I don't doubt you but I also wonder what you base this information on.

In 2020 I test results for vitamin D was ridiculous low. I have been taking supplements

Jan 02, 2020 4:32 pm 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D Total 9 ng/mL 30-100 ng/mL

I took me five years just to get to something close to the lowest end of normal.

I was started on supplements in the in 2k IU and after poor progress boosted to 5k IU everyday to get to this level.

I have been spending the past year on a sailboat instead of server room and look forward to seeing my test results.

> My doctor said she’s seeing a huge number of patients coming back with excessively high Vitamin D levels after taking supplement doses recommended by influencers. It happened to me, too, with what I though was a conservative dose of Vitamin D (5K IU, not even taken every day)

IMO that’s part of what’s interesting about this study design — they tested vitamin D blood levels and adjusted the supplement dose based on that. This seems like a much better approach than taking a high dose blindly.

I think the headline is accurate. The 52% number is from the experiment arm (participants who received a vitamin D supplement, with the quantity guided by blood testing). While it’s technically possible for the supplement dosage to be calculated as zero, 85% of participants were deficient at baseline, so this isn’t the main effect.

I believe there's also a Finnish vit-d study which showed very good results in afib protection

Would it change practice substantially? I thought that typically vitamin D levels are measured at least annually and treated if low.

Of course, we get less sun from being outdoors less and wearing more sunscreen. This isn't just a possibility, this is generally understood.

Well, most of us certainly spend much less time outside than common folks in preindustrial societies.

Probably yet I don't see much direct connection. People were not having less heart attacks or heart attacks later in life. I suppose testing a vitamin D theory to significance may not have been easy before ~1980 because of many other causes of heart attack having higher frequency.

FTA under "TARGET-D study Caveats"

  There are two main caveats to the TARGET-D study. First, this was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions, but the full manuscript isn’t out yet. It’s possible the results will end up not being statistically significant, having a methodological flaw, and so on. In the presented results, the reduction in heart attack risk was statistically significant but the change in overall death and stroke risk had a p value > 0.05. Second, while Vitamin D seems to be an effective intervention to reduce heart attack risk, we don’t yet know whether Vitamin D is an independent marker of heart disease risk or whether it’s reflecting known mechanisms such as inflammation and calcification.

One web search away. It was apparently a conference presentation but is well reported in medical media:

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/heart-attack-risk-halved-in-...

https://www.hcplive.com/view/target-d-optimized-vitamin-d-do...

The 365º view of your heart health was supposed to be a joke. Although not necessarily a good one. :)

The study was presented at the AHA scientific sessions; full manuscript isn't out yet. It's in the caveats section in the article.

I was put on 5000IU D2 and I got kidney stones, twice. The doctor wouldn't believe that the D2 was the cause, but I stopped taking it and the stones have not recurred.

I would like to bring my D levels up, but not at the expense of kidney stones.

50K IU in a single dose is probably a bad idea. You’d also want D3 generally.

is that daily?

I'm taking same dose, 50000UI but bi-weekly and it's D3, not D2.