| ▲ | Aurornis 7 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The headline is poorly worded. The 52% number was for people with Vitamin D levels within a certain range, whether or not they took supplements EDIT: The study was also performed exclusively on patients who presented with acute coronary syndrome. Average age was over 60, nearly 80% were men, and half had already had at least one heart attack. Keep that context in mind when reading numbers about the patients in the study. This is a heavily biased sample, which is fine for the purposes of the study but important to remember. > Participants in the experiment arm who stayed within 40-80 ng/mL of vitamin D had a 52% lower risk of a repeat heart attack. The study did use supplements to get people into that range if necessary, but the important thing is to keep your Vitamin D in that range, not specifically to just take supplements. There’s a lot of claims online that everyone’s Vitamin D is too low and we should all be taking very high dose supplements, but it’s getting exaggerated. 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) So you really have to check. Even though I work indoors and wear sunscreen a lot, apparently my diet and limited sun exposure alone are sufficient for staying in this range. Others will have different results. Don’t guess! Also remember that Vitamin D levels change slowly. Supplementation can build up and accumulate in the body over time if you’re taking too much. You want to stabilize on a dose and then check in 3-6 months. Some people get a low Vitamin D result and start taking high doses every day, then a year or two later they’re into hypervitaminosis D and have no way to clear it other than waiting for it to be processed out. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | detourdog 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | brandonb 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | tim-tday 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the vitamin d levels are not due to supplements the answer is that people who go outside get more sun and more exercise. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||