[HN Gopher] Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
___________________________________________________________________
Reduced cancer mortality with daily Vitamin D intake
Author : geox
Score : 269 points
Date : 2023-05-09 15:40 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dkfz.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dkfz.de)
| dboreham wrote:
| Wouldn't we know this already if populations in sunny areas had
| less cancer (controlled for genetics)?
| atwebb wrote:
| Would especially sunny areas not produce people with more
| cancer (or certain types)?
| kpw94 wrote:
| https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kuow/files/styles/x_.
| ..
|
| Sunnier areas have _less_ skin cancers, if that 's what you
| were wondering.
|
| Now is it because of the Vitamin D, or because of a more
| systemic application of sunscreen?
| throw_pm23 wrote:
| ..or something else entirely
| francisofascii wrote:
| Maybe. Some studies have shown people in sunnier areas have
| less risk of certain types of cancer.
| vharuck wrote:
| It'd be hard to control for everything relevant. Diet would be
| indirectly affected by sunlight (sunny areas would naturally
| have different crops). Amount of exercise, too. Genetics play a
| large role in some cancers, but behaviors and choices are
| strongly linked to many common cancers like lung or colorectal.
| Breast cancer has been linked to a woman's history of pregnancy
| (higher risk for those who were pregnant when very young or
| never had been pregnant past middle age).
|
| _mini-rant_
|
| Even if we could design an experiment to know how much sunlight
| affects cancer mortality, it might not be worth the time and
| money. We already know ways to reduce cancer incidence in a
| population: less tobacco, less alcohol, less obesity, more
| exercise, sunscreen if you have light skin. We could further
| reduce cancer mortality by getting people to follow screening
| guidelines.
|
| We've reached a point where public policy and outreach are the
| most valuable efforts to preventing cancer incidence and
| mortality. Quitting bad habits is hard. Going to the doctor for
| screening can be scary, expensive, or logistically difficult.
|
| /mini-rant
| [deleted]
| tpoacher wrote:
| The article seems to imply that lots of p-hacking took place
| before they found a "positive" result worth reporting. Not sure
| how to feel about that.
|
| Also, why on earth would one talk about mortality "from cancer"
| and not mention overall mortality from all causes? This is
| classic "smoking cures most diseases of old age" statistical
| thinking...
| lynx23 wrote:
| It took me a long time, and virtually no help from outside, to
| discover that vitamin D effectively cures my winter depression. I
| was never really feeling good around that time of the year, but
| it wasn't problematic enough to actually do something about it.
| But when my gut started to revolt around that time too, I started
| to feel distinctly unwell. So I went to my doctor, who gave me an
| approintment with a nutrition specialist. That chat was totally
| and wholy unhelpful, and the sympoms persisted. Out of sheer
| luck, I insisted on having my vitamin D tested. It turns out I
| was truly hitting bottom. Even that didn't make my doctor say
| heureka. No, he kind of casually brushed the test result away,
| but casually said I could take some D, ideally from october to
| easter...
|
| Next hurdle was the dose. Most things I could get at the pharmacy
| without prescription are actually very low dose, and then there
| is this fresh panic going about, "vitamin D users overdose" or
| something. But with luck, I found dekristolmin. 20k i.e. in a
| single small pill. I take one every sunday since two years, and
| my mental health couldn't be better. Also, most of the gut
| irritation is also gone.
|
| Why I type this here? I found it interesting that I had to
| discover this cure on my own. The medical system wuldn't have
| figured that out on their own, let alone accept that it was the
| single solution.
| jjav wrote:
| > I found it interesting that I had to discover this cure on my
| own.
|
| This is sadly true for so many things in medicine. The doctor
| may or may not care, but either way they only have 10 minutes
| for you and are highly incentivized to push some very expensive
| pills to make you go away instead of being able to analyze the
| issue in any depth.
|
| I used to suffer greatly from gout, to the level of being
| bedridden for a month+ unable to move from the pain. All the
| doctors could offer were some pills that helped a little but
| didn't cure it and had somewhat nasty side effects. And I'd
| have to take them for life, almost guaranteeing liver problems
| later in life.
|
| With so much time unable to move, I spent it doing all the
| research I could and one day randomly happened upon research on
| childhood diabetes that noted that increased fructose intake
| leads to higher uric acid (which causes gout). So it wasn't
| even a case where the research didn't exist, it's just that it
| lived under the folder "childhood diabetes" instead of in the
| folder "non-diabetic adult with gout", so no doctor made the
| connection.
|
| I cut as much fructose off my diet as possible and within a
| month my blood uric acid was lower than ever and the gout
| completely cured, no need for any pills. That was over a decade
| ago, still doing great.
| nradov wrote:
| Peter Attia's interviews with Dr. Rick Johnson have some
| detailed scientific information about how fructose metabolism
| increases uric acid levels and causes gout.
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/
| moffkalast wrote:
| Just wondering, have you had any tests done regarding arterial
| plaque since? Supposedly one also needs a vitamin K supplement
| along with D to avoid that.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Unlike vitamin D, it's not that hard to get plenty of vitamin
| K from diet alone.
|
| People will say that it's not "the right kind" k1 instead of
| k2, but your body can make the conversion even though it's
| fairly inefficient.
| avgDev wrote:
| I had discovered something similar.
|
| I've had some nerve issues after a medication. First, my
| physicians were in complete denial that it was impossible.
| Then, I had to push them for tests. This includes Mayo clinic.
| It wasn't until I learned about neurological diseases and tests
| myself until I found the tests I needed. Then I had to search
| for a physician willing to listen.
|
| Ended up finding a neurologist at a University who straight up
| agreed that due to my history of tests and not coming up with
| anything he is open to hearing what I think and ordering what I
| want as long as it is within reason. We ordered autonomic test
| and QSART(sweat test). My autonomic tests were unremarkable
| like I suspected but we found issues on the sweat tests
| confirming my self-diagnosed small fiber neuropathy.
|
| I have then found other people having significant improvements
| from nerve supporting supplements, ALA, l-carnitine and high
| dose b1(which is relatively safe).
|
| I also stumbled upon Pirenzepine, I met a chemist online who
| reversed his neuropathy with Pirenzepine. It is not FDA
| approved but available in Japan with a good safety profile. I
| want to try this next.
|
| Later I discovered that there is company which is in phase 3
| trials I believe with a cream with the main ingredient being
| Pirenzepine to treat neuropathy. In one of their studies they
| discovered that cream seemed to work systemically when it came
| to healing the nerves.
|
| At this point my physician who is a professor is excited to
| hear from me. I told him I am debating obtaining pirenzepine
| because supplement and gabapentin offer temporary relief thus
| far.
|
| The point is.....I would never receive proper diagnosis or
| suggestion for supplements from a physician unless I kept
| pushing and doing a lot of research on my own. I have seen many
| many doctors over the years.....Then as I expanded my knowledge
| I slowly began to notice that some doctors are clueless and
| incorrect(using outdated knowledge). It has forever changed my
| perspective on physicians.
| liendolucas wrote:
| > That chat was totally and wholy unhelpful, and the sympoms
| persisted. Out of sheer luck, Iinsisted on having my vitamin D
| tested.
|
| This happened me countless times. You go for help maybe having
| a hunch that something is not right. Describe symptoms and so
| on, only to be lightly dismissed. I honestly can't understand
| why isn't the rule for doctors when you visit them to at least
| ask: "When was your last blood test?" and then act accordingly
| either re-testing or analyzing previous tests. I'm not saying
| that all doctors proceed this way, but sometimes if you
| actually do not politely ask them to further analyse you, they
| won't. One of my siblings is celiac and it literally took many
| years to actually discover that if it wasn't for my mum
| endlessly trying to understand why at the time he was extremely
| tired spending way too many hours a day sleeping. All the
| technology that is available today that testing can discard
| options or at least follow clues on pursuing something else.
| Arete314159 wrote:
| Me too, I went to doctors when I was in Seattle, they
| recommended complicated stuff...no Vitamin D though.
|
| I also had a B12 deficiency that contributed to depression, and
| it was a decade before that was figured out too. But doc's are
| super eager to prescribe SSRI's.
| Arete314159 wrote:
| SSRI's make money, B12 shots and Vitamin D don't. Just a
| coincidence I'm sure.
| hackermatic wrote:
| Most SSRIs don't make money. I just ordered a 90-day supply
| of the generic version of my SSRI (actually an SNRI) for
| $45. And in looking it up, I realized that I overpaid
| because I went through my insurance, while GoodRx would get
| me the same pills from a local pharmacy for $20.
| panax wrote:
| 20,000 is way too high even though you are doing only
| once/week. 2000 or less daily is more appropriate.
|
| Doses that are too high can also cause blood calcium to spike
| and can pull it out of bones and deposit into soft tissue.
| basisword wrote:
| Curious on what basis you're making this recommendation. It's
| the kind of thing I would normally read and recall at a later
| stage as good info, but my doctor prescribed me 20k IU a week
| recently for a period of a couple of months.
| panax wrote:
| If your doctor prescribed you that then that is fine you
| should follow your doctor's advice. They might have
| specific reasons for the high dose.
|
| I was once prescribed a 50k dose by my doctor but had very
| noticeable negative effects and I know that was far too
| high for me.
|
| The recommended daily allowance is like 400 and that should
| cover the needs of most people. If you are deficient then
| you probably want quite a bit more than that until you get
| back to normal. The safe upper limit is 4000 /day so I
| would probably try to stick to doses below that. If you
| take 2000 per day that should be well within the safe
| range, and even if you take 2000 on as few as 2 days/week
| that probably covers your needs. Some individuals might
| have trouble absorbing it and might need higher doses
| though.
| xk_id wrote:
| > if you take 2000 on as few as 2 days/week that probably
| covers your needs
|
| Well the linked study actually found that taking the
| supplement once a week or month didn't provide the
| benefits of dosing daily. Also the daily dose which was
| effective was up to 4000.
| KSS42 wrote:
| The only way to tell is to do a blood test. It took me
| taking 10k IU a day to get to the mid point recommended
| range. On the plus side, daily 10K IU is covered by my drug
| plan. I get my levels tested every 3 months.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| I take 10,000 IUs daily (recommended by my dr) every single
| day of the winter/spring/fall and get 20 minutes of
| unrestricted, full body sun during the summer. I have done
| this for years. I have a level of ~70 which my doctor says is
| just fine and I never, ever get sick.
| joseph_grobbles wrote:
| [dead]
| kerkeslager wrote:
| I had a fairly similar experience with winter depression being
| cured by 10,000IU Vitamin D3 daily.
|
| I wouldn't say it's the single solution, which might be because
| my depression wasn't limited by season. I'm speaking in the
| past tense because my depression is largely managed by diet and
| exercise (rock climbing). The diet aspect is basically covered
| by the AFS in Table 2 here[1], with some additional natural
| probiotics (frequent yogurt and occasional kombucha).
|
| Like you, I basically figured this out with some luck in
| stumbling across information, some self-experimentation, and
| little help from medical professionals. What little help I did
| receive was in NY. In TN where I currently reside, I likely
| would not have received even that help, because medical care is
| unaffordable for _most_ people. Additionally, there are an
| inordinate number of horror stories here about prescribers
| getting people onto a huge number of medications--this seems to
| particularly happen to young women who aren 't comfortable
| advocating for themselves. I suspect this is due to
| pharmaceutical kickbacks, but haven't found any data to back
| that hypothesis up.
|
| [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6147775/
| huehehue wrote:
| Isn't 10,000IU way above the recommended limit? I went
| through a bottle this past winter (at the recommended dosage)
| and didn't notice a change in either direction, but was a bit
| confused during the research phase since everyone seems to
| use a wildly different dosage.
|
| https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-Consumer/
|
| https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-d/
|
| edit: I also found
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35878761 which suggests
| higher levels are safe, as long as you're not eating D3 pills
| like kettle chips. So I guess that answers it, though my
| points stands about there being such a wide range of info
| kyleyeats wrote:
| The biggest thing to know is the six-week lag time of effects
| either way.
|
| You aren't at peak sadness around the solstice, or around
| Christmas, you're sad six weeks after that-- around Valentine's
| Day.
| hn8305823 wrote:
| Are we talking about depression or the weather?
|
| For me peak depression occurs right around the solstice and
| starts improving immediately - yet slowly - right after. I'm
| definitely in a better place by mid Feb.
| kyleyeats wrote:
| IIRC, the effects of not getting enough and supplementing
| take six weeks. Sunshine actually manufactures it right
| away on your skin.
| ipaddr wrote:
| I thought third Monday in Jan is the saddest day.. most
| likely to take your life
| kyleyeats wrote:
| Good point, see the sibling comment. If you're getting
| regular sun, your low point for the year will be the
| solstice. If you aren't, it'll be six weeks after that.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| The usual rule in Norway is to take vitamin D in months that
| end in R. That is, all the time except the summer. Nothing
| specifically to do with SAD, just that in the winter you don't
| get enough sunshine.
| grugagag wrote:
| Don't know any Norvegian but are there more months that end
| in R than September through December in your language?
| jo6gwb wrote:
| Looks like Januar and Februar.
|
| https://norwegianacademy.com/learn-months-and-seasons-in-
| nor...
| foxes wrote:
| But if you get a blood test you can probably see if you are
| deficient.
|
| I asked a GP, just a general Dr here where I live, and they had
| no problem checking and were well aware of vitamin D levels and
| what it can cause.
|
| Maybe you should state what country you are from before making
| some broad statement about the medical system.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| I had a similar experience. It was night and day too.
| BeetleB wrote:
| > Why I type this here? I found it interesting that I had to
| discover this cure on my own. The medical system wuldn't have
| figured that out on their own, let alone accept that it was the
| single solution.
|
| It's because studies showing correlation between Vitamin D
| level and winter depression/SAD are mixed.
|
| I'm not saying it's a placebo. If it works for some people -
| great! But you can't expect doctors to recommend it when the
| data is quite unclear.
| lynx23 wrote:
| I am a high risk cancer patient who is blind, i.e. doesn't
| necessarily get a lot of sun exposure due to disability +
| occupation. Given the discussion in this thread regarding
| correlation with lattitude and cancer risk, me being around
| 47 deg, and my personal history, I would have expected a
| caring medical system to suggest vitamin D to me roughly 30
| years ago already. But alas, it turns out you have to do your
| own studies to improve life expectency with our western
| medical system. I could tell you a lot more, regarding being
| abused as a subject for a medical experiment at the age of 7!
| But people like you will always step up and defend the
| system. Observe and learn, I say.
| psychlops wrote:
| I don't usually defend the western system, but there are
| plenty of other systems out there that will caringly
| prescribe you snake oil. Simply understand that the western
| system is science based within a limited range. It is
| usually excellent if the cause of an illness is defined on
| a black and white test. If not, time for the patient to do
| the research.
| agumonkey wrote:
| This is the issue raised by comments like the one above.
| We understand that evidence based medicine handles
| statistical averages very well. But if you fall out of
| that, all you're left with is snake oil salesmen. There's
| a need for an intermediate layer of evidence yet
| "taylored" (and not kidney-costing if possible).
| stringfood wrote:
| [dead]
| BeetleB wrote:
| Consider that while you are one person, a doctor sees many
| patients. They see that prescribing Vitamin D helps almost
| none of their patients in the short term, and they can only
| rely on research for the long term (i.e. they are not
| seeing the same patient over decades).
|
| Doctors run the whole gamut. There certainly are doctors
| who will recommend Vitamin D for any issue under the sun.
| I've been subjected to that, and it totally didn't impact
| the issues I was going to the doctor to see. At the other
| end you'll get doctors who will stick to the official
| guideline (as long as your Vitamin D levels are "normal").
| And you have those in between, who will discuss it with
| you, give you the pros and cons, and will support you in
| your decision.
|
| I've had enough doctors recommend treatments that have
| little backing that I'll happily take the risk and stick to
| the studies. ("No thanks, I won't go for that surgery which
| studies have not shown tackle the problem" (an assessment
| the doctor admitted to only when I asked him directly)). I
| know I'll be wrong on occasion, but I suspect I'll be wrong
| more often if I follow the other path.
|
| Still, you'll get all sorts of doctors, and it shouldn't be
| hard to find one who will happily reflect back to you
| whatever you want to hear.
|
| As for 30 years, the major study associating Vitamin D with
| mortality came out about 15 years ago.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| People are so indoctrinated they for some reason actually
| think most doctors want to help them. I assume they also
| trust their dealerships service advisor.
| jewayne wrote:
| It's so much worse than you think. Almost ALL doctors
| _want_ to help. It 's system (in this case, the
| reimbursement system) that makes it impossible to help,
| even though they want to. The doctors themselves have far
| less agency than you think.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| I actually dated a med student all through medical school
| and thus made a huge social circle of doctors I've kept
| in touch with for over a decade as they all became
| doctors and now have almost a decade of experience too.
|
| I'd say about half want to help, but can not due to the
| system. The other half enjoy maximizing their income
| through the system and don't care either. So that leaves
| very very few that are actually able and willing to
| actually help an average person.
|
| Now, do they help their family and close friends? Yes, as
| much as they still care to and remember how to. Which
| isn't at a very high level either IMO.
|
| Recent example, my friend dislocated his shoulder.
| Immediately was recommended to have surgery and attempts
| were made to schedule. With his insurance, he'd have to
| come out of pocket $7500, which he doesn't really have.
|
| I told him I know many motorcyclists at the pro level
| that dislocate shoulders in crashes, and without surgery
| are back competing on the bike. Only a handful have
| surgery to repair it, usually to stop it from reoccurring
| (since they crash often).
|
| He pressed his doctor on if he really needs the surgery
| and for an explanation why many athletes don't have it
| done and what the reasoning for auto recommending him to
| get it done. Their tone instantly shifted and he chose to
| wait it out. Shoulder back to normal now. Thousands
| saved, and potential medical mistakes saved during the
| surgery.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Shoulder surgery should not be delayed. The probable
| retraction of some damaged parts is not a joke. Your
| friend could have been the lucky one in the pool, but
| there is also a possibility that in a few years the
| problem will grow and the surgery required will be much
| heavier and expensive.
|
| > and without surgery are back competing on the bike.
|
| My bet is that they are on painkillers for life
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| Are you saying that the doctor, upon closer questioning
| simply flopped and gave bad medical advice to my friend
| when they told him that yes it's reasonable to expect to
| regain full shoulder straight again without surgery?
| Because if so maybe my friend should sue? What is this
| blanket statement of "shoulder surgery should not be
| delayed" based on?
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > My bet is that they are on painkillers for life
|
| Also, they are professional athletes at the peak of their
| bodies' physical fitness capacity with teams of doctors,
| physical therapists, and trainers looking after their
| health with a focus that few of us can imagine, and an
| overriding ethos of sacrificing their future health on
| the altar of present performance.
|
| In general, professional athletes' healthcare decisions
| should probably not be used as a gauge for healthcare
| decisions by people with priorities other than "maximal
| physical performance right this moment".
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| If a group of great doctors lets people crashing at
| 180mph ride again without surgery after a shoulder
| dislocation, doesnt that mean that maybe his doctor in
| nonametown USA might be able to learn a thing or two from
| them? Or are they just trying to keep their operating
| room billing hours maxed out? I guess we won't know for
| sure but I have a hunch.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Sure. That doctor could suggest his patients to wear
| kevlar reinforced biker jackets all the time.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| A kevlar jacket isn't going to help stop your shoulder
| from dislocating as your flail around tumbling end over
| end at 100mph.. which is what dislocated the shoulder in
| the first place.
| ipaddr wrote:
| I would say they are the least caring group of society
| followed by nurses. Not their fault. When everyone around
| you is sick all of the time you have to turn off that
| part that cares or you will burn yourself out.
|
| Yourself, family, friends, favourite waitress cares about
| you more than your doctor.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| This is far too US-centric. Western medicine is a lot
| broader than that.
| JoshTko wrote:
| Having experienced several dozen healthcare providers I'd
| say it's more like 50/50. Half clearly have a profit as a
| primary motive.
| robertlagrant wrote:
| > But alas, it turns out you have to do your own studies to
| improve life expectency with our western medical system
|
| It's a shame this possibility wasn't suggested before to
| you, but I have never seen any evidence that western
| medicine isn't one of the primary drivers of global life
| expectancy increases.
| nradov wrote:
| Western medicine is one of the primary drivers of global
| life expectancy increases only though vaccines,
| antibiotics, and trauma care. Other than that it has had
| very little effect: we could eliminate all other forms of
| medical care and average life expectancy would decrease
| only marginally. Public sanitation and food safety
| enforcement have had much larger effects.
|
| Where western medicine has had larger effects is
| increasing _quality_ of life. Now you can get a hip
| replacement to restore your mobility or take a pill to
| fix your erectile dysfunction.
| tornato7 wrote:
| The studies are mixed because there is no one-size-fits-all
| solution to these problems, and a simple remedy that works
| for one person may not work for another. Antidepressants are
| sort of a one-size-fits-all solution because they tackle the
| problem, not the cause of the problem.
|
| Medical doctors will usually jump right to a pharmaceutical
| solution to any problem, even though a little experimentation
| with simpler remedies doesn't hurt. For example, I was
| prescribed a $30k/yr drug with lifetime dependence for a
| problem that I managed to solve with a simple change in diet.
|
| Liability and economic incentives will almost always lead
| doctors to prescribing the most expensive solution to an
| issue, so it's unfortunately up to the patient to figure out
| if there's an alternative solution to their problem.
| casenmgreen wrote:
| As I've become older, I've also found that in winter, my skin
| starts to be a bit unhappy (fingertips on the right hand
| getting rough and a bit broken up, usually, but it can also be
| a bit below the eyes), and my gut starts to be rather unhappy.
| When the sunshine returns, and I get some sun-on-skin time
| during the day, it all goes away. I'm now experimenting with
| vitamin D supplementation.
|
| Regarding your comments about doctors; yes.
|
| I may be completely wrong, but I think they have a revolving
| door of patients, and are restricted to actions which are
| permitted and/or supplied by their institution, or larger,
| national regulator.
|
| I've found that doing my own investigations, usually via
| Eurakalert, leads me to finding a considerable number of
| modern, up to date, wel designed studies, and as a result, and
| also knowing my own body properly, and over all of my life, and
| caring for it in a way which is impossible for a doctor with a
| large number of patients all of whom he gets to see for an
| appointment every month or whatever it is, I give myself
| infinitely better treatment than a doctor.
|
| My experience of institutionalized medicine has been high
| prices, rote treatments, lack of insight or imagination, and on
| one occasion, completely unnecessary full chest x-ray (which I
| would no longer stand for, but I was younger at the time).
|
| The only use I see for them is access to larger treatments,
| such as surgical treatments, which cannot otherwise be
| obtained.
| dcow wrote:
| This (among other things) makes me wonder why we don't have
| better metrics and monitoring solutions for the human body.
| Your option is anecdotal self-diagnosis, or a full blood panel
| after seeing a doctor and convincing them that you need to be
| tested. It seems there's room for a product that monitors your
| health and sends you notifications when you need to address any
| metrics that are falling out of normal tolerances. Or at least
| something that helps you keep on top of preventative health
| visits. Holmes showed it can't really be invasive technology. I
| wonder if some sort of embedded blood monitoring device is
| feasible.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Depending on your location, it is virtually impossible to get
| any real metrics.
|
| A few years ago, inspired by some books I've read about
| nutrition, I tried to get a whole bloodwork done - and then
| another one after a few weeks of the new nutrition regime.
| The idea was to have a data-based approach to changing my
| life.
|
| My doctor was less than helpful ('We only do full bloodwork
| if there is a medical indication, no I won't take your
| money'), and medical labs refused to do so because 'they only
| work with medical practitioners'. Apparently, in Germany,
| there is no way to get some data on my own goddamn body other
| than my height and my weight (things I can determine myself).
|
| I would love to have a service where I send in a blood sample
| / have a blood sample taken, and get back a report, with all
| the values, on an easy to understand bar graph, with lower
| and upper bond of 'healthy'.
|
| Startup idea, anyone?
| tick_tock_tick wrote:
| > Startup idea, anyone?
|
| There are a few of these in the USA especially the Bay
| Area. Hell you can even pay for a full check up that even
| includes an MRI. Last checked the full service was like
| ~$5-6k and that includes pretty much everything you could
| want to know.
|
| I've also been told you can get the same work done in Korea
| for a fraction of the price if your willing to take a
| vacation.
| baristavibes wrote:
| "private" or "self-paid" lab blood tests are pretty common
| here, just across the border in Czech Republic, I'm
| surprised to find out they're unavailable in Germany, do
| you have to route every foreigner through a medical
| professional? Or is the catch that they won't do a "full"
| blood panel?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| You don't have any wellness centers or clinics around you
| that offer blood tests? A full panel costs $80-100 but its
| not expensive for something you can do every few months to
| make sure you're in good health. No need to convince a
| doctor.
| lynx23 wrote:
| I have never digged into the matter, but the closest existing
| thing which resembles your idea is that apparently, in Japan,
| there are toilets which do automatic testing and reporting.
| That seems like a neat idea because it does not require any
| kind of invasive procedure, but it is likely also a bit
| limited in what it can test for.
| lm28469 wrote:
| Half of the western world is overweight/obese (75%+ in the
| US), the vast majority of people are massively malnourished
| and under exercise
|
| The market for that is very small, most of the things that
| kill are known, the solutions are known, there is nothing
| cost effective, no magic pill
|
| Optimize for the basics, you have a long way to go before
| individual tests bring anything to the table. If you don't
| exercise vigorously 5+ times a week, walk 20k steps a day,
| skip alcohol, stop eating processed food, &c. no amount of
| vitamins will extend your life. It's like changing your tires
| every 5000km while skipping oil changes until the engine dies
| loeg wrote:
| Blood panels are expensive and laborious to do with any
| frequency. Your body does a reasonably good job of monitoring
| and remediation on its own.
| dmonitor wrote:
| > Blood panels are expensive and laborious to do with any
| frequency
|
| I believe their implication is that there should be some
| engineering effort to reduce the expense and labor
| alejohausner wrote:
| The global distribution of many types of cancer is strongly
| related to latitude. The farther you are from the equator, the
| higher the rate of disease. The more sun you get, the less
| cancer. It's hard not to infer that sun exposure and thus
| synthesis of vitamin D helps prevent many cancers.
|
| We've been urged to avoid sun exposure because it can cause skin
| cancer. But those cancers are squamous and basal cell carcinomas.
| Those carcinomas are easily cured, and don't usually kill you.
| Melanoma, the truly deadly skin cancer, is more prevalent in
| populations with _less_ sun exposure.
|
| There are lots of interesting graphs on Jeff Bowles' site [^1].
| He's an absolute fan of vitamin D.
|
| ^1:https://jefftbowles.com/vitamin-d3-deficiency-causes-most-
| hu...
| vharuck wrote:
| >Melanoma, the truly deadly skin cancer, is more prevalent in
| populations with less sun exposure.
|
| It's vastly more prevalent in white people versus other skin
| colors. Even at the same latitude. Even in the same country.
| The incidence rate of malignant melanoma in the US is about 30
| times higher for Whites than Blacks.
|
| https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/melan.html
|
| If somebody is White, getting more sun won't prevent melanoma;
| it does the opposite. Sunlight and vitamin D are still good
| things, so White people should spend time outside with
| sunscreen or protective clothing.
| dcow wrote:
| Neither of you are advocating for getting sun burn. That's
| bad. I think what GP is saying is that the overcorrection in
| worrying about skin cancer where people act like they're
| straight up allergic to the sun and avoid it, is actually
| harmful. I've seen this attitude in white people so I know
| what GP is referring to.
| konschubert wrote:
| The statistics you are presenting - have they been corrected
| for life expectancy? Do they also hold across North America ,
| eg comparing Florida to Boston?
| travisporter wrote:
| FYI the tuberculosis chart is actually type 1 diabetes
| subsubzero wrote:
| As someone who spends alot of time outside(as much as I can
| while still working!) and also takes 5000iu of vitamin D, I
| just wanted to say there is moderation in everything. Getting
| too much sun can lead to skin cancer so make sure you are
| wearing sunscreen.
| dagw wrote:
| I worked on a project related to modelling UV and skin cancer
| rates. And what I learnt there is that that big thing that
| causes skin cancer isn't so much total UV exposure over a
| year, but a sudden switch for long periods of no sun to a
| period of intense sun. You see this especially in the Nordic
| countries where it isn't uncommon to go from 4 month of
| getting essentially no sun to 10 days of spending 10 hours a
| day in a bathing suit on a beach in Thailand or Bali.
| andrekandre wrote:
| > essentially no sun to 10 days of spending 10 hours a day
| in a bathing suit on a beach in Thailand or Bali.
|
| is that because there isn't enough melanin built up in the
| skin to prevent damage?
| bitL wrote:
| Taking D3 without K2 gives you atherosclerosis though so it's
| wise to combine the two.
| bilsbie wrote:
| And magnesium!
| millzlane wrote:
| That's true. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29480918/
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Source?
| bitL wrote:
| https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/vitamin-d-and-
| vitamin-k...
| francisofascii wrote:
| Also sunlight during the day helps with melatonin synthesis at
| night, leading to better sleep, leading to less cancer.
| sateesh wrote:
| Can you be specific about what kind of Cancer incidences is
| related to the latitude ? In general I don't think there is a
| good correlation between Cancer incidences and latitude, for
| example India gets plenty of sunshine year around, but Cancer
| incidences are no less.
| evo_9 wrote:
| D3 + MK7 if you really want to amplify its effectiveness.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| What's the source of this? I've seen a lot of D3+k2 caps now.
| ekianjo wrote:
| Not new results. It's been known for a long time.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| We were told that almost everyone that had a covid death was
| either obese or had a vitamin D deficiency, by the CDC itself,
| and yet people will argue if it's important or not to get enough.
| kypro wrote:
| A few thoughts from an autistic bro scientist...
|
| Not being deficient in Vitamin D is not the same as having
| optimal levels of Vitamin D. Optimal levels of Vitamin D are
| probably around 60-70ng/ml, with a bias to upper end of that
| range (in my opinion anyway). I say this because individuals with
| a lot of sun exposure will typically have Vitamin D levels around
| 70ng/ml so this is in my opinion is likely closer to the levels
| of our ancestors. However, a lot of experts would argue 50ng/ml
| is optimal, but I disagree with this primarily because the number
| is based on population averages in populations that are largely
| Vitamin D deficient.
|
| In comparison, to be considered deficient you would generally
| need levels below 20ng/ml which less than a third of what I
| suspect is optimal (and natural).
|
| Again, I'm just an autistic bro scientist, but my understanding
| is that low levels of Vitamin D are strongly associated to higher
| levels of inflammation in the body. We also know that higher
| levels of inflammation in the body are linked to various negative
| health outcomes like depression, impaired immune function, and
| increased cancer risk.
|
| If I were to guess most individuals who develop cancer are older
| and generally less healthy. Given that most people in the West
| don't have optimal levels of Vitamin D in the first place we can
| only assume that those with cancer have even less optimal levels.
|
| Therefore the idea that supplementing Vitamin D in a population
| highly likely to have suboptimal levels of Vitamin D would reduce
| cancer mortality should not be surprising at all. If you live in
| the West you really should consider taking 1,000 - 2,000 IU of
| Vitamin D a day - and perhaps more if you're able to monitor your
| levels to ensure you're not taking too much.
|
| I'm really not a fan of taking supplements in general, but
| Vitamin D is one of the few most people in the West probably
| would benefit from taking at a low dose.
| monkey_monkey wrote:
| What's an autistic bro scientist and why is that relevant?
| ddlutz wrote:
| Anybody vitamin D deficient even after supplementation? I had
| mine checked September of last year, it was low even when taking
| 2000 IU a day, so DR gave me a 50,000 IU pill to take once a
| week. It's still considered deficient, but not as deficient. I
| live in Seattle, so not much sun has been out the past 6 months,
| not sure if that's skewing numbers lower than they are in the
| summer.
| antimora wrote:
| You could try with vitamin K2 mixed. It helps with absorption.
| I tried this: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00ECH40MQ
| thijser wrote:
| There have been many vit D studies before, e.g., this one with
| 25K participants in the USA, which found no effect:
| https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1809944
|
| It's best to look at a meta analysis of all existing data/trials
| instead of focusing on one trial that happens to be positive.
| D13Fd wrote:
| Yeah. I don't know why people seem so invested in pushing
| Vitamin D as a cure for everything.
| felixg3 wrote:
| Nice to see a publication of my literal neighbours posted here.
| Yeah, it's important to mention that this of course only applies
| to people suffering from deficiency, which in Europe is quite
| prevalent.
| generalenvelope wrote:
| Lots of people here are assuming that supplementing vitamin D
| will "treat" a low level of it, which isn't necessarily true. The
| level might not change, but you also might care a lot less than
| you think about the level specifically. Many problems can cause
| the level to be low, and won't be affected by raising it. Highly
| recommend the Barbell Medicine podcast on Vitamin D:
| https://soundcloud.com/user-344313169/vitamin-d-mixdown-1
| lez wrote:
| For the overcautious theoretic thinkers here, I recommend reading
| about Coimbra protocol, where 50,000 IU daily is not rare. It can
| go up to 300,000 IU per day.
|
| At levels above 10,000 IU per day you should take precautions to
| prevent calcification of the soft tissues: Take Vitamin K
| (100-200ug), Boron (10-20mg) to prevent calcification. Vitamin A
| should be dosaged at a ration 1:1 - 1:4 compared to Vit D (same
| amount or 4 times more of vitamin A) because A and D are
| anthagonists.
|
| Below 10,000 IU there's only benefits of better health and no
| risk or precautions needed.
| ufo wrote:
| I'm not sure if a quack doctor's miracle cure "protocol" is a
| good point of comparison...
|
| https://veja.abril.com.br/saude/medicos-questionam-tratament...
| hannob wrote:
| "When all 14 studies were pooled, no statistically significant
| results emerged. However, when the studies were divided according
| to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher
| doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was
| seen."
|
| This sounds fishy. Sounds like their primary result was nothing,
| and then they looked for something else. Would require some
| checking if they had a preregistration, if this was registered as
| a secondary resuld and if they had done a proper statistica
| analysis of multiple outocmes.
| cscheid wrote:
| Yes, exactly. There's a real-life example of an author group
| who got sufficiently annoyed at a reviewer requesting an
| inappropriate subgroup analysis:
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
| Reviewers asked for the subgroup analysis; authors said "no,
| this is statistically nonsense"; reviewers said "yes, but we'll
| reject the paper otherwise"; reviewers said "ok, but only if
| you let us also split on astrological sign".
|
| Result: paper reports that aspirin has an effect, but only if
| you're not a Gemini or Libra. Too good.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| The two signs bracketing the summer months (I presume this
| was in the northern hemisphere?). That's a potentially
| interesting finding.
|
| > inappropriate subgroup analysis
|
| No subgroup is inappropriate unless you know all of the
| values of all of the parameters. But sure, the intent they
| tried to demonstrate (take all sub-group analyses with a
| grain of salt) is a good thing to remember.
|
| Edit: To whoever downvoted me, time of year of birth does
| have real-world effects.
| https://www.livescience.com/13958-birth-month-health-
| effects...
|
| > Previous studies have found similar links between spring
| births and various disorders, including schizophrenia,
| multiple sclerosis and even Type 1 diabetes. It's possible
| these diseases are linked to some environmental influence
| during gestation or the first few months of life, though
| researchers aren't sure what that could be.
|
| > The leading candidates including vitamin D levels,
| infections that come and go seasonally, changes in nutrition,
| and even possibly weather fluctuations, Handunnetthi told
| LiveScience.
|
| Now perhaps all of this is just bad science and these
| correlations are just statistical anomalies. But perhaps they
| aren't.
| throwaway646465 wrote:
| I think you got downvotes because you misunderstood what
| people were taking umbrage with in the first example.
|
| It's not that birth time can never have real effects. It's
| that if you keep rolling a die long enough, eventually
| you'll hit a "statically unlikely" event like rolling 4
| fives in a row or hitting 1 2 3 4 in order.
|
| Extraneous sub group analysis are like rolling the die
| again. Say you're searching for a p-value of .05 with a
| confidence interval of 95%. That means 19 out of 20 times
| it's indicative of a real relationship and 1 out of 20
| times it was due to random chance.
|
| If you do a bunch of extraneous sub group analyses like the
| reviewer wanted, you're banking on the statistical
| likelihood that eventually you'll get the result you want
| even if it's not a real relationship.
| cscheid wrote:
| > No subgroup is inappropriate unless you know all of the
| values of all of the parameters
|
| I don't know how to put it less bluntly: you're incorrect.
|
| > But sure, the intent they tried to demonstrate (take all
| sub-group analyses with a grain of salt)
|
| That's not what they intended to demonstrate. They intended
| to demonstrate that you need a _reason_ to want to split,
| and that reason needs to be given _ahead_ of the analysis.
| If you see the results _and then choose_ a new data
| analysis (that includes new subgroup analyses), your
| procedure is no longer statistically sound.
|
| This is a specifically bad statistical practice called
| HARKing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HARKing
| bsder wrote:
| Your understanding of significance is flawed, and there is
| an XKCD for that: https://xkcd.com/882/
| SoylentYellow wrote:
| That's great for Geminis and Libras, but what if you're a
| Sagittarius?
| cypress66 wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/882/
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Would require some checking if they had a preregistration,
| if this was registered as a secondary resuld and if they had
| done a proper statistica analysis of multiple outocmes._
|
| You should do that. Meanwhile, I'm going to (continue to) take
| a daily vitamin D, because I recognize not everything can be
| confirmed by a double-blind experiment, and the cost is low.
| [deleted]
| pella wrote:
| > _" I'm going to (continue to) take a daily vitamin D,
| because I recognize not everything can be confirmed by a
| double-blind experiment, and the cost is low."_
|
| Or it may be possible to prove the opposite, as with the
| parachute.
|
| bmj: "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when
| jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
|
| https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094
|
| _Results: Parachute use did not significantly reduce death
| or major injury (0% for parachute v 0% for control; P >0.9).
| This finding was consistent across multiple subgroups.
| Compared with individuals screened but not enrolled,
| participants included in the study were on aircraft at
| significantly lower altitude (mean of 0.6 m for participants
| v mean of 9146 m for non-participants; P<0.001) and lower
| velocity (mean of 0 km/h v mean of 800 km/h; P<0.001)._
|
| _" Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major
| traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first
| randomized evaluation of this intervention. However, the
| trial was only able to enroll participants on small
| stationary aircraft on the ground, suggesting cautious
| extrapolation to high altitude jumps. When beliefs regarding
| the effectiveness of an intervention exist in the community,
| randomized trials might selectively enroll individuals with a
| lower perceived likelihood of benefit, thus diminishing the
| applicability of the results to clinical practice."_
|
| disclaimer:
|
| I am pro-Parachute! I believe 100% in the effectiveness of
| the parachute!
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, in addition to the XKCD comic it also reminds me of
| "Spurious Correlations" lol https://tylervigen.com/spurious-
| correlations
| tuukkah wrote:
| > _This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before
| data collection to preclude data-driven analyses and selective
| reporting (CRD42020185566). In addition, the methods, including
| the selection criteria, the statistical analysis, outcomes, and
| subgroup and sensitivity analyses, were published in advance in
| a study protocol (Schottker et al., 2021)._
|
| EDIT: And in the protocol, the first subgroup analysis they
| list is relevant:
|
| > _Daily dose versus weekly /monthly bolus dose versus bolus
| dose at the beginning of the trial followed by a daily dose_
| https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/1/e041607
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| D3 (animal-based) > D2 (plant-based) > D1 (synthetic), at least
| in humans if you read the literature, that is.
|
| The fishy thing is how actual scientists do whole studies using
| only D1 and then draw conclusions.
| [deleted]
| tuukkah wrote:
| Plant-based D3 exists, extracted from seaweed.
| miles wrote:
| Vegan D3 can also be derived from lichen; here's one such
| product:
|
| https://www.futurekind.com/products/vegan-vitamin-d3
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| I was unaware, thanks.
| Filligree wrote:
| My takeaway is to keep eating fish.
| nomel wrote:
| Thanks to our polluted waters, there are pretty harsh
| limits to fish consumption [1] these days.
|
| [1] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fish/#:~:t
| ext=E....
| crazygringo wrote:
| No, you'd basically have to eat salmon all day long every
| day to have any meaningful effect.
|
| Eating fish is not a viable or realistic way of maintaining
| healthy vitamin D levels. You have to either get sunlight
| or take a supplement.
|
| (And I love fish, I eat salmon daily sometimes, but I still
| supplement with D3.)
| reaperman wrote:
| For D3, yes. But for Omega-3's, a little bit of salmon
| goes a looooong way.
| ramoz wrote:
| Be careful with that (if you're treating cancer):
| https://www.cancernetwork.com/view/fish-oil-consumption-
| link...
|
| Im not sure where this study landed in cancer communities
| or what subsequent studies concluded. But it's worth
| noting.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Overfishing is serious enough at this point that I'd rather
| take a small health risk than contribute to it.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| A lot of fish you would buy at the supermarket is farm-
| raised. Especially catfish, salmon, and tilapia.
| timeon wrote:
| Good thing about farm-raised fish is that it is less
| contaminated, because it is usually mostly plant-fed. But
| it also makes it less nutritious.
| CodeWriter23 wrote:
| Depends on what materials one classifies as a
| "contaminant".
| [deleted]
| bt4u wrote:
| [dead]
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Does aquaponic tilapia not have D3?
| vixen99 wrote:
| I hope I've not misunderstood but if you are saying
| vitamin D deficiency is a 'small health risk' then that
| needs correction. Never mind the validity or not of the
| paper in question. Anyone reviewing the peer-reviewed
| literature on vitamin D for the last decade or so would
| conclude it's a very bad idea indeed to be deficient. For
| those who don't get much sun exposure, a blood test is
| recommended and will put people on the right track.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Not sure why you are being downvoted. Salmon (mentioned
| in other siblings) is a perfect example of over fishing,
| and the farmed stuff tends to be of terrible quality and
| fed absolute garbage/treated terribly.
| tablarasa wrote:
| Salmon is found in high-latitude systems around the globe
| in both hemispheres. Overfishing is something that occurs
| to populations, not species. Most of the salmon
| populations that I am familiar with are not over-fished,
| but have suffered from spawning habitat loss due to dams
| and logging. Those are major issues and they continue to
| negatively affect those populations; you are doing the
| loggers and dam builders a favor by blaming fishing,
| which is far easier (and more politically palatable) to
| regulate.
| apomekhanes wrote:
| Fish seem to be a very important component of the most
| healthful human diets, AFAIK, likely/mostly grounded in
| various aspects of evolution - some more on the side of
| actual 'selection pressure', some more on the side of
| chance and 'doesn't break things in a way that really
| matters' (i.e., successful enough reproduction / survival
| until ages required for reproduction).
|
| That said, and in light of the comment from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=AlecSchueler, in
| particular - many of the most essential nutrients /
| 'micronutrients' that are obtained from eating fish are
| actually not made by fish themselves. Rather, fish
| 'concentrate' these substances as they go about their own
| business of survival. For example, vitamin D3, DHA, EPA,
| etc. Consequently, there are much more readily available
| 'vegan' sources of these substances, derived directly from
| the fundamental source(s) - microalgae and the like.
|
| FYI (to all).
|
| Overfishing IS a serious problem. Our activities, in
| general, are at a scale, and grounded in processes, these
| days, that produce significant impacts on the environment.
| Frankly, in the 'great scheme' of things, it doesn't matter
| a whit. Humans, and even this planet, are not even a
| droplet in the ocean of the universe, as far as we / I can
| even get any sort of a solid handle on _that_ concept, now.
| But, that doesn 't absolve us of any responsibility for
| trying not to absolutely annihilate OUR home.
|
| It's disgusting to be GIVEN so much (none of us had much
| hand in almost anything that exists now, even what we've
| 'built' - we can't create atoms, we don't choose when,
| where, or to whom we are born, many of the opportunities we
| are afforded in a 'given life', etc.), and treat it as
| casually as so many do - to be so entitled as many seem to
| be.
|
| But then, the universe (/ God / gods / whatever concept you
| prefer) will always have the final say. It'd just be nice
| to not F things up for everyone else, IMO.
|
| EDIT: I hope the latter bits, above, don't come off as too
| moralizing - not my intention ... it's difficult to avoid
| some frustration with some of what the news inundates us
| with every day, I find.
|
| More importantly - vitamin D3 is also readily produced in
| our own bodies with enough of the right kind of sunlight
| (dependent also on skin tone, age, kidney & liver function
| [etc.], and, ultimately, 'height of the sun in the sky' -
| i.e., enough ~290-300nm UV rays penetrating the atmosphere
| at the angle of inclination / solar zenith angle /
| whichever concept/quantification you prefer). And, this is
| actually not much at all. While skin cancer is, itself, a
| risk - this should, of course, be weighed against the
| importance of vitamin D3 itself. This comment is already
| REALLY long, but basically, for latitudes close enough to
| the 'Tropics', typically only 10 - 20 minutes of sun around
| noon in summer would be necessary. Winter is trickier. Here
| are a few links that may be useful for more info (in
| general, Pubmed - searching for review articles, etc. - is
| usually a good place to start, IMO - depending on how
| comfortable you are with reading these types of articles,
| otherwise, backtracing to those that cite them, especially,
| the efforts at more 'popular press' descriptions of
| research now produced by journals like Science etc.):
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32918212/
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28516265/
|
| https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/110/1/150/5487983
|
| ... The 'Linus Pauling Institute' also seems to have, in my
| past experience, quite good information on
| 'micronutrients', in particular (with good citations,
| etc.), for all of Pauling's actual more tenuous beliefs
| (himself, in later life) about vitamin C:
|
| https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/vitamins/vitamin-D
| phkahler wrote:
| >> This sounds fishy. Sounds like their primary result was
| nothing
|
| If you combine results from a bunch of studies that really
| didn't do anything, it's going to mask the results from the
| ones that did.
| mlyle wrote:
| Sure... but conversely, if you keep dividing up and analyzing
| in different ways, eventually you'll get a p<0.05 result.
|
| This is why you "call your shot" before beginning the
| analysis. Otherwise, people will be suspicious you just
| jiggered things around until you found something.
| oldgradstudent wrote:
| Maybe, but with 14 studies you have ~2^14 ways to split the
| studies into two groups.
|
| If you test multiple hypotheses, you have too adjust the
| p-value accordingly.
|
| Have the authors disclosed how many alternative hypotheses
| were tested until the result in the article was found to be
| significant?
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| P-values don't prove anything about whether an effect is
| real or not. They, at most, provide some degree of
| confidence with the presumption that the independent and
| dependent variables are indeed independent and dependent.
|
| P-values should, at most, be used to direct further
| mechanistic studies (if possible). Only use them on their
| lonesome if this hasn't yet been done, or isn't possible.
| And if that's the case, reverify them independently (such
| as by doing another meta-analysis using different data).
| [deleted]
| trevorkoob wrote:
| 15 minutes of full-body UV exposure from the sun is estimated
| to provide the equivalent of 20-30,000 IU Vitamin D3.
|
| There is a definite need for studies that better determine the
| effective dose for D3.
|
| My research led me to the conclusion that studies should be
| done based not on standardized supplementation, but instead
| supplementation to a standardized blood serum level.
| bitL wrote:
| Simpson's paradox is well known - aggregate often has different
| statistical properties than individual parts.
| mholm wrote:
| That's what's confusing me: 105,000 participants in a study
| should have resulted in thousands of cancer deaths, a 12% drop
| should be pretty noticeable even with 10% of the data.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| How exactly are you getting "should have resulted in
| thousands of cancer deaths"?
|
| A population of 100,000 should expect to see 144.1 deaths[1].
|
| If you evenly divide the study group into two 52,500-sized
| groups(treatment + control), each group should expect to see
| 72 deaths. A 12% drop in one of the groups is 8.6 deaths. As
| a colleague would say, that's very few clams from which to
| make a chowder.
|
| Perhaps the researchers are using more advanced tools than I
| am, but even assuming a 12% difference between treatment and
| control does not result in a chi-squared test with any
| reasonable significance. ie: the null-hypothesis(there is no
| difference between groups) cannot be rejected.
|
| 1. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/update-on-cancer-
| de...
| mholm wrote:
| 144.1 deaths per year. Presumably these studies lasted
| multiple years. Though I'll admit this was less than I
| expected, which would explain the differing results.
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| Thank you! Yes, the time frame is important, d'uh lol.
| craig_s_bell wrote:
| In that circumstance, I've heard that vitamins and supplements
| can be tricky; the additional nutrition may feed the cancer,
| before it feeds you. Just one more factor to consider.
| beefman wrote:
| As usual the abstract of the source paper is clearer, easier to
| read, and more detailed
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37004841/
| ramoz wrote:
| > However, when the studies were divided according to whether
| vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher doses
| administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was seen.
| In the four studies with the infrequent hogher doses, there was
| no effect on cancer mortality. In contrast, in the summary of the
| ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a
| statistically significant twelve percent reduction in cancer
| mortality.
|
| What exactly is the recommendation here, low or higher doses? or
| something else because Im struggling to understand this
| belltaco wrote:
| If you read further they found that lower daily doses were
| better.
|
| > In contrast, in the summary of the ten studies with daily
| dosing, the researchers determined a statistically significant
| twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality
|
| > In the studies, daily low doses were 400 to 4000 IU per day,
| and higher-doses administered at longer intervals were 60,000
| to 120,000 IU once per month or less.
| ramoz wrote:
| ah, daily==lower
| secondcoming wrote:
| I'm in the UK and the max dosage I can get for Vitamin D in
| my local supermarket pharmacy is 1000 IU
| nairboon wrote:
| Frequent low doses. The other time/quantity combinations were
| either not studied or had no effect.
| Filligree wrote:
| Did they test "high dose taken frequently" at all? Bearing in
| mind that the guideline vitamin-D daily dose target is set at
| just about the lowest possible value that doesn't cause obvious
| deficiencies.
| nanofortnight wrote:
| Vitamin D is fat soluble, and thus you can overdose on it.
| High dose frequently is not recommended, and most high dose
| supplements will have warning labels about vitaminosis.
| ramoz wrote:
| I've also been told to be careful with any vitamin
| supplements while on chemo, and to consult a cancer
| dietician before conducting you're own science... the
| reason, as I understand it as a patient, is that high
| oxidation can actually keep cancer cells strong and healthy
| enough to create chemoresistance.
| ben7799 wrote:
| You need to take extreme amounts of it for months to
| overdose.
|
| Something like 40,000-100,000IU/day for several months.
|
| That's 8-20 pills per day of the most potent D3 commonly
| available.
| tuukkah wrote:
| From the footnotes:
|
| > _In the studies, daily low doses were 400 to 4000 IU per
| day, and higher-doses administered at longer intervals were
| 60,000 to 120,000 IU once per month or less._
| generalenvelope wrote:
| There is no recommendation made here. These are observations
| and far from clinical guidelines, or anything any doctor would
| recommend you do.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Given that D3 is dirt cheap and lots of us are low in it, is
| there any downside to taking a reasonable daily dose?
| generalenvelope wrote:
| It costs money and won't necessarily do anything about the
| levels / the things that were causing the levels to be low in
| the first place. Highly recommend this deep dive:
| https://soundcloud.com/user-344313169/vitamin-d-mixdown-1
| atombender wrote:
| Your skin releases around 10,000 IU if you spend an hour
| outside in full sun in the summer. So that, at least, should be
| quite safe. This article from the Mayo Clinic argues that
| vitamin D toxicity has been vastly overstated. [1]
|
| [1]
| https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%281...
| funnym0nk3y wrote:
| Besides unneccessary expenses? I don't think so. 2000 IE should
| be fine, and thats with a safety margin of 2.
| icedchai wrote:
| I was taking 3000 IU of D3 for years. When COVID hit, I upped
| that to 5000 and have kept it there since.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Depends on the definition of reasonable. D3 is fat soluble and
| if you take too much for years it can accumulate too much in
| your body.
|
| I'd say 2,500 IU is max to take daily without infrequent blood
| tests to calibrate the optimum.
| tric wrote:
| I think vitamin D deficiency explains moderate hair loss in some
| people. Just based on my own experience. I don't think enough
| people mention it.
| nabla9 wrote:
| TL;DR Vitamin D * _deficiency*_ is cancer risk and relatively
| common. High doses don 't work.
|
| >When all 14 studies were pooled, no statistically significant
| results emerged. However, when the studies were divided according
| to whether vitamin D3 was taken daily in a low dose* or in higher
| doses administered at longer intervals*, a large difference was
| seen. In the four studies with the infrequent hogher doses, there
| was no effect on cancer mortality. In contrast, in the summary of
| the ten studies with daily dosing, the researchers determined a
| statistically significant twelve percent reduction in cancer
| mortality.
|
| >"We observed this twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality
| after untargeted vitamin D3 administration to individuals with
| and without vitamin D deficiency. We can therefore assume that
| the effect is significantly higher for those people who are
| actually vitamin D deficient,"
| ck2 wrote:
| Last century they insisted Vitamin C prevents/cures cancer.
|
| This century it's Vitamin D with the same level of insistence.
|
| Don't hold your breath.
|
| Abstract says it all: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20799507/
| thenerdhead wrote:
| Abstract literally says vitamin C has potential as a cancer-
| fighting agent and protective against certain types of cancers
| too.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| You know that both of these are called "Vitamins" because they
| are essential to human health? You will have increased risk of
| many health problems with deficiencies.
| bregma wrote:
| Not enough is bad so more than enough must be better?
| reducesuffering wrote:
| TFA starts with "Vitamin D deficiency is widespread
| worldwide and is particularly common among cancer
| patients."
|
| and concludes "in the summary of the ten studies with daily
| dosing, the researchers determined a statistically
| significant twelve percent reduction in cancer mortality."
|
| So yes, not enough is bad, and many require supplementation
| to get to an ideal level. Nowhere was anyone proposing
| overdosing.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I've been taking a daily vitamin D supplement since COVID-19
| broke out in the USA. I believe there's a lot of evidence that
| many people are deficient in vitamin D. I don't know if
| supplements are the best way to attack that but it's one of the
| easiest ways. Getting daily sun exposure isn't always convenient
| and not really possible for a good chunk of the year since we
| have real winter here.
| scottlamb wrote:
| > I don't know if supplements are the best way to attack that
| but it's one of the easiest ways.
|
| I've also tried to get my RDA of Vitamin D every day. Often I
| get it from fortified (coconut) milk and a multi-vitamin. But I
| prefer to include fish. I'm particularly fond of canned
| sardines [1] because they're a long-shelf-life pantry item,
| they're a relatively inexpensive protein, they have lots of
| omega-3s and fit my low-carb diet, and (unlike tuna) they're
| low enough on the food chain that you can eat them daily
| without excess heavy metal intake, and iiuc they're a more
| sustainable fish option. I think sardines have a bad reputation
| for taste because people lump them in with anchovies, which can
| be incredibly salty and fishy. I find sardines to be much more
| mild and versatile. I find they taste best alongside acids
| (lemon juice, vinegar, tomato) and maybe creamy fats
| (avocado/guac, cream cheese). You can add them to salad, toast,
| pasta, pizza, or even just inside a bell pepper.
|
| Here's a good simple recipe for someone trying sardines for the
| first time: https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-
| brown/sherried-sar...
|
| [1] the tiny, two-layer per can kind
| hattmall wrote:
| Sardines are good, I love them, but they definitely smell
| strongly and so will you if you eat them frequently. I wonder
| if there anything similar without the smell? Honestly for the
| reasons you listed though sardines are kind of a super food
| imo.
| scottlamb wrote:
| > Sardines are good, I love them, but they definitely smell
| strongly and so will you if you eat them frequently.
|
| Not sure I agree. It might help that I buy the smaller
| sardines (as mentioned above) and combine them with acid. I
| just did a search and both of those things were recommended
| as ways to reduce odor. I also generally eat them at room
| temp rather than cooking them, which I'm sure makes a big
| difference in their smell. I also haven't had any
| complaints about _my_ smell, but they 'd be mostly from my
| family as I'm a remote worker... /shruggie
|
| > I wonder if there anything similar without the smell?
|
| Maybe salmon and mackerel? I think they're in the middle of
| the food chain (where sardines and tuna are more at the
| extremes) and similarly between in fat content.
|
| > Honestly for the reasons you listed though sardines are
| kind of a super food imo.
|
| Yeah, I think if sardines aren't a superfood, the word
| doesn't mean anything at all...
| Etheryte wrote:
| Regarding deficiency, your GP can measure this for you for
| nearly no to no cost. No matter what your reasoning for taking
| some, it's always good to check what the baseline you're
| dealing with actually is before. For context, I'm from a
| country where low vitamin D levels are very common so I had a
| test done a few times throughout the year and turns out I've
| never been under the recommended levels.
| hanoz wrote:
| Your high latitude health service must be better than mine. I
| can hardly imagine my GP's receptionist's reaction if I tried
| to book an appointment to check my baseline vitamin D levels!
| oppositelock wrote:
| I have some hard numbers on this in my own health. I'm a pasty
| north European living in California and I get plenty of
| sunshine, as I enjoy the outdoors. As I got older, I got
| increasingly more viral infections and strep throat was a twice
| a year affair. It didn't occur to me that I could be vitamin-D
| deficient, but I was, severely. For some reason, 10+ hours of
| sunshine a week isn't enough for me to make my own.
|
| Over months, I tracked my blood vitamin D levels as I took
| supplements, and now I know that the 2500IU dose is enough to
| keep me at nominal levels - the higher doses cause it to build
| up too much and would eventually cause liver issues.
|
| I know it's anecdotal, but in the few years since I did this,
| those recurrent sicknesses have vanished. I'm also taking
| vitamin B, which is another one you get less efficient at
| absorbing as you age.
| _trackno5 wrote:
| Just because you get plenty of sunlight where you live it
| doesn't mean you get enough exposure to produce vitamin D.
|
| You need to expose large areas of your body like legs, arms,
| and torso for several minutes to an hour. If those areas are
| covered, sunlight won't do much.
|
| The Sigma Nutrition podcast has an excellent episode on that:
| https://sigmanutrition.com/episode438/
| oppositelock wrote:
| Nah, for me, that wasn't sufficient. I get at least 10
| hours a week of full sun on my whole arms and legs and
| sometimes my torso if I decide to bike shirtless; more sun
| than most people, and still, I was vitamin D deficient.
| nicenewtemp84 wrote:
| Did you wear sunscreen? I'm pretty sure it blocks vitamin
| d creation, which really makes me wonder how any of my
| GFs Ive had ever got any since they wear it religiously
| in hopes of keeping youthful skin.
| maxk42 wrote:
| What do you use for tracking your blood vitamin D levels?
| jghn wrote:
| > Over months, I tracked my blood vitamin D levels
|
| OOC what did you use to do this?
| oppositelock wrote:
| Monthly blood tests prescribed by a doctor at a local
| bloodwork lab.
| jghn wrote:
| Did you have a challenge getting them to initiate that?
| I'd imagine once you're shown to be severely deficient
| it's easier, but there's a chicken & egg.
| rocket_surgeron wrote:
| If your primary care provider won't do at least one
| vitamin-d test per year, and then periodic tests once a
| deficiency is identified, you should get a new primary
| care provider.
|
| If that's not an option, non-prescription at-home tests
| are available in the US for as low as $49.
|
| I don't know about monthly, I think a 60-day followup
| after treatment in order to titrate your supplementation
| might be best (it takes time for supplementation to
| work), but at-home tests are an option if your provider
| is for some inexplicable reason, reluctant.
|
| As far as I can tell, the only harm from supplementation
| comes when the typical adult consistently consumes doses
| so high as to be absurd (50,000+ IU daily for months) so
| I don't know why any medical professional would be
| hesitant to investigate such a common health issue with
| such an easy, inexpensive, and effective treatment.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Where is that mythical theranos machine when you need
| one, smh.
| jghn wrote:
| > I believe there's a lot of evidence that many people are
| deficient in vitamin D.
|
| This brings up something I always wonder when these things come
| up. I agree with what you said, and there's a lot of evidence
| that this is bad. But I've seen mixed results over time as to
| whether or not vitamin d _supplementation_ has a beneficial
| effect. I assume it 's an "it depends on the effect" and
| sometimes yes and sometimes no
| jcadam wrote:
| Yep. I live in Alaska and my doc checks vitamin D levels as a
| routine part of my annual physical.
| pookha wrote:
| I'm on board with Vitamin D but I've learned from experience that
| if you over-do it with a D3 supplement (being ill) you'll have
| some interesting heart palpitations. Which case buckle up.
| andsoitis wrote:
| > Vitamin D deficiency is widespread worldwide
|
| Even in the Southern Hemisphere?
| qingcharles wrote:
| I didn't get to go outside for 10 years as I was locked in a
| cell. Does anyone know if this length of sunlight deprivation has
| a long-term nonreversible effect?
|
| (I also had no window, no access to supplements, or any choice of
| nutrition)
| frickinLasers wrote:
| It's maybe a good time to re-post this in-depth series on vitamin
| D supplementation. You don't want to take too much.
|
| https://www.devaboone.com/post/vitamin-d-part-2-shannon-s-st...
| ntonozzi wrote:
| That article is so weird:
|
| > Of course, there is a selection bias in who comes to me.
| There are people out there doing just fine on 5000 units of
| Vitamin D daily. I only see the ones who develop high calcium
| levels. But I see enough of them to know that this is not an
| exceptionally rare occurrence. I have been to lectures in which
| physicians have claimed that Vitamin D toxicity almost never
| occurs. In my experience, this is false. I have seen many cases
| of Vitamin D toxicity in people who were taking the recommended
| dose from an over-the-counter bottle.
|
| She is an extremely specialized professional who is referred
| and treats people with this condition. Of course it's not rare
| in her experience! For all we know, she could be one of a
| hundred parathyroid specialists in the country, and only 1 in
| 100000 people who take Vitamin D get Vitamin D toxicity. The
| author should really provide some evidence on how common this
| is.
| frickinLasers wrote:
| The point is it's a hormone--not, like, ascorbic acid or
| something. It's good to be aware that it can poison you,
| especially when the "vitamin" label can make it seem
| harmless.
| atombender wrote:
| The Mayo Clinic thinks otherwise:
| https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196%281...
|
| Another article about the findings:
| https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/vitamin-d-toxi...
| frickinLasers wrote:
| Your link is broken.
| atombender wrote:
| Fixed. Don't know what happened there.
| mattchew wrote:
| Our family started taking Vitamin D at the start of the pandemic.
| We've all gotten sick a lot less than we used to, despite one of
| us working at a drugstore constantly exposed to sick people.
|
| Of course I don't know for sure that the Vitamin D is causal
| here, but it's my best guess. I suspect a lot of people are D
| deficient and just don't know it.
| counterpartyrsk wrote:
| Like others, I discovered my mood is significantly increased when
| consistently taking vitamin D
| chasil wrote:
| My local grocer offered free Vitamin D tests early this year, and
| it was my first.
|
| It was quite low.
|
| My physician recommended 5,000 IU for 90 days, then 1,500 after.
| I'll test again next year for my physical.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-09 23:01 UTC)