Comment by rendaw

Comment by rendaw 4 days ago

12 replies

View on Hacker News

The abstract wasn't clear to me, but looking it up FDA recommends 20mcg = 800 IU, and the paper recommends 8000 IU. It seems like others are more conservative (7000 IU).

I don't think I've ever seen the 20mcg rec, everywhere I've seen was something like 2000 (and that's what the supplements come as), but P appears correct.

What was the math error that led to this? And I'm curious now how to get 8000 IU. Just take a bunch of pills all at once in the morning?

The paper referenced Finland, which seems like a strong confirmation of safety, but the best information I could find was https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/foodstuffs/healthy-diet/natio... . What effective IU dose are people getting in Finland with these changes?

hammock 4 days ago

> I don't think I've ever seen the 20mcg rec

The 20mcg rec (the wrong rec) is quite literally on every single nutrition label in America that has Vitamin D. Maybe you haven’t noticed it. Surely you’ve seen it if you’re in the U.S.

https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-facts-label/daily-value-n...

> What was the math error that led to this? And I'm curious now how to get 8000 IU. Just take a bunch of pills all at once in the morning?

Read the paper I posted. And it is easy to find 5000iu and 10000iu capsules at a drug store.

Reply View 2 replies
  • voisin 4 days ago

    > it is easy to find 5000iu and 10000iu capsules at a drug store

    Not in Canada!

    Reply View 1 reply
    • hammock 3 days ago

      Good to know. Guess there are still a few good things about American healthcare system

      Reply View 0 replies
stavros 4 days ago

What I don't understand is how it's possible for 90% of people to have a vitamin D deficiency, or whatever that crazy number was. Surely by that point it's just normal?

Reply View 8 replies
  • Jensson 4 days ago

    Its also normal to be overweight and need glasses, doesn't mean that it isn't a problem.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • wahern 4 days ago

    I don't know how it was approached for vitamin D, but it's all about the model they choose, which in the first instance is just something they pull out of thin air. For many water soluble vitamins and minerals the model is based on a threshold for urine excretion; up the dose until the study group is excreting as much as they take in. Until someone figures out otherwise--i.e. that it's too little, too much, or that other considerations need to be made--that's the basis for the RDA.

    Reply View 0 replies
  • hammock 3 days ago

    > What I don't understand is how it's possible for 90% of people to have a vitamin D deficiency

    If everyone is being told to get 10x less vitamin d than they really need, seems easy

    Reply View 3 replies
    • ac29 3 days ago

      Most people arent supplementing Vit D, so the recommendations are not relevant to deficiency status.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • hammock 3 days ago

        Set aside pills.

        Vit d deficiency is a known problem because of our indoor lives and sunscreen culture, so FDA requires by law supplementation of foods. Like milk. But because the RDA is wrong, these foods get supplemented with insufficient amounts.

        Case in point, seasonally adjusted the typical American gets in a day average ~1800iu from the sun and ~200iu from supplemented dietary intake (2000iu total, deficient). If we were to acknowledge the RDA is wrong then milk etc could have 30x more supplementation bringing the average up and filling the gap better

        Reply View 0 replies
    • stavros 3 days ago

      What does "low vit D" mean when there aren't any negative effects of it?

      Reply View 0 replies
  • voisin 4 days ago

    Modern life is spent indoors whereas historically during our evolution it was outdoors

    Reply View 0 replies