This is the type of magical Vitamin D thinking I was talking about: Fixing a vitamin D deficiency is a positive improvement, but it's not a miracle vitamin.

No one got colds "regularly" during last year's "lockdown and mask" periods, or during the summer. Maybe, if you had a kid in preschool, but they have been closed during those periods as well. There is something unique about your situation you are unaware of or perhaps not telling us.

I'd stop giving out advice to a population that is almost certainly, mostly deficient in Vitamin D. Sure, don't overdo it, but as it is quite hard to, probably affecting a tiny percent of the population, is a lesser concern right now.

>Fixing a vitamin D deficiency is a positive improvement

Apparently, quite a lot of people are vitamin D deficient. As a computer nerd, I'm pretty sure I was.

As a fellow computer nerd, I bought into the same narratives. That's how I ended up approaching Vitamin D toxicity as I mentioned above.

That's my point: The narratives around Vitamin D are getting greatly exaggerated. Mild supplementation is usually fine, but this idea that we're all deficient and we all need to be taking huge doses is getting out of control on social media.

>but this idea that we're all deficient and we all need to be taking huge doses is getting out of control on social media.

Agreed!

You reached 100ng by supplementing 5000 IU per day? That doesn’t add up.

I was told by my doctor I was, about a year before covid hit. Now I take vitamin D and C supplements and try to spend more time outside. My guess is that a lot of indoor computer workers are going to be deficient, but it's something your bloodwork can show you.

There is little evidence of any health benefit from oral vitamin C supplementation. If you have a normal metabolism and eat at least a little bit of fresh produce then you're probably getting enough. Any excess isn't absorbed, just pissed away.

Intravenous vitamin C might be another story and there is active research underway as a potential treatment for several conditions. I don't think any conclusive results have been reached yet.

Ugh. I just went 8 years without seeing the sun. I need to get my levels checked.

Would you be willing to elaborate how that happened?

Incarceration per other comments iirc

> When in doubt, get a blood test.

Definitely. I would say get one regularly anyway, Vitamin D levels are important enough that they should be part of routine blood work done during a regular physical. Then, if you're supplementing, you can adjust your dosage accordingly based on the results so your blood levels stay in the desired range.

It is quite difficult to overdose vitamin D:

"... healthy adults in a clinical setting, receiving 50,000 IU of vitamin D2 once every 2 weeks (equivalent to approximately 3,300 IU/day) for up to 6 years, maintained 25(OH)D concentrations of 40–60 ng/ml (100–150 nmol/l) without any evidence of VDT [vitamin D toxicity]. Those findings were consistent with the observation by Ekwaru et al. (17) that Canadian adults who ingested up to 20,000 IU of vitamin D3 per day had a significant increase of 25(OH)D concentrations, up to 60 ng/ml (150 nmol/l), but without any evidence of toxicity"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6158375/

The association between Vitamin D levels often breaks down in interventional studies which points to common causes for both susceptibility for respiratory disease and low Vitamin D levels (For instance Winter both lowers Vitamin D levels as well as increases respiratory diseases).

A year before covid I was in diagnosed with low vit D and a host of other ailments. Spent a year stuck in bed; then started Vit D among other things. Following summer I spent kayaking. It was one of several things, but my life completely changed.

> I was in diagnosed with low vit D and a host of other ailments.

> then started Vit D among other things

> It was one of several things, but my life completely changed.

Very glad to hear you improved, but your comment is a perfect example of the powerful aura developing around Vitamin D. By your own admission, you were diagnosed with a host of ailments and implemented several other changes, but the only one we're hearing about is Vitamin D.

There are stories like this all over the internet, where people receive a low Vitamin D diagnosis as part of a broader workup for serious ailments and they start Vitamin D supplementation as a part of a multi-pronged treatment approach, but when the anecdotes are distilled online Vitamin D is the only part of the equation that gets noted.

You genuinely had a vitamin D deficiency as diagnosed by blood test, but many other people with as-yet-undiagnosed illnesses might read your comment and assume that excessive Vitamin D supplementation is something they should try. After all, who wouldn't want such a life-changing turnaround?

But like I said, it's important to close the loop with blood tests. Vitamin D deficiency can't be diagnosed by symptoms alone, and high Vitamin D deficiency can be a risk for Hypervitaminosis D, which brings its own set of symptoms.

Mild Vitamin D supplementation is low risk, but Vitamin D isn't going to be life-changing for anyone but those with severe deficiencies.

You're presenting this as fact, but without reference, based on your own admitted foray into unhealthy supplementation. It's difficult to take this comment anything but impassioned anecdote, and not as sage advice, without reference.

>>Mild Vitamin D supplementation is low risk, but Vitamin D isn't going to be life-changing for anyone but those with severe deficiencies.

It would be life-changing if it kept you from dying of Covid, though. Which the OP says could happen even if your levels are 20ng, which is not typically considered a severe deficiency.

> but Vitamin D isn't going to be life-changing for anyone but those with severe deficiencies.

Given modern diets, I'd suspect many people have deficiencies in one or more key micronutrients. Given how low risk supplementation is, I think overdoing it and losing out on a bit of money is safer than under doing it. Of course be moderate in the amount you supplement by but the argument that it's just a waste of money never resonated with me. I'd happily sacrifice money on the off chance that I'm actually saving my health.

> I think overdoing it and losing out on a bit of money

Excessive Vitamin D levels are associated with accelerated cardiovascular disease and premature aging of cells.

It's certainly not as simple as losing out on a bit of money. Vitamin D is dirt cheap, but you only get one cardiovascular system.

Excessive anything is a bad idea but what does it mean in the case? Link?

I was also in your boat, for people with a deficiency supplementation is life changing.

in my circle it was the joe rogan podcast with dr rhonda patrick during the height of covid mania, that set off the craze for vitamin d obession.

I’m getting the feeling that you don’t live somewhere like Scandinavia, where we are barely exposed to sunlight for 6 months of the year.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com